I bumped into a Labour MP the other day and he asked me a good question, why is Harriet Harman the only one getting it in the neck for her leadership positioning? Several other members of the Cabinet clearly have an eye on a post-election leadership contest, notably Ed Balls, but they aren’t receiving anywhere near as much criticism. If, as Martin puts it, Harriet is at it so are several others.
Some say that it is the absurdity of the idea of Harman leading the party that means she attracts so much flak. I agree that Harman would not be seen as a credible PM by the electorate, but I suspect that Ed Balls—who is a far worse media performer than Harman—might drive the Labour vote down even lower than Harman would. So, why is he not attracting the same level of vitriol for his leadership manoeuvring?
Britain’s best politics newsletters
You get two free articles each week when you sign up to The Spectator’s emails.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in