Thursday, April 27, 2006

Prescott & Winterton? - Smokescreen, Clarke is the target

So, Two Shags Prescott is apparently a "serial adulterer", and hints are being dropped all over the place about links to health minister Rosie Winterton. You know what?

I don't care!

I agree with Recess Monkey:
why now? A cynical part of Recess Monkey suspects this is a well-timed distraction from Charles Clarke’s current worries.

Charles Clarke is the target, ignore Prescott

It's good to know that not everyone is distracted by what people get up to in bed. Rachel:
I personally think you should resign. You've let us all down. I don't expect that we will meet again in May, but you never know. If we do meet again, I will want to know what you are actually doing to keep people safe. Rehetoric is one thing, deliverables another. You knew there was an almighty disaster waiting to happen, you were warned and warned and you still let almost 300 dangerous people out anyway, and then lost them.
Lifejacket:
The key words and phrases being "Charles Clarke", "Home Office", and "regrettable mistake". I would add a fourth and fifth, "unforgiveable incompetence", and "thumbs up their arses", and possibly a sixth, seventh, eighth … but it would take all day.

Charles Clarke must go.


6 comments:

Rachel said...

Mwah. See you down the pub when all thi is over.
x

mark said...

Well, much as I'd be delighted to see Clarke gone asap, I think this would be for the wrong reason.

These prisoners who have been released have presumably served their sentences - why is everyone screaming for deportation - in effect a second sentence?

Prisoners are being released daily having served their sentences. What's the big deal if some of them don't happen to have British passports? If it's not safe to release them then keep them in, otherwise release them. Nationality is not an issue.

MatGB said...

Mark, in many ways I'd agree; I'm not screaming for their deportation. I'm very (very) angry that a Govt that is proclaiming itself tough can't even implement its own policies.

Best reason I've seen for them not facing deportation hearings the way they used to be is that it keeps the asylum application numbers down.

That is not a good reason to surreptitiously abandon (Blunkett) or not fix (Clarke) an official policy. Each should face a hearing if they're not nationals or from a country with which we have co-residency agreements (such as most EU states).

I'm on record as being fully in favour of free movement of goods, services and people, but if rules are broken and you don't have residency status, or your residency is subject to conditions, then hearings should be made to determine if oyu go home.

Besides which, it's got to the point where I care not why Clarke goes. I just want him gone. I was after him to go long before this broke, a look at the frontpage currently tells you that.

Gavin Ayling said...

Not just Clarke, Labour too...

mark said...

Gary Younge had a very good piece about this in the Guardian yesterday - can't find the link online unfortunately.

He basically said that claiming a ministerial scalp is often the only thing the media/public seem to want but that the same old stuff carries on under the successor.

You could certainly say that after Blunkett was pushed out that Clarke continued with no noticeable changes.

And, if Clarke is forced out over this then his successor will spend even more energy trying to show how hardline he is over immigration and crime.

MatGB said...

I'll have a dig see if we've got yesterdays paper in the office, I suspect though that he/you're right, there will be more playing to the gallery regardless.

Essentially, the answer is to break up the Home Office and spread some of its functions around, abolishing others, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Regardless, Clarke's a git, and is now shown to be an incompetent git as well.