Not much, obviously, but I've not seen it expressed so, well, honestly before. Blair would say things like 'the rules of the game have changed' when he meant to say 'I don't like these rules so I'm going to play by some new ones I just wrote'.
Harman is essentially, perfectly reasonably and dispassionately saying that legal protections on anything don't matter if the government thinks public opinion supports a particular course of action, regardless of the consequences*. Ask the public if Fred The Shred should lose his pension and they'll say yes. Ask the public if they'd be happy with the government arbitrarily taking money off them without reason or law and they'll say 'hell, no' (the public generally don't like speed cameras and those do have a reason and law behind them), but they're essentially the same thing. If Fred loses his pension I want it done legally.
* I've been pondering the word 'consequences' a lot in my recent political musings, actually. The defining political ideologies of our age seem to lack any understanding of consequence, it seems to me, probably because they lack any understanding of history (or think history is something to be shaped to show how their ideology is the natural progression of things rather than something entirely alien). There's something very Year Zero about both New Labour and neoconservatism. Something very, well, Creationist. No surprise to find both stuffed full of Old Testament freaks, then.