This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harriet Harman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
toc - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, there has been an "edit war" over the issue of Harriet Harman's political roles as well as the time she took over from John Prescott. Let me make a few things very clear, she is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot use a title unless you have been given it by the Leader of your party. Ed Miliband has made her Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, otherwise it would not be on her website. She has no right to give herself a title unless it's been allowed. Therefore, I think it is fair to conclude that from that point, she is Shadow Deputy PM. Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not a clear title, though she is deputy leader of the Opposition, it is not a formal title it is just because she is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. For example, William Hague was made Senior Member of the Shadow Cabinet, but he never recieved the title Deputy Leader of the Opposition, even though he was the de facto Deputy. On the point, about Khan. He shadows Clegg regarding the constituion and that is because Labour thinks the MoJ should deal with the constitution whereas the government has made Nick Clegg the de facto Minister for Constitutional Reform, instead of leaving it to Ken Clarke.-- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 12:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I am sure that Rrius is lying.Secondly, her website, the Guardian, the BBC, the LSE, several Labour Party websites, Labour MPs, Ed Milband in many different sources have confirmed her as Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. They are not allowed to give her a title which is not hers, for example that is like William Hague giving himself the official title Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party! It's nonsentical. She could not use a title which is not hers, the fact her party have used it shows she is the SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. I have consensus, I have support and I also have a TON of information which is accessible to all! Now, can you please allow me to continue editing instead of making yourself look even more foolish than you already do! You cannot block me since you are in in fact the one guilty of misconduct such as blanking my page, deleting information that backs up my point, being aggressive and attempting to block me without the power - in order words vandalism. Now, you are vandalizing Harriet Harman's page which has been already established as SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER! Get a grip. Sadiq Khan shadows constitutional affairs, he is NOT the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, his role is because traditionally under the Labour government the Lord Chancellor has ALWAYS been responsible for matters involving the constitution. Nick Clegg wants that power, so he took charge, normally it is the Ministry of Justice's power! If you weren't such a vandal, and knew something about politics maybe I wouldn't have to teach you a few home truths about Westminster politics. -- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I will post a WP:RFC if you want to discuss and attract new attention..? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Post a WP:RFC but I will not accept bias. Other editors agree with the stance taken on Harriet Harman and have also been reverting the ludicrous changes made by others. I have got a load of sources, and I will show them but I hope we could come to an unbiased solution to the issue, rather than resorting to threats. Surely, he should be blocked for vandalism and personal abuse.-- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources to describe Harmen as the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister? See - Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) for detail - These sources have been presented to support the claim.
It seems to me that the moniker of "Shadow Deputy PM" in RS is used informally to describe her de facto role in the Oppo to a coalition gvt, but it is also clear that the nature of a coalition govt has created complexities the media has not updated their language for. We seek facts from sources, not transcribe them (ie not transcription monkeys), so we have to look at this background.-- Cerejota ( talk) 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Thank you for pointing this out, I have taken the matter up with the House of Lords Information Office and hope that this will be resolved shortly.
- 2. Because Harriet Harman is listed directly beneath Ed Milliband, whose full title as Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition is given, we would hope that the fact that she is Deputy Leader of Her Majesty’ Official Opposition would be clear without having to repeat the full title. To my knowledge this is the first time it has been queried but I will look into whether it is a common misunderstanding and of course amend the page if necessary.
- I hope this is helpful.
- Kind regards
- Lynne Preece
I can see no argument that HH is not deputy PM, am I missing something? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Before anyone on either side thumps the table again they need to produce some evidence that there is an official rule about titles of British politicians. Otherwise, this is just a matter of opinion and the balancing of sources against one another and there should be a compromise reflecting that fact. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying she appointed herself to anything, and I am not being irrational. So let's address your points in no particular order:
How about putting 'also self-styled SDPM', as in User_talk:Martin_Hogbin/sandbox Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There are two perfectly good opinions here, both based on reliable sources, but no one has produced a source to say that one of the opinions is the definitive one. You therefore both have to compromise. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I just confirm, 195.171.221.67 would be happy with SDPM in the info box with an explanatory note, and Rrius would be happy with self-styled SDPM in the info box. Is that right? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Harman was never named Deputy Prime Minister, which holds no constitutional significance, no portfolio and no salary. Brown made her Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equalities. He also named Peter Mandelson, Lord President of the Council and First Secretary of State. Usually the First Secretary of State is considered the deputy to the Prime Minister when DPM is not officially used and Mandelson retained seniority after Brown. Harman as Deputy Leader of the Party, did not retain the deputyship of the Government; Mandelson took that. She stood in at PMQs as the public face of the Party but she was never DPM, she never had any right to call herself that or "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister," and that should be the end of it. She did endorse matters on the PM's behalf but as Lord Privy Seal, which is effectively a minister without portfolio. Brown probably did not want her undermining his authority, so he assigned her a sinecure so she felt she had some substantial role. 98.10.179.163 ( talk) 14:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Miliband today reshuffled the Shadow Cabinet, and this time he gave her the title "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". As a result, I suggest that the infobox be edited to say she was "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" and "Shadow Secretary of State for International Development" from 8 October 2010 to 7 October 2011. Three new posts should be placed above those: "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"; "Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport"; and "Labour Party Chair"—all from 7 October 2011 to present. "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party" should also be moved above DLO and Shadow DfID Secretary as it to continues to the present. -
Rrius (
talk)
11:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me the reshuffle gives us an opportunity. The old Shadow Cabinet lists names her Deputy Leader of the Opposition; the new names her Shadow Deputy PM. Several sources for the duration of the original Shadow Cabinet use both terms. Also, the terms are roughly equivalent. So how about "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister / Deputy Leader of the Opposition" with Michael Ancram and Jack Straw used as predecessors and a note after the title explaining that the Miliband's 2010 Shadow Cabinet list named her Deputy Leader of the Opposition and numerous sources used that title, but that Harman herself used Shadow Deputy Leader of the Opposition and almost as many sources used that one. The note should further explain that at the 2011 reshuffle, Miliband unequivocally named her Shadow Deputy Prime Minister.
I think this suggestion does as much as possible to reflect both sides. It doesn't attempt to put a timeframe on either title, thereby admitting of the possibility that both titles were valid during first year. The only objection I can see IP mustering is a further insistence that there is no such thing as a Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which flies in the face of the sources and of the obvious historical precedents going back at least as far as Willie Whitelaw in the Thatcher Shadow Cabinet. - Rrius ( talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should put in. I would support Shadow Deputy Prime Minister int he infobox and then Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the article because the infobox will be too long. Anyway, Rrius can make facts up about Google searches the fact is that many of the results actually referred to Deputy Leader of the Oppposition whereas my proposals directly linked Harman to Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Also, since Miliband or Harman have never used "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" we must not put it in the infobox - putting it the article is my generous compromise. That is as far as I will be stretched.-- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't wrong. Until the reshuffle, it only said DLOO. She has both titles, so both should be infobox. [6] - Rrius ( talk) 04:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Phd8511 ( talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"M2 PressWIRE
September 5, 2011 Monday
The famine in the Horn of Africa is causing suffering for millions of people and is set to get worse - Harman
LENGTH: 553 words
September 5, 2011
Today the UN is expected to declare the famine in the Horn of Africa has spread to another region of Somalia. Returning from her visit to Dadaab refugee camp and severely drought-stricken areas of the Horn of Africa with Islamic Relief, Harriet Harman Enhanced Coverage LinkingHarriet Harman -Search using:News, Most Recent 60 DaysBiographies Plus NewsMP, Labour's Shadow International Development Secretary and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister:"
So going by your logic, why is M2 Presswire calling her SDPM? Are all newsites wrong??
Phd8511 ( talk) 10:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Why have large sections of this page been deleted, I have no connection with them. It is not normal to delete other editors comments even if you disagree with them. Please explain or restore. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been asked to comment here. I'm largely in agreement with Rob here; BLP issues apply equally to talk pages as to mainspace and we need to be aware of that. Also, archiving of old discussions should be routine and not a big deal. However, the fact that Rob was already involved in the now-archived discussion meant that he should have left it to a third party, to prevent issues such as this. If the discussion was truly stale at this point, then it should be left archived, but if not, it probably *could* be resurrected. Given the BLP concerns, I'd rather it was not - Alison ❤ 02:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Aside from Shakehandsman's digression into the content dispute itself, this has become a pointless discussion. If it was so bloody horrible to archive the discussion, then resurrect it and quit bitching about it, people. Implying that Rob intentionally left out a comment by another editor when he tried to fix the mess that editor made fails to assume good faith. Anyway, you aren't going to convince Rob that he shouldn't have archived it, and frankly I'm not sure he was wrong. It is clear from the discussion that over the course of weeks, Twobells failed to convince a single editor that his preferred version should stand. After a week without a contribution being added, Rob archived it. Almost two weeks later, Twobells came back and resurrected the thread to say that the other editors supported him 4–2, which is laughable in itself, but also in giving rise to his conclusion that he had consensus. He then added a comment saying that there was sufficient media treatment for inclusion, which does not seem to have been the objection. Rob then re-archived the discussion. Again, you can question all you want whether Rob was right to do it, but what is the point of doing it here? This talk page is meant discuss improvements to the article, not to gripe about whether a person should or should not have re-archived something. After the first editor agreed with Twobells, it became clear the discussion could be resurrected. If someone wants to take issue with Rob, they can always to go AN/I. Otherwise, I hope we can just drop this. Again, if someone feels the need to re-add a discussion of whether the article should include Twobells's preferred text, which everyone but he seems to think gives undue weight, go ahead, but it probably shouldn't be done without an intention to add more than the pointless comments Twobells tried to add before. - Rrius ( talk) 20:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob, Alison has confirmed that we do not need to delete the material that you removed. It clearly is a delicate subject, with which I do not intend to become involved, but I do not think it is right to try to stifle discussion by removing text from this talk page. I therefore ask you to show good faith and support for open and honest discussion by restoring the material you removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The notion that we need a new thread is a good one. Twobells should start a new thread stating exactly what text he wants included and what reliable sources verify his text. Rob should then state his precise objections. The rest of us can then respond, and hopefully get us to a resolution. The current discussion has devolved into a "yes you did, no I didn't" spat that serves no useful purpose. - Rrius ( talk) 21:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham. Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles David Joy Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Nicolas Walters and Trevor Locke were on the Executive. [1] My interest is to work this into the main body of the article using neutral language, I am not on some moral crusade but fervently believe that it belongs in the article. Twobells ( talk) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC).
References
Shouldn't there be a section on the Wikileaks cables that revealed Harman's involvement in the Rendition of two UK citizens to Egypt. Thee should also be something on her involvement with the extradition process for Julian Assange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.255.64 ( talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence (and consequently the entire following paragraph) is ambiguous: "As part of a proposed Equality Bill, Harman announced a consultation on changing the existing discrimination laws, which included options for Reverse discrimination in employment." On first reading, it seemed to me that "which" refers to "the existing discrimination laws", implying that Ms Harman's aim was to remove options for reverse discrimination. However, another possibility (perhaps more in line with the remainder of the paragraph) is that "which" refers to the consultation announced by Ms Harman, implying that she wanted to introduce options for reverse discrimination. After carefully reading this entire paragraph several times, I am not sure which is the correct interpretation. Is it just me, or does this need to be rephrased to remove this ambiguity?
More news on the Paedophile Information Exchange front:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2221078/Jimmy-Savile-liberal-left-encouraged-sexualisation-children.html Twobells ( talk) 12:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It contains a speech made to her husband by a political rival, surely this has a better home on his article than Harman's? The Almightey Drill ( talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the second time I've made the change and I suspect it'll come up again, so perhaps best to resolve this on the talk page so it is easy to refer to. The issue is the infobox has been adjusted a couple of times to denote that Harman is an 'acting' Leader of the Opposition. To clear this up, there is no provision for an acting Leader of the Opposition. You're either the Leader, full stop, or you're not. She is, however, acting leader of the Labour Party, and that's because there is a provision for an acting leader. So, as far as I believe, she's the Leader of the Opposition (not an acting one) and the acting leader of the party. Is this something we're all happy with or does anyone want to show where my logic has gone wrong? Redverton ( talk) 01:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Would someone change this? It's been over a year and this issue has not been resolved. Redverton is entirely correct. There is no provision for an "acting" Opposition leader. The leader of the 2nd largest party in the Commons is the Leader of the Opposition. Actually there's technically no provision in the Labour constitution either for an "Acting" Leader; the leader between elections is Leader on an interim basis but is fully considered the Leader of the Party as it's explained in her article. There is always a Government Leader and always an Opposition Leader. Whether it's only for the interim is not relevant. 66.67.32.161 ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Harriet Harman. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Was not Harriet Harman the first solicitor to be appointed as Solicitor-General for England and Wales? As the Solicitor-General page says, a barrister is usually appointed. If she was, then this should be noted. Ntmr ( talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Harriet Harman's infobox was absurdly long, with 16 sets of information being included. Her brief opposition leaderships alone took up four sets. I have enacted measures to bring the infobox down to a more manageable size, grouping most of her titles into three collapsed sections to separate her shadow roles before and after government from the ministerial positions during. I have also merged "Leader of the Labour Party" and "Leader of the Opposition" into a single item as they had near-identical information (the lone difference being her 2010 predecessor). Her mandate as a member of the House of Commons, being of a different nature to ministerial jobs, has remained standalone. Thankfully she has always represented the same constituency.
Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 22:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
In the lead it says she worked at Brent Law Centre from 78-82 In the body it says she work at Brent Law Centre and then moves to National Cuncil for Civil Liberties from 78-82. I suspect the latter is correct and the former due to poor editing = but do not have time to check.
80.3.80.20 ( talk) 17:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Harriet Harman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.oldsuffragette.mcpherson.org.uk/General%20Election%202010.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If she stays on long enough to have seniority over all other MPs of both sexes, as opposed to just those of her own, then she will have the duties and privileges which Fathers of the House have long enjoyed, and it will be appropriate to put the title on her infobox. Until then it should be kept off. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Jack Dromey#Selective schools the 1996 row about Harman sending her son to a grammar school has come up which isn't covered in this article despite being a huge political controversy at the time. One of the problems is that it just predates online news media and so there aren't many easily accessible sources about it online. Is anyone able to dig out much that can be used to expand coverage? Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The above does not merit a separate heading and should be consolidated into one summary paragraph only 22:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Billsmith60 ( talk) 22:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harriet Harman article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
toc - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, there has been an "edit war" over the issue of Harriet Harman's political roles as well as the time she took over from John Prescott. Let me make a few things very clear, she is the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot use a title unless you have been given it by the Leader of your party. Ed Miliband has made her Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, otherwise it would not be on her website. She has no right to give herself a title unless it's been allowed. Therefore, I think it is fair to conclude that from that point, she is Shadow Deputy PM. Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not a clear title, though she is deputy leader of the Opposition, it is not a formal title it is just because she is the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. For example, William Hague was made Senior Member of the Shadow Cabinet, but he never recieved the title Deputy Leader of the Opposition, even though he was the de facto Deputy. On the point, about Khan. He shadows Clegg regarding the constituion and that is because Labour thinks the MoJ should deal with the constitution whereas the government has made Nick Clegg the de facto Minister for Constitutional Reform, instead of leaving it to Ken Clarke.-- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 12:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I am sure that Rrius is lying.Secondly, her website, the Guardian, the BBC, the LSE, several Labour Party websites, Labour MPs, Ed Milband in many different sources have confirmed her as Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. They are not allowed to give her a title which is not hers, for example that is like William Hague giving himself the official title Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party! It's nonsentical. She could not use a title which is not hers, the fact her party have used it shows she is the SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. I have consensus, I have support and I also have a TON of information which is accessible to all! Now, can you please allow me to continue editing instead of making yourself look even more foolish than you already do! You cannot block me since you are in in fact the one guilty of misconduct such as blanking my page, deleting information that backs up my point, being aggressive and attempting to block me without the power - in order words vandalism. Now, you are vandalizing Harriet Harman's page which has been already established as SHADOW DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER! Get a grip. Sadiq Khan shadows constitutional affairs, he is NOT the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister, his role is because traditionally under the Labour government the Lord Chancellor has ALWAYS been responsible for matters involving the constitution. Nick Clegg wants that power, so he took charge, normally it is the Ministry of Justice's power! If you weren't such a vandal, and knew something about politics maybe I wouldn't have to teach you a few home truths about Westminster politics. -- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I will post a WP:RFC if you want to discuss and attract new attention..? Off2riorob ( talk) 20:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Post a WP:RFC but I will not accept bias. Other editors agree with the stance taken on Harriet Harman and have also been reverting the ludicrous changes made by others. I have got a load of sources, and I will show them but I hope we could come to an unbiased solution to the issue, rather than resorting to threats. Surely, he should be blocked for vandalism and personal abuse.-- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 12:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources to describe Harmen as the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister? See - Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (UK) for detail - These sources have been presented to support the claim.
It seems to me that the moniker of "Shadow Deputy PM" in RS is used informally to describe her de facto role in the Oppo to a coalition gvt, but it is also clear that the nature of a coalition govt has created complexities the media has not updated their language for. We seek facts from sources, not transcribe them (ie not transcription monkeys), so we have to look at this background.-- Cerejota ( talk) 16:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- 1. Thank you for pointing this out, I have taken the matter up with the House of Lords Information Office and hope that this will be resolved shortly.
- 2. Because Harriet Harman is listed directly beneath Ed Milliband, whose full title as Leader of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition is given, we would hope that the fact that she is Deputy Leader of Her Majesty’ Official Opposition would be clear without having to repeat the full title. To my knowledge this is the first time it has been queried but I will look into whether it is a common misunderstanding and of course amend the page if necessary.
- I hope this is helpful.
- Kind regards
- Lynne Preece
I can see no argument that HH is not deputy PM, am I missing something? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Before anyone on either side thumps the table again they need to produce some evidence that there is an official rule about titles of British politicians. Otherwise, this is just a matter of opinion and the balancing of sources against one another and there should be a compromise reflecting that fact. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not saying she appointed herself to anything, and I am not being irrational. So let's address your points in no particular order:
How about putting 'also self-styled SDPM', as in User_talk:Martin_Hogbin/sandbox Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There are two perfectly good opinions here, both based on reliable sources, but no one has produced a source to say that one of the opinions is the definitive one. You therefore both have to compromise. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Can I just confirm, 195.171.221.67 would be happy with SDPM in the info box with an explanatory note, and Rrius would be happy with self-styled SDPM in the info box. Is that right? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 16:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Harman was never named Deputy Prime Minister, which holds no constitutional significance, no portfolio and no salary. Brown made her Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for Women and Equalities. He also named Peter Mandelson, Lord President of the Council and First Secretary of State. Usually the First Secretary of State is considered the deputy to the Prime Minister when DPM is not officially used and Mandelson retained seniority after Brown. Harman as Deputy Leader of the Party, did not retain the deputyship of the Government; Mandelson took that. She stood in at PMQs as the public face of the Party but she was never DPM, she never had any right to call herself that or "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister," and that should be the end of it. She did endorse matters on the PM's behalf but as Lord Privy Seal, which is effectively a minister without portfolio. Brown probably did not want her undermining his authority, so he assigned her a sinecure so she felt she had some substantial role. 98.10.179.163 ( talk) 14:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Miliband today reshuffled the Shadow Cabinet, and this time he gave her the title "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister". As a result, I suggest that the infobox be edited to say she was "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" and "Shadow Secretary of State for International Development" from 8 October 2010 to 7 October 2011. Three new posts should be placed above those: "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister"; "Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport"; and "Labour Party Chair"—all from 7 October 2011 to present. "Deputy Leader of the Labour Party" should also be moved above DLO and Shadow DfID Secretary as it to continues to the present. -
Rrius (
talk)
11:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me the reshuffle gives us an opportunity. The old Shadow Cabinet lists names her Deputy Leader of the Opposition; the new names her Shadow Deputy PM. Several sources for the duration of the original Shadow Cabinet use both terms. Also, the terms are roughly equivalent. So how about "Shadow Deputy Prime Minister / Deputy Leader of the Opposition" with Michael Ancram and Jack Straw used as predecessors and a note after the title explaining that the Miliband's 2010 Shadow Cabinet list named her Deputy Leader of the Opposition and numerous sources used that title, but that Harman herself used Shadow Deputy Leader of the Opposition and almost as many sources used that one. The note should further explain that at the 2011 reshuffle, Miliband unequivocally named her Shadow Deputy Prime Minister.
I think this suggestion does as much as possible to reflect both sides. It doesn't attempt to put a timeframe on either title, thereby admitting of the possibility that both titles were valid during first year. The only objection I can see IP mustering is a further insistence that there is no such thing as a Deputy Leader of the Opposition, which flies in the face of the sources and of the obvious historical precedents going back at least as far as Willie Whitelaw in the Thatcher Shadow Cabinet. - Rrius ( talk) 22:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we should put in. I would support Shadow Deputy Prime Minister int he infobox and then Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the article because the infobox will be too long. Anyway, Rrius can make facts up about Google searches the fact is that many of the results actually referred to Deputy Leader of the Oppposition whereas my proposals directly linked Harman to Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. Also, since Miliband or Harman have never used "Deputy Leader of the Opposition" we must not put it in the infobox - putting it the article is my generous compromise. That is as far as I will be stretched.-- 195.171.221.67 ( talk) 16:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I wasn't wrong. Until the reshuffle, it only said DLOO. She has both titles, so both should be infobox. [6] - Rrius ( talk) 04:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Phd8511 ( talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
"M2 PressWIRE
September 5, 2011 Monday
The famine in the Horn of Africa is causing suffering for millions of people and is set to get worse - Harman
LENGTH: 553 words
September 5, 2011
Today the UN is expected to declare the famine in the Horn of Africa has spread to another region of Somalia. Returning from her visit to Dadaab refugee camp and severely drought-stricken areas of the Horn of Africa with Islamic Relief, Harriet Harman Enhanced Coverage LinkingHarriet Harman -Search using:News, Most Recent 60 DaysBiographies Plus NewsMP, Labour's Shadow International Development Secretary and Shadow Deputy Prime Minister:"
So going by your logic, why is M2 Presswire calling her SDPM? Are all newsites wrong??
Phd8511 ( talk) 10:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Why have large sections of this page been deleted, I have no connection with them. It is not normal to delete other editors comments even if you disagree with them. Please explain or restore. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been asked to comment here. I'm largely in agreement with Rob here; BLP issues apply equally to talk pages as to mainspace and we need to be aware of that. Also, archiving of old discussions should be routine and not a big deal. However, the fact that Rob was already involved in the now-archived discussion meant that he should have left it to a third party, to prevent issues such as this. If the discussion was truly stale at this point, then it should be left archived, but if not, it probably *could* be resurrected. Given the BLP concerns, I'd rather it was not - Alison ❤ 02:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Aside from Shakehandsman's digression into the content dispute itself, this has become a pointless discussion. If it was so bloody horrible to archive the discussion, then resurrect it and quit bitching about it, people. Implying that Rob intentionally left out a comment by another editor when he tried to fix the mess that editor made fails to assume good faith. Anyway, you aren't going to convince Rob that he shouldn't have archived it, and frankly I'm not sure he was wrong. It is clear from the discussion that over the course of weeks, Twobells failed to convince a single editor that his preferred version should stand. After a week without a contribution being added, Rob archived it. Almost two weeks later, Twobells came back and resurrected the thread to say that the other editors supported him 4–2, which is laughable in itself, but also in giving rise to his conclusion that he had consensus. He then added a comment saying that there was sufficient media treatment for inclusion, which does not seem to have been the objection. Rob then re-archived the discussion. Again, you can question all you want whether Rob was right to do it, but what is the point of doing it here? This talk page is meant discuss improvements to the article, not to gripe about whether a person should or should not have re-archived something. After the first editor agreed with Twobells, it became clear the discussion could be resurrected. If someone wants to take issue with Rob, they can always to go AN/I. Otherwise, I hope we can just drop this. Again, if someone feels the need to re-add a discussion of whether the article should include Twobells's preferred text, which everyone but he seems to think gives undue weight, go ahead, but it probably shouldn't be done without an intention to add more than the pointless comments Twobells tried to add before. - Rrius ( talk) 20:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Off2riorob, Alison has confirmed that we do not need to delete the material that you removed. It clearly is a delicate subject, with which I do not intend to become involved, but I do not think it is right to try to stifle discussion by removing text from this talk page. I therefore ask you to show good faith and support for open and honest discussion by restoring the material you removed. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The notion that we need a new thread is a good one. Twobells should start a new thread stating exactly what text he wants included and what reliable sources verify his text. Rob should then state his precise objections. The rest of us can then respond, and hopefully get us to a resolution. The current discussion has devolved into a "yes you did, no I didn't" spat that serves no useful purpose. - Rrius ( talk) 21:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham. Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles David Joy Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Nicolas Walters and Trevor Locke were on the Executive. [1] My interest is to work this into the main body of the article using neutral language, I am not on some moral crusade but fervently believe that it belongs in the article. Twobells ( talk) 15:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC).
References
Shouldn't there be a section on the Wikileaks cables that revealed Harman's involvement in the Rendition of two UK citizens to Egypt. Thee should also be something on her involvement with the extradition process for Julian Assange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.255.64 ( talk) 15:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence (and consequently the entire following paragraph) is ambiguous: "As part of a proposed Equality Bill, Harman announced a consultation on changing the existing discrimination laws, which included options for Reverse discrimination in employment." On first reading, it seemed to me that "which" refers to "the existing discrimination laws", implying that Ms Harman's aim was to remove options for reverse discrimination. However, another possibility (perhaps more in line with the remainder of the paragraph) is that "which" refers to the consultation announced by Ms Harman, implying that she wanted to introduce options for reverse discrimination. After carefully reading this entire paragraph several times, I am not sure which is the correct interpretation. Is it just me, or does this need to be rephrased to remove this ambiguity?
More news on the Paedophile Information Exchange front:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2221078/Jimmy-Savile-liberal-left-encouraged-sexualisation-children.html Twobells ( talk) 12:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It contains a speech made to her husband by a political rival, surely this has a better home on his article than Harman's? The Almightey Drill ( talk) 21:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the second time I've made the change and I suspect it'll come up again, so perhaps best to resolve this on the talk page so it is easy to refer to. The issue is the infobox has been adjusted a couple of times to denote that Harman is an 'acting' Leader of the Opposition. To clear this up, there is no provision for an acting Leader of the Opposition. You're either the Leader, full stop, or you're not. She is, however, acting leader of the Labour Party, and that's because there is a provision for an acting leader. So, as far as I believe, she's the Leader of the Opposition (not an acting one) and the acting leader of the party. Is this something we're all happy with or does anyone want to show where my logic has gone wrong? Redverton ( talk) 01:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Would someone change this? It's been over a year and this issue has not been resolved. Redverton is entirely correct. There is no provision for an "acting" Opposition leader. The leader of the 2nd largest party in the Commons is the Leader of the Opposition. Actually there's technically no provision in the Labour constitution either for an "Acting" Leader; the leader between elections is Leader on an interim basis but is fully considered the Leader of the Party as it's explained in her article. There is always a Government Leader and always an Opposition Leader. Whether it's only for the interim is not relevant. 66.67.32.161 ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Harriet Harman. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Was not Harriet Harman the first solicitor to be appointed as Solicitor-General for England and Wales? As the Solicitor-General page says, a barrister is usually appointed. If she was, then this should be noted. Ntmr ( talk) 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Harriet Harman's infobox was absurdly long, with 16 sets of information being included. Her brief opposition leaderships alone took up four sets. I have enacted measures to bring the infobox down to a more manageable size, grouping most of her titles into three collapsed sections to separate her shadow roles before and after government from the ministerial positions during. I have also merged "Leader of the Labour Party" and "Leader of the Opposition" into a single item as they had near-identical information (the lone difference being her 2010 predecessor). Her mandate as a member of the House of Commons, being of a different nature to ministerial jobs, has remained standalone. Thankfully she has always represented the same constituency.
Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 22:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
In the lead it says she worked at Brent Law Centre from 78-82 In the body it says she work at Brent Law Centre and then moves to National Cuncil for Civil Liberties from 78-82. I suspect the latter is correct and the former due to poor editing = but do not have time to check.
80.3.80.20 ( talk) 17:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Harriet Harman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.oldsuffragette.mcpherson.org.uk/General%20Election%202010.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If she stays on long enough to have seniority over all other MPs of both sexes, as opposed to just those of her own, then she will have the duties and privileges which Fathers of the House have long enjoyed, and it will be appropriate to put the title on her infobox. Until then it should be kept off. Robin S. Taylor ( talk) 17:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Over at Talk:Jack Dromey#Selective schools the 1996 row about Harman sending her son to a grammar school has come up which isn't covered in this article despite being a huge political controversy at the time. One of the problems is that it just predates online news media and so there aren't many easily accessible sources about it online. Is anyone able to dig out much that can be used to expand coverage? Timrollpickering ( talk) 15:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
The above does not merit a separate heading and should be consolidated into one summary paragraph only 22:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC) Billsmith60 ( talk) 22:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)