Posts
There will be some lost soul out there in la la land who thinks that this is a nice lady.
Just the photograph scares me silly.
Harriet Harman had a rather ‘nice’ upbringing which I would detail for you but not as well as Gerald Warner of the Telegraph who describes her thus: -
It is easy to understand Harriet Harridan’s chippy resentment of the privileged classes. Born the daughter of a horny-handed physician in London’s Harley Street ghetto, forced to scavenge for an education at St Paul’s Girls’ School (described as a “public school”, with the lowly status of a charity institution) and niece of struggling writer Lady Longford, this gritty proletarian background has instilled in her a natural loathing for the upper classes. It has also fostered the keen spirit of egalitarianism that prompted her to send her son to the London Oratory School, where he could mix with other working-class boys like Euan Blair.
To hate your own kind is surely a crime against mother nature.
Officially the Labour party may have put their class war days behind them but then again officially there is a difference between the Labour government and the Conservative opposition which would replace it and I am damned if I can find it. Unofficially the possibility of poking a sharp stick with ‘taxation’ written along its length at those who have managed to make a little money for themselves is just far to tempting for those of the Socialist persuasion.
Proposals which would effectively force public bodies to discriminate against Middle Britain will be a top government priority, Harriet Harman will say later today.
Labour's deputy leader will vow to press ahead with plans to make every authority legally bound to close the gap between rich and poor.
Privately-educated Miss Harman - the niece of a baroness - will say schools, hospitals, town halls, and the police would have a 'socio-economic duty' to boost services in deprived areas.
She will renew her pledge at an event on how to implement the proposals, which have been nicknamed 'socialism in one clause'.
Under the Equality Bill, which brings together nine major laws, policies that currently consider race, age, gender, disability and sexuality are to be extended to include social background.
Now I am confused. If it does not matter what age, race, gender, disability, sexuality or social background you are from then it is impossible to deny jobs to white men. 
Unless of course they are members of the British National Party because we must be discriminated against by all of the apparatus of the state.
I have never understood exactly what it is that Socialists object to when it comes to people that have either had the breaks, inherited a bit or most likely worked their arse off for years to ensure themselves and any family that they may have a decent living.
Yesterday Miss Harman addressed Trades Union leaders. From a report in the Telegraph: -
Labour is increasingly financially dependent on the unions.
Donations from the trade unions to the Labour Party have soared in the last three years to £30 million, the Daily Telegraph can disclose.
In a keynote speech to the TUC meeting today, Miss Harman will announce plans for a National Equalities Panel to study social inequalities.
She will tell union delegates that social class stands above other personal circumstances in determining how long a person lives and how much they are paid.
Miss Harman's focus on disparities in class and wealth will appeal to traditional left-wing Labour members and trade unionists, and may fuel speculation she will one day run for the party leadership…..
….. Miss Harman is addressing a union movement that is increasingly important to Labour's ability to fund a general election campaign expected in 2010.
Since Mr Brown became Prime Minister donations from private individuals have slumped. In the first six months of the year the unions handed over £5m compared to £1m from only 29 individual donors, three of whom gave £750,000.
An analysis of the Electoral Commission reveals that since the 2005 election the unions have given Labour £29.5 million, up more than 20 per cent on the £24.4m they gave to Tony Blair in the same period.
The unions have also targeted spending for the first time in the key 100 battleground constituencies by 68 per cent to £450,000. In some of the most marginal seats such as Hove, where Labour has a 420 majority, union funding has been huge - £28,000 in the last 18 months. In Derby North, where Labour is defending a 3,757 majority, the local party received £31,710.
In Islington South and Finsbury, where the majority is 484, unions have spent £20,873.
The figures show that unions have stepped up their funding under Gordon Brown believing they now have a better chance of influencing Labour Party policy. Average monthly union donations in key seats were £9,482 under Tony Blair but under Mr Brown it has risen to £15,902 a month.
So there you have it then. Just in case any readers were in any doubt the Labour party is increasingly financially dependent upon the unions who will now be demanding more control over policy.
Winning back the hearts of working class members who may join, or may already have joined, the British National Party is their core aim. I have no doubt in my mind that those marginal seats are receiving unprecedented sums this far away from an election because they are scared of what might happen if a few working class areas pop one of our candidates into parliament at the forthcoming general election.
