Blunkett sticks oar in where it's not wanted.
David Blunkett, the disgraced former home secretary, forced to resign after he forgot about intervening in getting a visa for his lovers nanny, can't keep his nose out of anything. Here he is, in typical style, threatening judges:
David Blunkett was the worst home secretary this country has had in recent memory (Yes, even worse than Michael "Prison works!" Howard). He was forced to resign to disgrace. Fortunately for him Tony Blair has no qualms about taking back former wayward members (see: Peter Mandelson) and he came straight back in after the election as Work and Pensions secretary. For a start, he has no business sounding off about judges and on matters which are none of his concern, especially with the current pensions crisis. Secondly, these measures have not yet been published in any complete matter for debate in both parliament and public. Blunkett has chosen to start threatening already, mainly because of the way the prime minister's announcement (or rant, as I found it) has gone down in the liberal press. This also appears to show that the laws as announced or proposed are unlikely to be majorly amended from Blair's speech, or compromised over. The way the country is at the moment, it seems very likely that these draconian measures will get through parliament with little trouble, especially with Tory support (who if anything, want even stricter laws). Our dark days may just be beginning.
The former home secretary David Blunkett yesterday warned judges in the strongest terms that the government would not tolerate any judicial attempt to overturn the new anti-terrorist measures outlined on Friday.
Mr Blunkett, citing the dictum of the retiring lord chief justice, Lord Woolf, that "upholding liberty is not a suicide pact", he insisted it was the elected parliament, and not the courts, who were answerable for the security of the country.
Mr Blunkett also confirmed he was "assisting the deputy prime minister", John Prescott, in taking decisions on terrorism while Tony Blair was on holiday, but denied he was in control of the Home Office in Charles Clarke's absence: "Hazel Blears substitutes for the home secretary. She is his deputy and she is doing extremely well. I obviously have the experience and the knowledge and I help out in terms of having to take, with John Prescott, the necessary decisions in the next couple of weeks," he said.
Mr Blunkett gave him (Mr Blair) strong backing, telling the judges they have a legitimate role in challenging ministers if they implement laws differently from parliament's intentions.
"If the judiciary say 'We think that parliament was wrong and therefore the democratic vote is wrong', I think that is a different matter ... We obviously have the right to go back to parliament and to say 'We, the sovereign body who are elected, are the only ones in the end who are answerable for the protection of security and stability in our country. We will make the decision'."
David Blunkett was the worst home secretary this country has had in recent memory (Yes, even worse than Michael "Prison works!" Howard). He was forced to resign to disgrace. Fortunately for him Tony Blair has no qualms about taking back former wayward members (see: Peter Mandelson) and he came straight back in after the election as Work and Pensions secretary. For a start, he has no business sounding off about judges and on matters which are none of his concern, especially with the current pensions crisis. Secondly, these measures have not yet been published in any complete matter for debate in both parliament and public. Blunkett has chosen to start threatening already, mainly because of the way the prime minister's announcement (or rant, as I found it) has gone down in the liberal press. This also appears to show that the laws as announced or proposed are unlikely to be majorly amended from Blair's speech, or compromised over. The way the country is at the moment, it seems very likely that these draconian measures will get through parliament with little trouble, especially with Tory support (who if anything, want even stricter laws). Our dark days may just be beginning.
| Permalink
