Comment: Johnson's only strength is his laziness
Tuesday, 10, Nov 2009 12:56
Alan Johnson has only one improvement on his predecessors: his inaction.
By Ian Dunt
It's becoming increasingly clear that the only difference between Alan Johnson and his predecessors is his apathy.
A popular figure, he was brought into the Home Office in Gordon Brown's last-gasp reshuffle. A potential leadership candidate, he was given the job no-one wants - the graveyard of political careers. A party loyalist, he took it.
Once Johnson came in to the Home Office, the mood in the previously hyper-active department changed instantly. He had a simple mantra: No defeats, no victories. He would keep the tiller still. No big accomplishments, but no foreign prisoner-style PR disasters either. Johnson was determined to survive the Home Office.
In that he has so far been successful. His changes, such as they are, have been so understated as to be invisible. He launched a review of ID cards, rather quietly, and then made a tepid promise not to make them compulsory for British subjects. Brown reiterated that promise during his conference speech and gained undeserved headlines for it, despite the fact it had already been announced.
And yet, Johnson's two most prominent moments both involved exactly the kind of arrogant, shameful errors of judgement we came to expect from his predecessors.
On the Gary McKinnon extradition case, where US prosecutors, foaming at the mouth, appeared to want to lock up a harmless, but rather remarkably talented eccentric, he utterly failed to step up to the wicket and protect a Brit from an over-eager American legal system. He reiterated this in a Times article and a parliamentary debate before eventually backing down, citing new medical evidence. The medical evidence, that McKinnon has Asperger's syndrome, was always there. He was opposed in this by the Liberal Democrats and the Tories, who tabled the parliamentary debate.
The story - a fairly modest one a couple of years ago, steadily built up steam. Would Johnson have acted if there had been less media coverage? His initial judgment reflected precisely the heartless, draconian approach to domestic and international politics which this government has adopted since September 11th: a casual indifference to the rights of the people here, and a full blooded commitment to putting American interests above those of ordinary British citizens.
The case of Professor David Nutt, sacked for voicing opinions which are reliably substantiated by empirical fact, is further evidence of a Home Office which does not recognise anything's value unless it corresponds to electoral prospects. He was supported in this - disgracefully but entirely unsurprisingly - by the Conservatives, leaving just the Lib Dems to oppose him. Their attempt was spearheaded by Dr Evan Harris, the party's science spokesman and a man who has now been on the right side of so many arguments he is worryingly close to being considered a decent, respectable politician.
There is a growing opinion in the media that the overwhelming support for Prof Nutt is a worrying by-product of a general distrust of MPs. We should be wary of a scientific class being given greater prominence than our elected representatives, the argument goes. It's a valid concern, but there is most certainly a space for elected representatives to take heed of the advice of people who actually know what they are talking about, rather than just ignore it because it clashes with their short-term political concerns. It's called serving the national interest, and it is not always the same thing as following electoral impulses. Jacqui Smith treated reason and empirical observation like dirty words in her treatment of Prof Nutt. Johnson happily did the same.
What do both cases have in common? They reveal the lack of moral fibre in the Home Office. In both cases a judgment on public opinion was made. In one, that the public supports tough anti-terror policies and in the other that they back tough anti-drugs policies. By the time that was decided, no other motivation - be it compassion, or common sense, or the rights of scientists and experts to do their job without the oppressive mandates of government - could make any difference to the pre-established line.
But we should give Johnson his due. His desperation to survive the Home Office is playing in our favour. Two outrageous moral and intellectual misjudgments constitute an impressively subdued year in the Home Office. David Blunkett would have merrily torn down the tolerant constitution of British civilisation in that time, given half the chance. The best thing Johnson has going for him is his desperation to keep his head down. Under this government, the best Home Office Britain can have is an inactive one.
The views expressed in politics.co.uk's comment pages are not necessarily those of the website or its owners.