Tom Harris has lost my support

What one gets with Tom Harris is a sense that he is human, funny and conscientious. He is also fiercely loyal to his friends.

And yet, today, as he voted to support the Government of the Gurkha issue, he lost the last shred of support I am prepared to give, even though I would not vote Labour in a million years.

At least he has the guts to make an attempt at justifying his position. Sadly, many did not think it washed. Here is my reply to his post .

Well, Tom, well over thirty comments and not one supports your position. You have failed to sense the mood of the nation. This is no decision where you needed to wring your hands and dig deep into your soul. The course of action was staring you in the face. Indeed, some of your colleagues saw this and voted accordingly. We are not talking about the usual suspects; Keith Vaz,Stephen Pound and Andrew Smith were among the rebels. Some abstained. On the Daily Politics, emails went 100% in favour of the Gurkhas. This has never happened in the history of the show, bearing in mind the BBC did all they could to play lap dog to Gordon Brown.

I don’t give a stuff about Joanna Lumley. She is an old luvvie. What I give a stuff about is human dignity, and so, apparently does the rest of the country.

It’s not that you misjudged the mood of the nation, which you did, nor that you subsequently put up such a weak and disingenuous defense, which you also did. The most heinous crime is that you admitted that your reason for voting as you did, was not the Gurkhas, not an issue of pride or conscience, but to prop up a corrupt and dying administration whose sole purpose is to cling to power at all costs.

I am sorry to say this, but you deserve to lose your seat at the next election.


Revolts Uk have some great analysis on today's vote:

(hat tip to Iain Dale)

All except Joan Humble and Stephen Pound had already rebelled against Brown, but they now bring to 119 the number of Labour MPs to vote against the whip since Gordon Brown became PM. And it's interesting that both Ian Cawsey and Shona McIssac, who both rebelled recently over ports for the very first time, did so again today. Other non-usual suspects included Nick Raynsford and Andrew Smith (who rebelled over Heathrow, casting their first rebellion against Brown), and Nick Palmer and Gordon Marsden, who have both only defied Brown once before.

Once they do it for the first time, it's easier to do it again -- as today proved.


Aye We Can ! said...

Tom Harris wrtites well and what he does is - for a labour MP - refreshing

But I have known him for over 20 and he is at heart a labour hack - climbed the greezy pole and did a guid few in on his way up the greasy pole to the dizzy heights of transport minsiter at a relatvely young age. Then he was sacked, not sure why, And then he took up blogging, as a self sytled independent labour voice

But prior to this, try find evidence of any indpendent non Balirite though on any medium - online off line, even at labour party branch meetings and you wil be looking a long time

Call me cynical, but i have always seen his blog as a form of post ministeial thearpy. Or, a good and genuine christian his asexual alternative to a mid life affair

But when push com to shove on issue like the gurkas and biggesr issue liek refendum on Europe or Browns resignation he is as loyal as they come. Indeed his loyalty now has a higher creedence value as he "speaks out" on other issues, is a "famnous blogger" - bur rarely critical one, or certainly at critical times, He blames smeargate all on MCBride and DD - but knows they would not do a shit without first clesring it with brown ( he grew up in Scotland with Brown do remember, has no excuses for being naive on this count)

And if he had any real balls, indepenence, he could blog what he belived in two word "Brown go"

PS Not you fight, but he is bittely anti SNP. Here I dont mean he is agaisnt them as is his or anyione perogatve - but read him youd thing scotland was currently been run by a kilted national Front. A kilted national front, 100% for the Ghurkhas!

Faux Cu said...

I think it is called "selective, self serving, convenient, denial"

or in Inner Bearsden, a "Bastard Chancer" If he were chocolate he would eat himself.

He has removed WW's post on his blog, and mine too.

Basking is the warmth of his own ego.

I bet he goes ego surfing; looking up mentions of "Tom Harris" on the web, each and every day. Good ones that is so, he makes sure the ones on his Blog are only mildly critical of him or sufficiently obsequious of his mea culpa.

subrosa said...

The man's an opportunist plain and simple. As AWC says he's 'yes-ed' his way up the labour party ladder. Personally I don't give a whatsit whether he's a born again Christian or an agnostic, what does that matter really, except I would have thought a Christian of all people who see the injustice in the labour party's decision regarding the Gurkhas.

I don't read the man's blog unless there is something of interest which is seldom.