More bad news for Jacqui Smith, now it turns out that Lord Falconer is against extending detention for terrorist suspects beyond 28 days, joining the DPP, the former Attorney General and apparently even the serving Law Officers in opposition to her proposals.
Especially surprising, this apparently late conversion to the liberal cause: look at this interview with Andrew Marr in 2005 for instance, in which Lord Falconer while in government gave a quite brilliant impression of a man fully and firmly behind extension to 90 days. Well, he can argue he was subject to collective responsibility at the time, of course. I won’t buy it, though. Lord Goldsmith too opposed the 90 day proposal, and just about stayed in government, as he recently told the Home Affairs select committee. But to be fair, I don’t remember him giving http://www.gooakley.com/ important interviews on the BBC in support of 90 days.
Lord Falconer’s political death-bed conversion and well-timed knife insertion is quite remarkable. On an entirely separate issue, has there been any progress in negotiations about his pension, I wonder?
If you’re interested in Lord Falconer’s broader views on terrorism, try reading his pretty vacuous speech at RUSI earlier this year.
“sighs” I despair; I was never a fan of Charlie when he was in office; he could never seem to make up his mind about ANYTHING, not even his role and the name of his department;is this latest turn around part of a concerted campaign to obtain a tenancy- well, I say tenancy, meaning some rediculously overpriced mediation/consultation service- at a decent liberal chambers!?!?!?!??!
Stick a fork in him as far as I’m concerned, he’s done.
I think he’s a bit of a shocker, too. Gave the impression in government that he’d say anything, and said it so often you got fed up of him. You’ll be too young for this comparison, Minx, but he was a Labour version of Brian Mawhinney, except he also larded a smug, well-fed complacency on top of it.
What I find so entertaining is that he’s prepared to argue any point of view with apparent vociferous conviction. Indeed, successive contradictory positions present no difficulties at all.
Still, perhaps that’s a mark of professional skill, if not moral or intellectual consistency.
Oh, absolutely any point of view, I agree. He seems to have seen politics as an extension of life at the Bar as far as that’s concerned. I think your words could be his political epitaph, actually:
“Professional skill, if not moral or intellectual consistency”.
He was Dome minister as well, let’s not forget.