Registered user login:

Jacqui Smith: The Interview

Martin Bright and John Kampfner

Published 02 August 2007

She may be using a softer language on the big crime and security issues of the day but Britain's first female home secretary is pursuing a distinctly authoritarian agenda.

The Home Office has turned out to be a graveyard for new Labour politicians. David Blunkett and Charles Clarke were forced out after they failed to get to grips with a dysfunctional department. Although John Reid jumped before he was pushed, he too struggled to cope with rising prison numbers and a series of crises involving escaped prisoners. His solution was to split the department in two just before announcing his resignation. Only Jack Straw, the great survivor, left with his reputation intact.

Jacqui Smith, whose appointment by Gordon Brown took everyone by surprise, has no illusions about her chances of longevity. The gallery of portraits of her predecessors outside her office has already given her pause for thought. "I have taken the trek along the corridor and looked at the whole row of home secretaries. I think it's in order to inspire you, but also to demonstrate that you are moving through," she says.

It is not Straw or Clarke that she chooses as her role model, but Blunkett, with whom she worked at the Department for Education for two years. "My first ever boss as minister was David Blunkett, and David has always brought something very special to ministerial life," she says. "I think in terms of his ability to communicate the challenges we face in government and [I] never forget that success as government is the impact we have on communities and those that serve us." She also pays tribute to Roy Jenkins, Labour home secretary during the 1960s, as a reformer. But she baulks when we ask if she would like to be seen as a "liberal" in the Jenkins tradition. "No," she says without a moment's hesitation. "I'd like to be seen as a home secretary that made a difference to people feeling secure and enabling them to get on with what they want to do in their lives."

Her politics were forged by experience in her constituency, Redditch, a Worcestershire marginal that has stayed in Labour hands through three elections thanks largely to the local MP's appeal to the values of Middle England. She has long argued that Labour must hold to the centre ground if it is to win the trust of voters in seats like her own. "I come at this very much from the point of view of someone with a marginal constituency," she says. "I have to build the broadest possible coalition within my constituency, which seems to be a microcosm of what we've managed to do as a government and will carry on doing."

This does not mean being illiberal, she says, "but being pretty tough about representing the concerns of those who elected us and making sure we deliver on them". In practical terms, this involves giving extra powers to local communities to hold local police to account. That is why she has ordered the monthly publication of local reports on how crime and antisocial behaviour are being tackled.

"You cannot continue to make the progress we've seen in reducing crime if you don't engage with people at a local level in determining what the issues are they want to see addressed and being part of the solution as well. If people feel more engaged at a local level you have a result on everything from terrorism to antisocial behaviour. People also feel more confident about the society they live in." She remains unconvinced, however, of the need for locally elected police chiefs. "Having an elected police chief is shorthand for 'we want more accountability'. Of itself, I don't think it would deliver that."

It may be tempting to see Smith as gentler than her predecessors, partly because she is a woman and partly because of the calm way she approached the failed terrorist attacks in Glasgow and London on her first weekend in the new job. But, on all the most pressing issues, she is a hardliner in the tradition of Blunkett and Reid rather than an instinctive liberal like Clarke. On extension of the 28-day period of detention without charge, on identity cards, on penal policy and on immigration, she is, if anything, more convinced about the authoritarian approach than the tough guys who came before.

Dark omens

The 28-day issue has become the first battleground for civil liberties under the Brown government. The omens are not promising. Smith says although she cannot cite an example of an existing case that would have benefited from an extension, she is certain it will be needed in the future. She believes it is responsible to have the argument now about the balance between protecting human rights and catching terrorists, rather than wait for an emergency. "I don't see it as talismanic," she says. "Am I looking for a fight on the 28 days? No. But am I looking to make sure that I can be confident that the police and those who need to investigate terrorist plots have got . . . everything they need in order to be able to do that? Yes." We ask her to clarify: is the status quo among the various options being discussed? She admits it is not. "I have been persuaded that at some time in the future . . . we will need to be in a position where, in very rare situations, we may need to go beyond 28 days."

On ID cards, she is even more dogmatic. Although the Brown government has initiated reviews of policy on casinos, cannabis and 24-hour drinking, there is no turning back on this. Some had wondered - it now turns out to be wishful thinking - if Brown, during his hesitant first Prime Minister's Questions, had been bounced into restating the government's commitment to ID cards. The hope was that he didn't mean it, that ministers might eventually shelve the scheme in the face of protests or rising costs.

Not a bit of it, says Smith. "You do need a system which has at its heart the ability, at a national level, to tie people's identity to a record of who they are." It has been suggested that it would be possible to have an identity database, but no physical card. On this point, Smith, again, is crystal clear. "There will be an ID card," she says. "From 2009 we will be introducing ID cards for UK citizens. From 2008 we will introduce what will effectively be an ID card for those who have been in the UK for more than six months."

Nor will liberals find comfort in Smith's approach to criminal justice policy. Despite record prison numbers and increasing disquiet over indeterminate sentences, "Putting more people in prison is not an end in itself, but it might be part of the solution to reducing overall levels of crime." We put to her Clarke's concerns about prison numbers. "He was right to be bothered, because the number of people you put in prison is a representation of the amount of crime you've got . . . but you can be bothered without then arguing that you should fundamentally change the nature of your sentencing, or that you should reject as wrong a decision you took previously on indeterminate sentencing."

Much has been made of Smith's calm approach to the failed terrorist attacks at Glasgow Airport and outside a London nightclub. We wonder whether she had deliberately avoided the emotive language of the "war on terror", concentrating on the criminal nature of terrorism. "It is a conscious approach," she says, "and it's a conscious approach that stems from the need to enlist the broadest possible coalition in order to tackle terrorism . . . So, yes, it's tone, but the tone is fundamentally linked to the approach you need to take to counter terror."

Asked what she thinks of the specific phrase "war on terror", she is again frank: "It is not one that I used. It seems to me that what we should be doing is emphasising the values that we share which are under attack from terrorism, rather than trying to create a battle or war between those who oppose the terror and those who want to carry it out."

Smith is a fierce advocate of Brown's "hearts and minds" approach to tackling the radicalisation of young Muslims. She also believes that Muslim communities have not been best served by their leaders. She backs moves, put in place by Ruth Kelly when she was communities secretary, to broaden the kinds of groups with which the government engages and cut out, for example, the Muslim Council of Britain. "We've got to make serious attempts to go beyond those who have previously been seen as leaders of the community. She was absolutely right to do that. We have seen, in the immediate aftermath of the Glasgow and London bombings, that the response from leaders of the community was better because of the action previously taken."

Jacqui Smith: the CV

l3 November 1962 Born in Malvern, Worcestershire, daughter of two teachers

1979 Joins Labour after local Tory MP, Sir Michael Spicer, speaks at her school

1981-84 Studies PPE at Hertford College, Oxford. Runs unsuccessfully for president of student union before being elected chair of National Association of Labour Students

1986 Starts career as an economics teacher

1997 Elected Labour MP for Redditch as "Blair babe"

2003 After stint as one of youngest ministers in DoH, is appointed deputy minister for women and equality, driving civil partnerships legislation

2005 As minister of state for schools, funds Lesbian and Gay History Month

May 2006 Joins cabinet as chief whip in Blair's fraught last reshuffle

January 2007 Brands Celebrity Big Brother producers "shameful" in racism row

28 June 2007 Selected by Gordon Brown as first female home secretary and second youngest since Winston Churchill

29 June 2007 Survives baptism of fire with failed car bombings in London and Glasgow

July 2007 Dubbed "Jacqui Spliff" after admitting to experimenting with cannabis at university

Research by Matthew Holehouse

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

21 comments from readers

mitchy
02 August 2007 at 13:13

ID cards wont stop terrorism, they have ID cards in Spain but that didnt stop the Madrid train bombings. Neither will ID cards prevent identity theft, if anything they will exacerbate the problem.

I for one will not be complying with compulsory ID cards - just watch me disobey!

talkingcats
02 August 2007 at 14:21

ID Cards will be Labour's Poll Tax. Like the Poll Tax, the project is driven by bug-eyed political dogma, uninformed by any justification that stands up to rigorous enquiry. When it all fails and is found to be unworkable we will ask the question 'why did so many Labourites become so committed and so passionate about a policy that never made any sense'.

gnuneo
02 August 2007 at 20:48

difference between ID cards and poll tax was that the poll tax was not seen as essential by our rulers to gain further control over political dissension by the people. The poll tax failed at every level - the ID card will only fail (be rejected/used against) the growing army of disenfranchised young and marginal peoples.

both tories and labour are pushing it, and no doubt ming would "see reason" even if he was elected specifically to prevent the ID card scheme. The only way to stop the ID card is by supporting brand new movements/parties, such as the greens managed to do across europe in the 80s. Now there is raised awareness of our common environment, perhaps we should create a party to raise awareness about common freedoms, especially social and political ones.

and perhaps before every citizen's location is known to the authorities at all times, from the RFID chip build onto the obligatory ID cards. Just a wild guess.

although perhaps its just paranoid fantasies, after all surely the best people to have in power over you are people dedicated to increasing that power over you, whilst starting meaningless and immoral wars through unapologetic bare-faced lieing, and then using the 'blow-back' to justify their taking even more powers over us all for themselves.

yes, i can certainly see the benefits to being ruled by such.

/sarcasm

It is often said that "history repeats itself" - i wouldn't be at all surprised to discover a few students of the 1930s period sitting on some of those 'think tanks' who come up with this cr*p.

as for this new home sec - seems her approach is "it hasn't worked, things are getting worse, lets continue course and speed up!", which will only accelerate the collapse of britain's society. Why is it so many political middle-weights look to america for inspiration on crime deterrents (because we ALL know how great the yanks are at such matters), instead of looking to countries whose criminal systems actually WORK!, like denmark, finland... is it because such evolutionary steps are beyond these mediocre power-seekers, who instead listen only to what 'dagenham man' is told to think and say by the murdock media empire? Perhaps more attention could be spend on 'motala man', who manages to spend less on prisons, crime and policing per head than we in the UK, yet has a society where little old ladies can walk down the street without being afraid.

...nah - far better to have national IDs, national databases, foreign wars, brutal and backward educational and 'corrective' (prisons) structures, and a cowardly home secretary that doesn't have the spine to actually study societies that work *better* than ours, and implement decent, humanistic, democratic and tolerant measures.

because by damn we're British - and that means we have to put up with second rate sound bite politicos more interested in their post-parliamentary careers than actually doing their jobs for the benefit of those living in our beautiful and magical isles. And we do it with stoicism.

Tea, anybody?

gnuneo
02 August 2007 at 21:11

[coughs]

although i do however support her initiative to involve muslim communities directly. Be useful if she actually had the power to stop the media moguls from spewing their hatred against this minority community, because gee - maybe that has an effect of radicalising the young?

of course, its been a long-time since any politicians had more power than the owners of the media empires that rule our airwaves, or any meaningful control over them, but its nice to dream that government is also over the powerful, as well as the majority.

still, even one good initiative from a new-labour home sec is so rare we should appreciate it - well done, Jaqui Smith, for this move.

i hope you manage to do some good with it before your other policies are such failures you're forced out.

and i sincerely mean that.

xx

sowhat
03 August 2007 at 18:00

When ID cards are introduced who do we think are most likely to asked to present their cards by police and security services? Looking at current stop and search figures under PACE and anti-terrorism powers it is obviously going to be young ethnic minorities, and in particular young Black and Asian men who will be stopped disproportionately. And it is easy to see how this could at best create hostility between these communities and the security services, and at worst play a part in radicalising more young UK citizens.

MarkBin
04 August 2007 at 02:45

gnuneo

You're quite incorrect to state that the Tories are with Labour on ID cards. Have a look at David Davis' website. I think you're one of a growing number of the left that opposes ID cards but not enough to hand an election victory to the Tories on this issue. Shame on you for being so disingenuous. As a socialist, I would vote Tory on this single issue. It's the greatest ever threat to British civil liberties and needs to be fought to the end.

sowhat
04 August 2007 at 10:46

I absolutely agree - ID cards and detention without charge/trial are two issues that would/will make me vote Tory for the first time ever.

gnuneo
04 August 2007 at 13:35

MarkBin: I would accept that shame you offer, except that there is a HUGE list of 'policy promises' that both labour and the tories ditch as soon as they get their grimy little paws on the actual power.

lets say i regard the ID card scheme with such loathing it seems natural the tories will bring it in anyway.

no, this is an issue i am convinced needs a new popular movement, even a new party, to fight against. Alongside Iraq/trident/treating children like criminals/lack of responsibility over the media/medieval electoral systems/growing wealth gap/and lack of serious, long-term plans to save our planetary environment.

there is barely a hair's breadth between the tories and new labour on these issues, and unless one of the parties can come up with a leader of the calibre of john smith or better, then i will not be voting for any of them ever again.

just to point out - the ID card scheme is based upon the realisation that a society that has a great and growing wealth gap will generate anger and hostility towards the 'withs', who will sleep much better in their mansions knowing everyones position is tagged at all times (those damnable dirty peasants!). Any party that is not committed to reducing the wealth gap will inevitably continue the ID card scheme, no matter what easy (and easily forgotten) pledges they make before people vote.

Graham Padgett
05 August 2007 at 18:30

You have it wrong. Jacqui was born in London. I saw her there when she was a baby. Just check with her father, my old university friend, Mike Smith.

Graham Padgett
05 August 2007 at 18:33

Despite what you and some other sources say, Jacqui was not born in Malvern but in London. My wife and I saw her there when she was a baby. Just check with her father, my old University of Nottingham friend, Mike Smith.

Admin
07 August 2007 at 13:07

From letters to the editor:

I note that Jacqui Smith doesn't think that muslim communities have been well served by their leaders. I'd go further. I don't think any community has been particularly well served by its political leaders in recent times with the exception of the Stop the War Coalition which has consistently opposed the illegal war in Iraq and attempted to stand up for decency and honesty in British politics. But I don't expect Ms Smith to agree, not even in a Brown administration

regards

Keith Flett

NJM
08 August 2007 at 06:21

The Stop The War Coalition 'standing up for decency and honesty' over the 'illegal war'?

Is this the same STWC that is led by Trotskyists, Leninists, pacifists and who say that Hadi Saleh was a 'quisling' and 'collaborator' and the IFTU is a 'fake' union?

“The StWC reaffirms its call for an end to the occupation, the return of all British troops in Iraq to this country and recognises once more the legitimacy of the struggle of Iraqis, by whatever means they find necessary, to secure such ends”.

How principled and decent for liberals, socialists and pacifists to take the side of the Baathist/Jihadist 'resistance' when they are killing Iraqi trade unionists, socialists, secularists, feminists and democrats.

But anything is better than Bush, right?

gnuneo
08 August 2007 at 10:16

so njm, do you also feel the same about the highly decorated General Rose?

http://www.mfaw.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=vie...

NJM
08 August 2007 at 14:12

Absolutely.

Whether he is 'highly decorated' or not is irrelevant.

This is the same Michael Rose who did so much to resist NATO's bombing of Serb positions in the wake of Sarajevo and Gorazde in 1994, which led to 7,000 Muslim males being slaughtered at Srebrenica in July 1995.

Calling Madhi Army killers, Al-Qaeda jihadists and former Baathists a 'resistance' is disgraceful - whether he's a General or not.

And his recent cretinous book which compares his 'freedom fighting insurgency' with the US revolutionaries of 1776 is moral equivalence at its most disgusting.

Muqtada al-Sadr ain't no George Washington, no matter what 'General' Rose, the STWC or Michael Moore say.

gnuneo
08 August 2007 at 22:46

i see. So anyone who opposes this continued human rights disaster, this catastrophe that is threatening to become a cultural holocaust, the brutal destruction of an entire society and culture purely for the enrichment of a few and the instigation of the PNAC insanity, anyone who opposes this are "Trotskyists, Leninists, pacifists", and/or "liberals, socialists and pacifists".

2 attacks on pacifists - not very keen on peace are you?

certainly not as keen as you are on ad hominem attacks, thats for sure.

so General Rose made a mistake that led to the deaths of 7000 people, you seem to be defending a mistake that has already cost well over 700,000 lives, with not only no end in sight but a constant threat of a regional conflagration that would cost untold millions to lose their lives.

oh, and your idea that all this is done merely by die-hard baathists, al qaeda, or the mahdi army, and there is *no* popular widespread resistance to the continued military occupation is either a blatant troll, or evidence of acute stupidity.

thankfully, it seems the British Military Command are neither trolls, nor actutely stupid, nor beleive that british lives should be thrown away enforcing this irremediably moronic and indefensible 'Imperial Adventure'.

the only pity is that they didn't have the balls to go public with this *before* this insanity took place.

NJM
09 August 2007 at 04:28

Oh my.....that was a bit of a Chomskyite rant.

First, I haven't made any 'ad-homenim' attacks. I've stated that the STWC policy on 'any means necessary resistance' is disgraceful and Mr Rose's book (and his previous actions) were disgraceful too.

Lindsey Geramn and her club are Trots and Leninists (except Gorgeous George who is a Stalinist). You apparently take thes idiots seriously, as you do with General Rose.

Secondly, no I don't particularly care for pacifists either. Their beliefs on war and peace are dangerous and infantile. The idea that there would be 'peace' in the world if pacificsts had their way is naive and ignorant nonsense.

Third, I haven't 'defended' the war. I was opposed from the start. I just don't care for so-called leftists or retired Generals who SUPPORT or DEFEND totalitarian mass murderers who kill their fellow muslims.

Fourth, the only democratic rebel army in Iraq is the Peshmerga - who fight on the Coalition's side. There is no 'popular' resistance army. That apparently cannot compute in Marxist minds who think Shiite militias, Baathists and Al-Qaeda are 'popular' anti-imperialist revolutionaries.

And last, the 'military occupation' is ratified by the democratically elected government, the Iraqi parliament and the UN. However imperfect and incompetent the Iraqi government is, they should be supported by democrats of all stripe - for or against the war. There are many Iraqi trade unions, organizations and civil society groups to show your solidarity with too.

But it's much easier to indulge in juvenile John Pilger style-rants about PNAC conspiracy theories, 'cultural holocausts' and 'imperialism'........isn't it?

gnuneo
10 August 2007 at 12:03

so you apparently believe that were the US invaded and occupied by KSA, the *only* people who would resist would be die-hard Republicans, regional militias, and international anti-Islamic terrorists? That these are the only groups who would oppose the destruction of America's infrastructure and the selling off of its assets to KSA multinationals?

Again, i can't tell if you are ingenious, disingenious, or just acutely stupid.

whichever, i shall not bother to continue communicating with you on this issue.

NJM
10 August 2007 at 12:46

Oh dear.....

You've just proved my point with your fallacious hypothetical scenario and vulgar misrepresentation of what the coalition is actually doing in Iraq.

And just as I predicted, you can't even NAME a 'resistance' group in Iraq which is committed to democracy, human rights and federalism. The only one is the Pershmerga which fights for the democratic government and has volunteered for the new Iraqi Army.

That's the problem with the far Left - crude and reductionist Marxist theories about 'resistance' and 'national liberation'. Anything which kills civilians and Americans is 'legitimate' - however fascistic and reactionary.

Stick with your 'acutely stupid' Socialist Worker, your 'disingenious' Chomsky and go back to sleep under your Che Guevara poster.

Good riddance 'comrade'.

Marshy
04 September 2007 at 19:57

I wish I could bring myself to vote Tory on ID cards - but I agree with the previous poster who said that despite David Davies' views - they would surely introduce them anyway.

They are a huge threat to this country and the civil liberties we hold and more - much more is needed in opposition to stop them being introduced!

Carl Jones
06 September 2007 at 22:23

Jacqui Smith is a sad joke. She is the least experienced person to hold her current position for, well ever..

Here is the telling quote from the article above; "I have taken the long trek along the corridor and looked at the whole row of home secretaries. I think its in order to inspire to demonstrate that you are moving through," she says.

Could you ever believe that an elected official feels like a small insignificant soon to be expelled b-iproduct of the NWO terror scam? It is rare for even competant ministes to truely grasp their department . Like the WMD dossier and the MI6 invented "Niger yellow cake scam, Jacqui Smith is lost in a web of NWO invented lies and agendas.

The popularity of ID cards has been massarged....I will never carry one, so no doubt prison awaits me.LOL

Its not the ID card which it the problem. In Fance they have ID, but the data is not stored. In the UK it will be stored forever. The ID card is supposed to save us from all NWO consructed ills, yet criminals have already said they will have fake ID cards within weeks of their launch.

As we get close to ID card introduction, the card aspect will become an option. The cheap option will be ID chips under the skin. There is no way of knowing the potential of these ID chips. Heart rate, BP, your sex life, your health, how much you drink, the legal and none legal drugs you take and the potential to track you 24/7/52 weeks of the year.

We know that most, if not all male judges are Freemasons. The other day a judge called for a total UK DNA data base and that all UK visitors also be added to this Big Brother register.

OK.....I`ll go for it Mr Judge....but lets make sure that every crime is DNA sampled n mater how minor...we know that minor criminals move on and up.....so whats the cost now Mr Judge? Well, I think you just doubled the cost of law and order...so heck Mr Judge, lets get it on....now that EVERYONE is on the DNA database and that every crime is DNA sampled....are you ready to build another 50 prisons...I mean, we the public expect VALUE FOR MONEY!!!!

1 in 3 men between the ages of 16 and 45 have a criminal record in the UK.....THIS is CURRENT, these are the ones who were cought. The outgoing head of the FSA said that the City of London was more or less awash with crooks. Will Jacqui Smith tackle these criminals?

I`m sure that poor Jacqui Smith will be the toy of manderin/SIS choice. This is a clear illustration that there is no such thing as democracy in Britain.

We are moving into a new dark age where humans will cease to think as free thinking spirits, but will consider their every action no matter how small....this is the NWO definition of freedom. Enjoy.

RossB
12 December 2007 at 16:31

Just to add myself to the list of people who will be criminalised by the ID card. I won't be answering the ludicrous intrusive questions for the Identity Register, and I won't carry the card. And I WON'T vote Labour unless they unreservedly throw this proposal out, along with detention without charge, forced extradition to the USA, and the many other affronts to our fundamental liberties that are being forced on us. They declare that terrorism will not change our way of life - and then implement draconian measures virtually the next day.

It is quite simply a disgrace. Those responsible should hang their heads in shame.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Would you feed GM foods to your children?