Starmer appoint Harman as his advisor on women and girls

I am mildly amused but massively horrified that the two ministers with responsibility for VAWG have resigned following Harriet Harmon's appointment. Not that either of them had advanced any proposals and, in the case of Jess Phillips, has actually erected barriers to prevent an enquiry.

He's just trying to get through the next day/hour/20 minutes at this stage.

Keeping the public electorate happy when there is no voting due for months or years is a far second right now

Just to note, Arooj Shah is a woman. I’ve read some stuff suggesting she’s quite dodgy but I haven’t investigated it so it may just be smears.

An interesting piece from James Kirkup here. First he points out Starmer's reaction to the elections:

In fact, Starmer’s response to the electoral disaster is a calculated one, with some political logic behind it. The Prime Minister gave his latest make-or-break speech knowing that the most immediate threat to his position comes not from Leave voters in Thurrock but from Labour MPs and members.

Then he says this:

For many of the Labour faithful, it is axiomatic that Nigel Farage is a nasty racist who threatens all that is good and progressive about Britain. For some, this belief leads to the dreadful assumption that anything that appeals to Reform voters – or even concedes that they might have some valid points about Britain today – is equally beyond the pale.

Which seems very well aligned with all the threads on here and elsewhere.

The remainder of the article is a thoughtful analysis of how the parties may respond, react and act in order to sway things their way.

archive.ph/5v3oh

She's already made a ridiculous error: She's tweeted Labour's defeated leader in Oldham, offering him a peerage. She then deleted the tweet, presumably realising it wasn't a direct message.

https://x.com/NJ_Timothy/status/2053757413644197934

Talking of stupid and/or lacking in common sense, who the hell uses their first name as their user name and their surname as their password?

I wouldn't want someone like that in charge of the office kettle.

The evidence would suggest that Starmer is a stupid man — or at the least, one who is so lacking in judgment he renders himself stupid

Always fascinated by how first replies to threads always seem to nail it!

I wonder if she still holds a grudge 😂

In April 2008, Harman's blog was hacked and changed to state that she had joined the Conservative Party. Harman later admitted when questioned by Sky News that the incident was a result of her using "Harriet" and "Harman" as her username and password.[78] The hacker was Conservative Kemi Badenoch,
From wikipedia - i found this funny, (and a bit worrying about HH's supposed intelligence)

It would have been bizarre for anyone else being appointed to that role, but especially so for Mandy who has form for dodgy dealings. How many times was he sacked or forced to resign, only to pop back up six months later and do it all over again?

Make me wonder what the Dark Lord of Spin has on Starmer...

It's so weird then, that Mr. Process went totally off piste in accepting the appointment of Mandelson prior to vetting being completed.
Starmer is so beholden to procedure, to the point of strangling the nation and prioritising stuff like Chagos, yet where he arguably absolutely should have followed the process ie the security clearance of Mandelson, he circumvented things.
What a disaster as a leader.

And yet, when you look back at the calibre of politicians in that era (even Benn!), they are in a different league to the dross we have to put up with today. Which brings us back to Starmer and his inability to do anything that doesn't make the electorate scratch its head with baffled bewilderment.

Couldn't agree more about the politicians from that era, the cohort of politicians on all sides we have now are somewhere in the bottom league of bottom leagues in comparison, it is no wonder the general public feel such contempt for them.

And yet, when you look back at the calibre of politicians in that era (even Benn!), they are in a different league to the dross we have to put up with today. Which brings us back to Starmer and his inability to do anything that doesn't make the electorate scratch its head with baffled bewilderment.

Dominic Sandbrook said of him: "Starmer often gives the impression that a superior committee, a more rational process, a more efficient paperclip will magically summon the answer to the national malaise." And he's right - Starmer gives every impression of thinking this is just an administrative matter. He fundamentally does not get what's wrong, let alone how to fix it.

It was revolting but it was exactly the marketing stuff of the Denton document. Some bastard actually sat and thought it through and wrote it, in corporate burble, and so many of the strategies have been used against women in identity politics.

It is revolting and chilling, so much of the marketing stuff for acceptance of paedophilia has been directly replicated for the acceptance of identity politics.

As well as of course the worse thing that anyone can be is an old/er woman who is a mother and dares to have an opinion, rather than staying quiet and being the unpaid servant of men as husbands, brothers, fathers, sons.

Same old story year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

I don't remember that document but the modus operandi doesn't surprise me at all. These people seem absolutely determined to pursue their proclivities.

You know what else this brings to mind? That 'Family Sex Show' that was being run a few years back.

Yes, that Caribbean sun tan, tone deaf or what?!

It is worth remembering that at the time both PIE and trans rights were trying to become "respectable" by presenting themselves as similar to, and by implication, part of gay rights activism

Yes, the force teaming is a recurring theme, it would seem.

I remember reading about PIE some time ago; the piece I read said that a significant percentage of the protestors were mothers who were derided as being out-of-touch angry old feminists who just weren't 'up to speed' with modern viewpoints, as well as using National Front opposition as an attempt to discredit opposition to PIE as the preserve of the far right.

Same shit, different decade...

I don't disagree that - like Starmer - he inherited a difficult political position, with a terrible economy and the endless breaching of the 'Social Contract' by the unions. But he presided over the Winter of Discontent where the unions really were completely out of control and did very little to improve the economy beyond relying on IMF funding. Galloping inflation had hurt a lot of people and if you didn't have a union negotiation a 20-30% pay rise for you then you were screwed.

Defeating Benn's Alternative Economic Strategy wouldn't have been difficult; Benn was an absolute loon and the Cabinet would never have agreed to a high-tax protectionist scheme that simply wouldn't work.

Callaghan had been like a rabbit frozen in the political headlights since he took over from Wilson. By the time he buggered off to the Caribbean in 1979 and gave an absolutely disastrous press conference on his return - relaxed and tanned while everyone had been through the most horrendous Winter and strike-driven shortages - his tone-deafness and out-of-touchness was there for all to see.

I don't doubt he was a good politician but - like Major (who I actually have quite a lot of time for) - he was just vastly out of step with an electorate which was desperate for actual change, not just soothing words.

It is worth remembering that at the time both PIE and trans rights were trying to become "respectable" by presenting themselves as similar to, and by implication, part of gay rights activism. And as we know trans rights suceeded.

Article from 2014 about PIE.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

And in response to a PP upthread, yes a lot of lefties did for instance take the position that if Mary Whitehouse was for something they they were against it.

I know many feminists from the time thought Mary Whitehouse was right but the Socialist Feminist block (who always assumed they were superior feminists not unlike those who are called the "head girls" today) just used this to say that Radical and Revoluionary Feminist had no political analysis.

Or maybe they (the Soc Fems) had all been queered.

And child rape gangs doesn't quite encompass it fully.
I'm not sure any apparent dilution of the heinousness of these gangs by using the word grooming is the reason urgency to get this enquiry sorted is lessened.