It would be a mistake to assume that the role of Home Secretary is to.. er.. wait, what do they do again? They’re the public face of the Home Office, responsible for immigration (stopping it), citizenship (preventing it), policing and national security (pretending we have it).
It also happens to be Labour’s flagship ministry, the crucial plank of their electoral positioning – redistribution, big public sector and “in touch with” the tabloid sentiments on the subject of law and order. That’s what New Labour is all about – reconnecting with the working classes by being pants on head wibblingly mad.
Yesterday Alan Johnson, the latest in a long line of Labour MPs to turn into Authoritarian Super Cocks upon entering the Home Office, sacked an advisor for giving scientific advice which contradicted their policy goals – the goal of Looking Tough no matter how stupid, ineffective, cruel, pointless or evil those particular policies might be.
Drug Prohibition doesn’t work? Sorry, wrong answer. You’re fired. It works perfectly well when it comes to showing how tough Home Secretaries are, so sling yer ‘ook you mad man! Yes, see, the advisor is called, “Nutt” so, obviously, it’s perfectly fair to suggest that he’s a “Nutter”, a mental, and laugh at him.
I blame Dimbleby. He asked Jacqui Smith what was the point in having scientific advisors if you then ignore them – clearly someone in Number 10 nodded and agreed enthusiastically.
We’re told we shouldn’t confuse scientific advice with policy. Alan, sweetie, I promise you, it would be very difficult for anyone to confuse your policies with something suggested by anyone with a brain.
David Chiverton said...
31 Oct 09 at 2:40 pm
This governments ‘always knows best’ attitude has always been an issue, not just in the Home Office. Ed Ball’s completely ignoring the comprehensive review into Primary Education was the worst example in recent memory. This one is equally infuriating though, Johnson is a party-hack who will sink into obscurity once Labour is destroyed at the next election. To suggest he knows better than the good Professor is ludicrous.
Andy said...
31 Oct 09 at 3:01 pm
Alan Johnson’s wafer thin veneer is starting to crack. The arrogance and incompetence of this ‘government’ is really quite remarkable
blind steve said...
31 Oct 09 at 3:06 pm
“That’s what New Labour is all about – reconnecting with the working classes”
No, I’ll have to stop you there. Labour couldn’t give a monkey’s chuff for the working classes. Like most of the left – and apparently, weirdly, Lembit Opik – they are hopelessly obsessed with Thatcher, and it was the middle classes ‘wot won it’ for her.
And of course all sensible middle class people of the smug irritating greenish lefty persuasion know for a fact that drugs are bad, m’kay, and harm children.
I wonder who could have told them that ? Repeatedly.
Oh and also, they are mostly parents. Which you can’t possibly understand unless you are one, apparently, and which confers some mystical power to be right all the time even when, in fact especially when, all the actual evidence is to the contrary. It’s like a super power, only much less attractive.
I take your point about Authoritarian Super Cocks, ably demonstrated by recent occupants, but I reckon that most people who get the Ministry of Daily Mail Sensationalism post are probably ASC’s to begin with.
This is almost certainly the case for the Labour mob, authoritarian statists to a man (or woman, or whatever combination Jacqui Smith is), and probably the case for most politicians.
The HO just allows them to stop pretending otherwise.
Charlotte Gore said...
31 Oct 09 at 3:53 pm
The ‘appealing to the working classes’ through authoritarianism comes from Philip Gould’s book, “Unfinished Revolution” – might not be how things worked out but it’s what they genuinely believe. Think Sun readers…
blind steve said...
31 Oct 09 at 5:24 pm
“The ‘appealing to the working classes’ through authoritarianism comes from Philip Gould’s book”
Ah the focus group idiot. Well that explains it then. Possibly the stupidest way of making policy ever devised by man. But then again, it to is supposed to give you only the results that you wanted to hear.
It would be comedic, if it weren’t so bloody serious.
Niklas Smith said...
31 Oct 09 at 7:07 pm
My comment didn’t post for some reason…. Here’s a test.
Niklas Smith said...
31 Oct 09 at 7:08 pm
Oh. I tried and failed to post a comment at Lib Dem Voice as well. Just wanted to give people a heads up to an excellent post and comment thread on this subject: http://www.libdemvoice.org/david-nutt-why-was-he-sacked-16703.html
A Scot not from Kirkcaldy, Cowdenbeath or Edinburgh South West said...
31 Oct 09 at 7:10 pm
This bunch of mendacious hypocrites have already shown that they don’t give an aerial act of copulation as to whether or not there is any credible research that supports their supposedly ‘evidence based’ authoritarian legislation.
What worries me is how willing they might be to ignore the body of evidence that will be presented by the millions of experts who are soon going to vote for anyone but Labour at the next election
Richard Gadsden said...
31 Oct 09 at 9:26 pm
It isn’t just Labour Home Secretaries. Remember David Waddington and Michael Howard?
Is Douglas Hurd the last one to think that locking people up was generally a bad idea?
Laurence said...
1 Nov 09 at 12:50 pm
Ever since the Bernie Ecclestone £1m affair and the “I’m a pretty straight kinda guy” non-denial denial, New Labour have shown themselves to be adepts at prostituting the facts to fit their “truths”.
Psi said...
1 Nov 09 at 9:41 pm
Don’t ignore the tory responce to the situation (from the BBC):
Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said the sacking had been “an inevitable decision” after Prof Nutt’s “latest ill-judged contribution to the debate”.
Anyone who responds like this to a scientific advisor speaking out against politicians distorting the advice given deserves a good kicking (metophorically speaking).
Funny how this sounds like a slightly less tragic version of the Iraq situation.