You know, I think the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is turning into our very own Donald Rumsfeld.
After the previous entertainments caused by her rather odd pair of views (here and here) on walking and the little problem over the timing of her kebab purchases, we had this morning something right up there in the Mr Rumsfeld class.
On being challenged on the Today program that she was wanting to introduce detention without charge for 42 days only in order to cover hypothetical situations (rather than to deal with any current problem), she retorted:
It won’t be hypothetical if and when it occurs. We are not legislating now on the basis that we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing it in now for something that might happen in the future; we are bringing in a position for if it becomes unhypothetical. If, unfortunately I and many other experts are right and we do need it in the future it is in place. (Transcript courtesy of Benedict Brogan)
As Paul Walter points out:
You could say that about any hypothetical situation, for example:
Minister: We have to legislate in case the Earth turns into cheese.
Interviewer: But that’s a hypothetical situation.
Minister: But it won’t be hypothetical if and when it happens.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Pontywood
DCMS logs off X: a second Whitehall exit
Ian Holm as Richard III in the BBC's Wars of the Roses from 1965
Steve Trevethan
David S
Jeff
Francis Chubb
6 Comments
At least Rumsfeld’s ‘unknown unknowns’ actually makes sense and is an important point when dealing with any political problem.
Jaqui Smith just makes no sense. She contradicts herself by agreeing something is hypothetical, yet then states that it will happen, in which case it is not hypothetical (its a known known, not a known unknown 😉 )
The intellectual somersaults in those meagre 50 words or so are just astounding. Surely the Home Secretary is a contender for the Beijing Olympics.
That is a hilarious quote. I think someone ought to go around to the home office with a dictionary and explain the meaning of hypothetical to her
What a feeble argument! It could be used to justify absolutely anything. And any piece of legislation no matter how insane
This is definitely a candidate for one of those ‘Foot in Mouth’ awards…
Truly surreal…
Politicians are normally trained NEVER to comment on any hypothetical situations, so for our Jax to make it a policy strategy does rather beggar belief…
Still, I’m sure she knows what she’s doing..