Comment: Good riddance to a bad home secretary
The Electoral Reform Society is a voluntary organisation that campaigns for a better democracy, particularly through changes to our electoral system.
|  |
Find more Opinion Formers in this category:
Labour is facing a wipe-out during this week's European and local elections, with polls indicating it is being disproportionately affected by the expenses scandal. |  |
The Conservatives are well-set to deliver some hammer blows to Labour in this year's local elections. |  |
Tuesday, 02, Jun 2009 05:37
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.