Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green arrested
I don't know the details of his contract and obligations, but, if the combined response of the Tories, Lib Dems and some Labour backbenchers is anything to go by, the mark has definitely been overstepped. It also brings to light the conflict between duties - if, as a minister, he comes by information which he truly does believe is in the public interest which has not been released, which is the greater duty, that to his contract or that to his constituents? Look at the leaks mentioned:
- The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.
- The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.
- A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.
- A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime
The middle 2 are perhaps spiteful and risky manoeuvres, but the first and last are most definitely in the sphere of knowledge of public interest. Though it also raises the question of whether he would wish to die by the sword as well - by uncovering information this government wishes to keep secret, he (and Cameron through his endorsement) loses any right to the moral high ground should the same thing happen under a Tory government.
Regardless, it seems an extremely excessive and heavy-handed way to deal with the situation. The obvious overreacting comparison is 1984, and we're not there yet, but it is a step on the way...
Daniel Mumby
ReplyDeleteOne of your more sensible posts, Jimmy, but for me you still fall down in the last sentence:
"The obvious overreacting comparison is 1984, and we're not there yet, but it is a step on the way..."
You qualify this, but only partially, and so fall into the trap of so many commentators of invoking some nightmarish but fictional scenario and then associating it with the current government through clever language.... Read more
No matter how realistic or frightening Orwell's vision is, it is still a fiction and I think it always will be.As far as I recalll, he gives no indication in his book - beyond a postscript about newspeak - as to how such a society would come about, and although he is clearly using the USSR as a target/ model for his 'parody', many of his points are still exaggerations for the purpose of artistic licence, in this case to scare the reader into not letting this happen.
While I don't think what is happening is completely above suspicion, nor do I think it is sensible to make blanket comparisons with a well-worn metaphor for the sake of frightening us into doing something. I am not accusing you of fear-mongering (or doom-mongering, whatever the term is) but I am wary of using such comparisons for something so relatively timid as this.
29 November 2008 at 14:00