Government ignorance

[peakpark]

I've been reading David Blunkett's recently published diaries (okay, no comments please along the lines of 'get a life' and 'I think you need to get out more'!)
Anyway here's a New Labour classic:

'At Cabinet, Jack Straw reported on the hunting issue, saying that we should be very careful not to over-commit ourselves to one solution because hunting on foot in the uplands was a different matter from hunting with dogs'

So, Jack Straw presumably thought no 'dogs' were used in foot packs.

Blunkett goes on:
"I said 'do you mean the John Peel amendment?' There was a murmur round the table and Tony [blair] said to Richard Wilson [Cabinet Secretary]: 'Does he mean the disc jockey?'

The horny Home Secretary mentions hunting quite a few times but his views seem ambivalent - I'm not sure what he really thinks.
I haven't got to where the action hots up in the covering yard, though I fear the steamier details may have been left out.

 

[AlanE]

What a lovely story! ..And what a bunch of no-hopers!

 

[loony_anti]

I like Blair's comment. Well done, Tony!

 

[peakpark]

Yes, it is very amusing - rather like when judges make comments during a trial such as "who or what, pray, are the Rolling Stones?" or "could someone please enlighten me as to what is an ipod?"

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I think the problem is that they really didn't know what they were banning. We've seen on this forum that people really don't have a clue what is legal and what isn't.

The police certainly don't.

Can I chase wild mammals, can I scent trail them, can I just let them go if I flush them out?

No one knows.

 

[Ereiam_jh]

I'm pretty sure he abstained.

No party leader voted for the Hunting Ban. The government didn't want it in its eventual form as they could see it was a badly thought out law.

 

[loony_anti]

Whatever you can say about Blair, he's not thick. It sounds like a joke to me.

 

[peakpark]

I don't think it was a joke. The passage continues,
'Everybody said, 'Nooooooo, he means "D'ye ken John Peel?". John Prescott said, "There is a generation gap here, I think.'

It's not a matter of Blair being thick - presumably those out of touch judges were intelligent - it's just an example of how remote he was from the subject he was planning to legislate on. As was Jack Straw, thinking that hill packs hunted without hounds.

 

[loony_anti]

I'm a vague anti, but even I admit the Hunting Act had little to do with hunting - in the sense that it was a bone to toss to Labour back benchers upset (rightly) over the Iraq War. I'd be genuinely surprised, though, if Blair didn't know who Peel was. Part of Blair's success stems from his downplaying his cleverness and knowledge (although he seems to have gone mad in recent years).

 

[peakpark]

"Part of Blair's success stems from his downplaying his cleverness and knowledge"


Yes, well maybe you're right though I must say in this case that hadn't occurred to me.
But what would be Blair's motive here for feigning ignorance?
Also, it seems a bit odd to put on an act even in a private Cabinet meeting, with his inner circle of trusted lieutenants.

 

[lucecaldicott]

"Part of Blair's success stems from his downplaying his cleverness and knowledge"

he did a damned good job i'd say! Who would have guessed it was an act?!


"although he seems to have gone mad in recent years"

now there, i agree with you.

 

[loony_anti]

You seem to have nothing constructive to add to the debate here.