Asked if she thought tax levels were too high, a grievance of voters across the country, Harman declared – with typical contempt for hardworking families struggling to make ends meets – that the Government had to raise more money for schools and the NHS.

And then when it was put to her that the Prime Minister might actually be the "problem", she described her boss as a "brilliant" leader.

In doing so, Harman revealed the sham nature of Labour's promise to learn from its mistakes. The Government is incapable of doing so.

But her procrastination also raised a more fundamental question; namely what is the point of Harriet Harman?

This is the woman who would not be sitting in the Cabinet if she had not won Labour's deputy leadership contest last autumn, beating the highly capable Hull MP Alan Johnson by a whisker.

Yet, unlike her predecessor John Prescott, who was made Deputy Prime Minister by Tony Blair, Brown did not even have sufficient confidence to give such a lofty role to his deputy.

Instead, Harman was made Leader of the Commons – a distinguished title, funded by the taxpayer rather than the cash-strapped Labour Party, that, ostensibly, keeps her out of trouble. She is primarily responsible for ensuring the smooth running of Parliament
and standing in for the Prime Minister on occasion.

However, it now emerges that she cannot even fulfil this role properly after Beverley and Holderness MP Graham Stuart made a quite reasonable request for a debate on a flooding strategy which would potentially see 2,000 homes, and 15,000 hectares of farmland in his constituency, abandoned as a matter of Government policy.

Harman agreed. But when pressed further on the timing of the debate, the Commons leader wrote back gruffly and said the matter would be kept "under review".

So much for listening and learning. Such obfuscation is the primary reason voters so despise Labour politicians.

As I said in this column last autumn, I wouldn't trust Harman to organise a tea party on Scarborough beach. Nothing has prompted me to reappraise this well-held opinion.



EXPECT Gordon Brown to hang Boris Johnson out to dry by making life as difficult as possible for the newly-elected London mayor.

Why? One of the first questions posed to Johnson, after his victory, was why, in his opinion, did Labour do so badly in the local elections?

Johnson suggested that Labour would have fared better with
Leeds-educated David Miliband as leader. Ouch.



AS the Prime Minister relaunches his government, I was puzzled when he took the credit, in one interview, for the lowering of interest rates.

I thought this was a decision for the Bank of England after it was granted independence on day one of the Brown Chancellorship 11 years ago.

Or is the Bank's Monetary Policy Committee only independent when it suits him?

HAS Gordon Brown received some bad news that even surpasses
last week's catastrophic local election results?

I only ask this question because the Prime Minister was insistent last Sunday, in a series of TV interviews, that he was a private man (unlike his predecessor) – and that he respected his family's right to privacy.

Yet, five days later, Brown was seated on the GMTV sofa – where else? – talking about the most intimate matters, including his "struggle" to have children with wife Sarah and how his younger son Fraser still wants to become a football or rugby player despite being diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

What other explanation is there for the PM breaking the parameters that he had set a week ago? This interview smacked of desperation.



THE key difference between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair is their media slickness. When Blair was in his pomp, every public appearance was choreographed to inspire confidence.

Last Saturday, Jacqui Smith was interviewed live on television as a dustbin cart moved slowly in the direction of the Home Secretary, presumably to sweep her up.

It speaks volumes when Labour's high command cannot even undertake a straight-forward TV interview without making idiots of themselves.



TALKING of the Home Secretary, the Government's failure to live up to its "tough on crime" mantra is fast becoming one of the crimes of
the decade.

In a bid to meet targets, police in one area are now being encouraged to downgrade offences like burglary to criminal damage.

And plans to curb binge drinking with "alcohol disorder zones" – the centrepiece of Tony Blair's 2005 election manifesto – have still to be implemented amid growing concerns that the scheme is unworkable, and will simply move anti-social behaviour to other communities.

Shouldn't a Government Minister go on trial and respond to charges of failure and dereliction of duty?



IF Ministers are content for benefit claimants to be subject to lie detector tests, I take it that they will be prepared to undergo such scrutiny themselves.

Starting with the embarrassment of a Minister who says he does not know how many foreign criminals are working at UK airports unchecked.



IT'S hardly surprising that Keith Toon and Pete Allen, among others, lost their seats on Hull City Council when one studies their election literature.

The former could not even spell his own name correctly; residents
could contact "Kieth" if they felt suitably inclined.

Meanwhile, in a letter to his now ex-constituents, Allen listed his qualities – including "most impotent of all" – responding to telephone calls placed by voters.

Neither will be receiving any calls from voters in the foreseeable future. And, on this evidence, the good folk of Hull made some wise choices – for once.