Politicians are rarely believed, and even less often admired, in the modern world. Given the choice, much of public opinion frequently, and maybe increasingly, sides with the unelected legal, military and even business or journalist expert rather than the elected amateur. Confronted with the contrasting views of a judge and a minister, many now cleave instinctively to the judge, Jonathan Sumption QC argued in a lecture this week. In a similar way, perhaps, nervous European bond traders currently seem to have greater confidence in a political technocrat than in a leader with voter appeal. Thus, when faced with a conflict between the word of a senior civil servant and that of a government minister, the default assumption for many nowadays is that the mandarin is likely to be right and the minister certain to be wrong.
Whether and how far such instincts are at play in the continuing argument between the home secretary, Theresa May, and the former head of the UK Border Agency's border force, Brodie Clark, is difficult to gauge at this stage. MPs spent a large proportion of their time in the Commons chamberon the dispute. Yet at the end of a heated day, not much extra light had been shone on it. Labour argued as strongly at the last as at the first that Ms May was hanging Mr Clark out to dry instead of admitting that she had herself signed off on what, despite Labour indignation, is the rather sensible policy of increasing the reliance on intelligence in immigration control. It is obvious why Labour should want to puncture the government's hold over an issue like immigration. But the frontbench attack remained short of crucial ammunition.
The home secretary was able to repel Yvette Cooper's assaults – just as David Cameron had successfully seen off Ed Miliband earlier – because she had the minute of a conversation in which Mr Clark told his boss, the UKBA's chief executive, Rob Whiteman, that he had allowed staff to exceed ministerial orders when they relaxed border controls during the summer. That admission, according to Mr Whiteman, was the reason why Mr Clark was suspended. As long as that version of events holds sway, the home secretary is well defended.
Ms May led a charmed ministerial life in her first 18 months as home secretary. Now she is taking some unforeseen hits. Like many predecessors she is finding that the brief is inherently tough and that officials are not magicians. The question now is whether Mr Clark has a killer piece of evidence up his sleeve when he gives evidence to a Commons committee on Tuesday. If he has, or if an employment tribunal finds in his favour, Ms May could be in trouble. If not, she will probably deserve to survive.
Whether and how far such instincts are at play in the continuing argument between the home secretary, Theresa May, and the former head of the UK Border Agency's border force, Brodie Clark, is difficult to gauge at this stage. MPs spent a large proportion of their time in the Commons chamberon the dispute. Yet at the end of a heated day, not much extra light had been shone on it. Labour argued as strongly at the last as at the first that Ms May was hanging Mr Clark out to dry instead of admitting that she had herself signed off on what, despite Labour indignation, is the rather sensible policy of increasing the reliance on intelligence in immigration control. It is obvious why Labour should want to puncture the government's hold over an issue like immigration. But the frontbench attack remained short of crucial ammunition.
The home secretary was able to repel Yvette Cooper's assaults – just as David Cameron had successfully seen off Ed Miliband earlier – because she had the minute of a conversation in which Mr Clark told his boss, the UKBA's chief executive, Rob Whiteman, that he had allowed staff to exceed ministerial orders when they relaxed border controls during the summer. That admission, according to Mr Whiteman, was the reason why Mr Clark was suspended. As long as that version of events holds sway, the home secretary is well defended.
Ms May led a charmed ministerial life in her first 18 months as home secretary. Now she is taking some unforeseen hits. Like many predecessors she is finding that the brief is inherently tough and that officials are not magicians. The question now is whether Mr Clark has a killer piece of evidence up his sleeve when he gives evidence to a Commons committee on Tuesday. If he has, or if an employment tribunal finds in his favour, Ms May could be in trouble. If not, she will probably deserve to survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment