Blunkett

[liadnan]

So there goes the worst Home Secretary I can think of, offhand (and yes, I can think of Michael Howard).

To be honest, I find it difficult to care much about how he went. I just think he was an unpleasant and ignorant hyper-authoritarian shit and we're a hell of a lot better off without him in that post.

Comments

Re: is it because

[gmh.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

The insulting connotation of 'liberal' is a product of the US right wing's resurgence in the 1970s; I could write a fairly lengthy essay on the history, except that it would probably annoy me far too much.

As far as I'm concerned, 'liberal' is simply one of the highest compliments for someone's political persona there is. It denotes that the person concerned is mature enough to realise that absolutism or unilateralism are not (and can not be) a serious answer to any real-world problem.

(There is, of course, a down side to this; a tendency to waffle and devolve into committee and wrangle at length; yet I'd still rather people cared enough about finding the right compromise to engage in lengthy discussion, rather than simply inviting others to decide for them.)

As you know, I have strong political opinions of a left-wing persuasion; but in real life, these come a definite second to the rights of others not to be harmed by my opinions.

This probably puts me square in the middle of the liberal do-gooders that Blunkett and his ilk despise.

Well, nuts to them.

Gideon.