Communication Breakdown

What else is there to say about Charles Clarke? It seems that the problem actually got worse after he found out about it. It seems that he thought it more important to brief the media than to come to parliament to explain himself. It seems that he offered to resign but Blair wasn't having it.

Clarke says the problem was caused by a breakdown in communication between the Immigration and Nationality Directive and the Prison Service. Who, pray tell, is repsonsible for co-ordinating communications between the various departments of the Home Office? Who's the one looking out for the big picture? Who's job is it to consider the Home Office in its entirety? Who makes sure that all aspects of the H.O. are working together to deliver for the people of this country? I'm no expert of the arrangements which govern the workings of the Home Office but at a guess, I'd say it's Fungus himself.

It's hard to think of anyone who's more of a waste of space (Clarke takes up a lot more space than the average person, of course). In the absence of any obvious political philosophy, many people have speculated as to what New Labour stands for. I think it's increasingly obvious. New Labour exists as a vehicle to deliver power to bullying, unprincipled, incompetant and just plain repugnant toadies.

You want to talk about a rise in support for the BNP? I bet there was a hearty celebration at BNP HQ when they heard about this.

You want to talk about civil liberty versus security? Well don't. It's a false dichotomy. But is it really too much to expect that our government should be able to competantly use existing laws (which don't curtail essential liberties) to deliver security as far as is possible? Clearly it is too much to expect from this shower of cronies and goons.

The other day, Blair and Clarke tried to say that there was no alternative but to adpot their authoritarian destruction of core British values if we are to protect the citizens of this country. I read a couple of people (alright, suspected astroturing New Labour lackeys) suggesting that it was all very well to criticise this position but that those who did were not offering an alternative themselves. Well, how about not having a grossly negligent buffoon in charge of the Home Office? There's an alternative worth considering. How about having a prime minister who's more interesting in making sure existing laws are actually working and serving the people of this country than in creating an endless stream of poorly considered, damaging, often dangerous headline grabbing initiatives for the Daily Mail and the Scum?* There's an alternative I'd certainly recommend.

Clarke, it seems, is now determined to stay on and put things right. Only in modern politics (and perhaps in the boardrooms of big business) is this an acceptable defence when your gross negligence has been discovered. Try that in the real world and you'd be laughed out of your disiplinary hearing. And with good reason.

* Blair has failed to appease the Scum's incessant demand for their own brand of authoritarian right-wingery. A bold, principled progressive leader would never have attempted it, of course. I'm in full agreement with Tim. On Murdoch, on Wade and on Blair.

Tags: News, Politics, Charles Clarke, Tony Blair