[Infowarrior] - OpEd: Good riddance to a bad home secretary

[Richard Forno]

  Comment: Good riddance to a bad home secretary

Tuesday, 02, Jun 2009 05:37

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-constitutional/comment-good-riddance-to-a-bad-home-secretary-$1300568.htm

Jacqui Smith should have resigned over civil liberties, not expenses –  
but we'll take what we can get.

By Ian Dunt

Jacqui Smith has quit. In the end it happened quickly, prompting  
frenzied scenes in Westminster as journalists and politicians  
desperately tried to find out what was going on.

But the signs had been there for some time. First, there were her  
strange living arrangements, where she made a room in her sister's  
house her primary residence and directed her second home allowance to  
the house she had with her husband and children.

Then her husband's viewing habits, which included two pornographic  
movies, made matters worse, when it transpired he accidentally charged  
them to the taxpayer.

And then, once expenses became day-to-day front page news, she made it  
into the scandal once again after it emerged she tried to claim for an  
iPhone for her husband, who works in her constituency office.

But in truth, Smith's expenses claims were never any worse than many  
others' in Westminster, although the porn angle did make them slightly  
funnier.

In any sensible, decent political system, she would have had to have  
quit a long time ago. Not over money, but over ethics. Smith's tenure  
as home secretary marked another sustained attempt by the government  
to undo some of the best aspects of British politics.

Where to start? With drugs. When she reclassified cannabis, the home  
secretary managed to do several pitiful things at once. Firstly, she  
took a step backwards, undoing one of the only sensible, liberal  
actions taken by her predecessor, David Blunkett. But it also flew  
against the facts, which showed use was down since the drug became  
Class C. The government's own advisory council – the view of experts  
and scientists – asked for the Home Office not to do it. She did it  
anyway. She put Daily Mail headlines over and above an effective drug  
policy which finally saw usage drop and she put shabby politics above  
scientific advice, setting an awful precedent.

Her efforts to basically scrap habeas corpus deserve a special  
mention. Smith and the prime minister managed to scrape through the  
vote on 42-day detention, albeit relying on DUP votes. It's been  
pretty much kicked into the long grass now, but the attempt reflects  
just how little respect and understanding she had for the things that  
make this country great, such as the rule of law and freedom from  
state tyranny.

Similar attitudes were on display this time last year, when  
journalists read her letter to the NUJ with a mixture of horror and  
resignation. In it, she stated that police could restrict photography  
"in certain circumstances", going against a long-standing principle in  
British law of a free press. We got a good indication of why the press  
should be able to photograph the police a few months ago, during the  
G20 protests.

Throughout the summer, we were briefed of a progressive new policy on  
prostitution when parliament sat again. Instead we were treated to an  
abominable piece of law, which made it an offence to have sex with a  
woman controlled by a pimp. Legal experts exploded, because the law  
paid no attention to whether or not the client actually knew the woman  
was under control. But far more importantly, sex worker groups – who  
were not even considered worthy of consultation – immediately said the  
law would make them less safe. By effectively outlawing prostitution,  
Smith had forced it further underground, preventing sex workers from  
organising and cooperating when they sell their services. But then,  
it's only evidence and empirical data which tells us that when we  
adopt such a policy, there are more prostitute deaths, and the home  
secretary had already proved how little she thought of such things  
when she upgraded cannabis.

Then came Damian Green, the shadow immigration spokesman arrested for  
leaking home office information. Her later attempts in the Commons to  
suggest this was because there were fears of national security  
information being leaked would have been laughable were they not a  
glaring indicator of how far the government was willing to go to  
silence dissent.

After sustained questioning, it transpired she was referring to  
potential future national security breaches. Those with faith in the  
British parliamentary system looked on aghast as they witnessed one of  
the most powerful and important positions in government use such an  
important warning seemingly to prevent her embarrassment.

The came the Gurkhas, and the Home Office's desperate, mean-spirited  
and cruel attempts to stop veterans coming to stay in the UK. A  
groundswell of public sympathy and a savvy campaign by former actor  
Joanna Lumley managed to put a stop to that one. But we saw what we  
saw: bureaucrats trying to stop those who fought for this country  
being allowed to enter it.

And then, of course, there was ID cards, which the home secretary  
followed with the same dogged and ridiculous dedication as her  
predecessors. She started her terms saying it would cost £30 a head.  
We now know it will cost considerably more than that. She said the  
public were gagging for them, despite all evidence to the contrary. It  
remains a solution in search of a problem. She joined the game of  
finding things for the cards to fix. Immigration? Terrorism? Identity  
fraud. Most of the public has come to the conclusion of what they are  
for already – to help control and organise the population of Great  
Britain.

The list goes on and on.

Is it all Smith's fault? Of course not. We have no idea what Smith  
thinks about anything. The office of home secretary has become a  
cipher for Downing Street for so long now, it's impossible to tell  
what any home secretary has though since Blunkett's tenure. And even  
then, it was only possible because he so evidently savoured tearing up  
hard-won British liberties like other men enjoy football or fish and  
chips.

Nothing will change. The next home secretary will parrot the same  
nonsense. It's the government talking – not them.

But let's not deny ourselves some pleasure. After two years of having  
to listen to her arguments, justifying gross intrusion into our lives,  
irresponsible, authoritarian legislation and the scrapping of hugely  
important British rights, it will be a real pleasure to know she's off.

When you're faced with this kind of government, you take whatever  
pleasure you can get.