I'm sure that I will get accused of misogyny but I'm going to say it any way. Jacqui Smith was never up to the job, not because she was a woman but because she was rubbish. Home Secretary is one of the toughest jobs in politics and it needs someone who is at the top of their game, Jacqui Smith isn't.
I'm saddened that the issue of her husband's TV viewing did her so much damage as it really was an irrelevance (which is why I didn't write about it at the time), the real damage was that she used her position for party political advantage when defence of the nation should have been her priority.
With less than a year to go before a General Election, Brown will have to find another Home Secretary, who will take some months to find their feet and then be pitched into the maelstrom of the election campaign itself. We will have no real leadership at the Home Office until after the general election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
James, come on! I'm not a politician so I have the ability to remember what politicians have said before.
You just accused Jacqui Smith of innappropriately trying to score party-political advantage. I just took this from your own blog: "Gordon Brown and the Labour party have looked weak and paralysed by indecision in the wake of the expenses scandal. David Cameron has been tougher and quicker in dealing with this."
You used this dreadful, shameful situation that politicians from all sides have got themselves into (and which they still don't understand) to do just what you accused Ms Smith of!
I'm a floating voter, there's a growing number of us. Please write something to show that you understand what's happening.
I have to say I disagree with David Pincott, although, no, I'm not a floating voter, so I can't claim that as my point of view.
Personally, having looked at the rules that governed the claiming of expenses, I don't think you can ever *possibly* say "they still don't understand" how certain MPs are now liable to be fired, or worse. Though the guidelines weren't exactly crystal, it's very definitely an honour code. Do I claim for this expensive, yet essential, train ticket to take me from my constituency, 250 miles away, to work? Yes. Do I claim for a mortgage that doesn't even exist, my moat cleaning, my duck house?
What do you think!?
To say the ones who have committed the worse crimes didn't understand what they were doing is naive at best, downright stupid at worst.
And truly, David Cameron *was* the first one to stand up and say, "if you've abused the system, it's going to be rectified, and you're going to go", and to see it through. I respect him for that, because if there's one thing we don't see enough of in this country, it's positive action to solve problems. And *that* is what politicians and your 'floating voters' ought to be thinking about.
Maybe *just* a little bit useless because she's a woman too.
Sorry, recently did my annual fitness test, and am confused why people who do 30% of the press ups I do get 100% of the pay!!
So I'm stupid for having an opinion!
Let me make it clearer: when a politician agrees to pay back money and stand down and then say they did nothing wrong then they clearly do not understand. Or, of course, they cannot admit that they were flaring off a bottomless pit of our unguarded cash.
Brown and Cameron are both guilty, it's an issue with the political class and any point scoring is just another playground squabble about the Tories did this or Labour did that. I want politicians (the ones that will be left) to tell us what they intend to do, not give us a commentary on a weeing competition to demonstrate whose leader is the least fraudulent.
Let me just say that what you said here:
"when a politician agrees to pay back money and stand down and then say they did nothing wrong then they clearly do not understand."
doesn't quite tally with what you said here:
"James, come on! I'm not a politician so I have the ability to remember what politicians have said before."
If someone accidently claimed say, a tv license, and paid back the whole £130, fair enough. Accidents, obviously, will happen. But for someone to (and I'm mainly talking fraud involving housing) defraud the taxpayer of thousands of pounds and then to turn around and say, "whoops! my apologies, didn't quite get it, though I now live in a larger house and my bank account is several thousand pounds richer."
I'd go with what you said here, instead: "Or, of course, they cannot admit that they were flaring off a bottomless pit of our unguarded cash," given that the vast majority of MPs are incredibly educated, most in business, law, finance or journalism (and heck, what better training ground than the latter to work out expenses fiddling?)
It's not just an issue for the political class; that's public money, and currently, the main forum of "the tories did this, labour did that", is the media.
No, by the way, not stupid for merely having an opinion.
Also, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
'Nuff said, really.
Laura, I cannot follow the thread of your argument in comparing those two paras. But the number of 'accidents' says to me that these are not accidents at all.
I referred to the fact that James had previously said essentially that Cameron was a better leader than Brown because he was being stricter on expenses (yet both have since been found to have had 'accidents' with their expenses!). He then later criticised Jacqui Smith for scoring party points. I am bored with point scoring and concerned that it's all politicians think about - I want to know what they intend to do. And, since the advent of blogging (and Parliament on the telly) I can see that this is not the media, this is politicians. Read James' blog and you'll see what I mean.
And arguing over which of them is least fraudulent takes us nowhere. I don't trust Brown, Cameron, Blears, Smith, etc, and I mean that the political class have given us all a problem; careers and financial gain came way above serving the electorate for so many of them.
Post a Comment