Posted by racingsnake
@ 01:41 PM GMT+00:00
02 Nov · Wed 2005
Revolving door for the Cabinet?
David Blunkett has re-resigned from the Cabinet.
Tony Blair must be seriously considering whether the normal 'leaf and hinge' mechanism is still the best kind of door to fit to the Cabinet room. A revolving door might seem more appropriate, given that being dismissed once from his cabinet seems to be no bar to being reappointed, and being reappointed seems to be no guarantee against further transgressions, real or perceived. First Peter Mandelson, now David Blunkett.
And all this from a party which came to power partly on a backlash against "Tory sleaze", with a starry-eyed conviction that under New Labour everything would be different. Ethical foreign policy, standards in public life, ministerial codes of conduct... they all seemed to promise so much, and yet the record is rather dismal when one looks back over it.
Robin Cook and Clare Short were among several MPs who resigned in protest at the government's determination to go to war in Iraq, or at the 'morality gap' between the policy and practice of the subsequent reconstruction.
Peter Mandelson's first resignation also claimed the scalp of Paymaster General Geoffrey Robinson, who loaned him a rather large sum of money without notifying anyone.
Stephen Byers generated months of rather grubby publicity over the Hatfield rail crash, his department's unsavoury instinct for new management ("A good day to bury bad news"), and more recent admissions that his version of events to do with the 'de-privatisation' of the rail network were less than fully accurate.
Beverly Hughes resigned as immigration minister, after inconsistencies were revealed between how much she said she knew about flaws in the visa process and how much she turned out to have been told a year previously.
I am sure there are other examples. It's all rather depressing.
Is it really true, then, that "anyone capable of getting elected to public office should on no account be allowed to do the job"?
Anti-terror Bill in parliament today
The arguments are not getting any more convincing. Take a look at these statements by Home Secretary Charles Clarke, as the Anti-terror bill goes back to parliament for detailed review and amendment.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said: "We cannot properly fight terrorism with one legal hand tied behind our back, or give terrorists the unfettered right to defend themselves as they promote and prepare violent attacks on our society."
He accused the Lib Dems of "knee jerk" opposition and of "weakening the common front of democratic politics against terrorism" by saying they will [vote] against the bill."
1: Indeed we can properly fight terrorism with our hands legally constrained. That is what ought to distinguish a democracy from totalitarianism: the concept that the state can achieve its desired ends while still preserving the fundamental freedoms of its citizens.
2: There is nothing to support the suggestion that terrorists currently have "the unfettered right to defend themselves as they promote and prepare violent attacks on our society", and the Anti-terror bill in any case has nothing to do with whether a suspected terrorist can or cannot defend him- or her-self. That is a nonsensical statement of pure spin.
3: His next tack is to accuse the Liberal Democrats (the only major party to vote against the bill in its first reading; that is, to vote against the whole bill in principle, rather than approve it in principle and then haggle over the details) of undermining democracy itself. Oh, for goodness' sake. What are we to have: the kind of democracy where you can do anything but express opposition to the government's proposals?
4: His accusation of 'knee jerk' opposition also rings false, given that he faces the accusation that the government is using current public perceptions of the terror threat to push this legislation through. What he cannot explain is how the current risk differs from past terrorist threats, to an extent which justifies such a fundamental change in the balance between the rights of the citizen and the powers of the state.
These anti-terror proposals radically undermine civil liberties in the UK: they allow detention without charge for a period unmatched by any other democracy, create offences based on what a person thinks rather than does, and make some statements illegal depending on who you make them to.
All in all, the Home Secretary's defence of these proposals reminds me of the notes which a cleaner found in the pulpit after a particularly stormy sermon. Next to one passage, the vicar had written a reminder to himself: "Argument weak - shout louder".
Posted by racingsnake
@ 09:54 AM GMT+00:00
- Blogroll
- Alan Mather
- Alec Muffett
- Bill Vass
- Bill Walker
- Burningbird
- CPO - Michelle Dennedy
- Conor Cahill... has an opinion or two
- Consult Hyperion
- Don't Panic - Trust blog
- Eric Mahe
- Eve Maler
- Geoff Arnold
- Gerry Beuchelt
- Greg Matters
- Hubert Le Van Gong
- Ideal Government
- John Sandell's Photography
- Kim Cameron
- Lauren Wood
- Ludovic Poitou
- Mark Dixon
- Masood Mortazavi
- Monkchips - James Governor
- New Drew...
- Oz Yigit's brainstorms
-
POSIWID
- Paul Walker's Getting His Coat...
- Peter Davis
- PlanetIdentity
- Stefan Brands
- Superpat
- Tatsuo-san
- Tim Bray
- Toby Stevens
- Tom Gordon
- Vikram Kumar (NZ)
- Wayne Horkan's eclectic
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}