The Evening Standard published a letter to the editor by me today in the print version of the newspaper (in slightly edited form). Here is the full text:
The resignation of David Blunkett may give some holiday cheers to those with the wits to see that this man has presided over the greatest abridgements of civil liberties in Britain within living memory… and given that we had the dreadful example of Michael Howard’s tenure in that office to compare him to, that is quite an achievement.
Yet before too many people start popping Champaign corks at the downfall of a truly repressive Home Secretary, I hope they will realise that nothing that Blunkett did was without the support of Tony Blair and his cabinet. Do not be so caught up with the individual personalities that you are blinded to the fact that the real threat, in fact the gravest threat to the liberty of British people since World War II, comes from both the authoritarian mindset that is alive and well at Number 10 Downing Street and the acquiescence to most of Blunkett’s excesses by the inept Tory party.
Perry de Havilland
Samizdata.net
Ah, now I’m curious. Which parts did they leave out?
I’m an ex-patraite in Canada (38 years). The deliberate destruction of English society by Blair and company is horrifying. In a campaign of deceit and spin, the liberties and rights of English people have been eroded to the point where I now fear that somehow I might run afoul of “authority” on my twice-yearly visits. You are absolutely right to warn that Blunkett was a symptom, not a cause.
New Labour, being made up largely of bureaucrats and other barnacles on the public-purse, knows that regulations, not laws, are the key to control. Administrative law, and any appeals against it, are in the hands of the regulators themselves, so social control and engineering is a system sealed off from citizen view.
PB, Calgary, Alberta
Here in the US administrative agencies do have a bit of discretion in the administration of their “fief”, but their decisions are pretty much always appealable to the Courts – especially on Constitutional/ civil liberties questions.
As an example, the Courts will almost always bend over backwars to defer to the Evironmental Protection Agency on a question like “Is CO2 a pullutant?”, but if you raise a claim of “Takings of Property without fair Compensation”, the Court defends their turf as final decider pretty aggressively.
How does it work in the UK?
Ok, don’t know what happened to the last two letters of my name in that last post …
Brock,
If one is wealthy one can take the case to court where it will be kicked about until one is old and grey or the money runs out.
If one is poor one might get legal aid to fight the case. In both instances the authority will use the public purse to defend itself.
Similar to your country the ones who make the rules are the ones who arbitrate those rules.
Excellent letter, as one might expect, but sadly tempered in the Evening Standard by some imbecilic notion of ‘balance’, to whit:
“When it comes to ID cards. many intelligent people become petulant Luddites (Blunkett has lost our trust, 2 December). As they routinely fill out their details on the internet and sign up to supermarket loyalty cards, their privacy objections do not wash; the key obstacle, the untested nature of biometric technology is surmountable. ….” (John Cormack, SW1)
I don’t think that come 2012 I will be confronted by MP5-wielding community support officers demanding to see my Tesco loyalty card … but one never knows.
On a lighter note, now that Blunkett has gone – what will Blunkett’s Bouncers now be known as? Clarke’s Clowns?
‘I hope they will realise that nothing that Blunkett did was without the support of Tony Blair and his cabinet’, more realistically should read ‘ I hope they will realise that nothing that Blunkett did was without the support of the majority of the British people on matters of immigration, bogus asylum seekers and Islamic terroists’.
Those who perceive otherwise are swimming against a very strong undercurrent from the intellectually despised silent majority.
Sure, just as Hitler rose to power on the same strong undercurrent from the intellectually despised silent majority. That is no reason not to oppose them.
We, as a people, deserve what we elect. We keep placing statists in office. Liberal or conservative, it doesn’t matter. Liberals want to control us financially through tax redistribution. Conservatives want to control us socially through “sin” taxes, “use” taxes, and political laws. We need a new party; a new approach to government. Maybe something like the Libertarian party in the US, although it seems too fragmented. But its’ basic tenets are to reduce the size of government, eliminate invasive income taxes, and return control to the people. Government is necessary for foreign relations and that’s about it. All internal affairs are off limits. Even law returns to the peoples’ hands.
” I hope they will realise that nothing that Blunkett did was without the support of the majority of the British people on matters of immigration, bogus asylum seekers and Islamic terroists’.
This begs the question did Blunkett actually do anything,he talked the talk for this constituency,fiddled the figures on crime and immigration but essentially did the opposite like the good socialist he was.
We get governments because basically they lie to us about their policies,a perfect example is how the current bunch lied about,well virtually everything.
Perry: Champaign is a nasty town in Illinois, not the nectar of the gods.