4 ms·

Thanks for this, really puts a relatable human swing on a politician most see as a cold hearted robot. I just hope the tory majority doesn't widen, and enable h

Thanks for this, really puts a relatable human swing on a politician most see as a cold hearted robot. I just hope the tory majority doesn't widen, and enable her to act even more freely.

xaa 9y ago
I can understand this, but there are plenty of police chiefs, district attorneys, federal prosecutors, and intelligence folks who later go into politics and don't become authoritarian. George H.W. Bush was Director of the CIA before becoming President, a job that would make anyone paranoid if anything would (perhaps a close equivalent to Home Secretary?). Yet he did not become excessively authoritarian. Since most politicians start out as lawyers, many will inevitably have exposure to crime. So I too appreciate the humanization of May but don't see it as an excuse for authoritarianism. In fact, these people more than any should know about the delicate balance between liberty and security.
- robin_reala 9y ago
  >Since most politicians start out as lawyers Do they? I guess you’re talking from a US point of view maybe.
  - jimnotgym 9y ago
    It used to be common in the UK. Now they are mostly career politicians
- Silhouette 9y ago
  I suspect the difference between a UK Home Secretary and many of the other roles involved in policing, security and the legal system is that the HS is probably only getting involved in the most serious cases, where there are already sufficient grounds for thinking someone is a very bad person to want to take things to a level that requires such high-level approval. If you're a lawyer who practices in court or a senior police officer overseeing a whole area, you see the bad people but you also see people getting found not guilty or people being arrested on suspicion but then released when the evidence points elsewhere. I claim no special knowledge of whatever sensitive matters the HS sees on a daily basis, but I'm guessing with the filtering that must surely happen before any particular individual comes to the Home Secretary's attention, they see a much higher ratio of actually very bad people to suspected very bad people than most. Just to be clear, I'm not defending May's policies as either HS or PM here. I think she demonstrates both a lack of technical knowledge and a biased perspective that make her very dangerous to the public good, and as such I believe she is not the right person to serve as PM. I just think that those flaws are somewhat understandable and probably something that would affect any human being who had served in her former post for as long as she did, unless perhaps they came from a background particularly relevant to these kinds of issues. The real problem may be expecting any single individual to do what is currently required of a Home Secretary for an extended period, certainly without some sort of mandatory recovery period after they leave the post before they take any other high-level position within the government.

Thanks for this, really puts a relatable human swing on a politician most see as a cold hearted robot. I just hope the tory majority doesn't widen, and enable her to act even more freely.

xaa 9y ago

I can understand this, but there are plenty of police chiefs, district attorneys, federal prosecutors, and intelligence folks who later go into politics and don't become authoritarian. George H.W. Bush was Director of the CIA before becoming President, a job that would make anyone paranoid if anything would (perhaps a close equivalent to Home Secretary?). Yet he did not become excessively authoritarian. Since most politicians start out as lawyers, many will inevitably have exposure to crime. So I too appreciate the humanization of May but don't see it as an excuse for authoritarianism. In fact, these people more than any should know about the delicate balance between liberty and security.

robin_reala 9y ago
>Since most politicians start out as lawyers Do they? I guess you’re talking from a US point of view maybe.
- jimnotgym 9y ago
  It used to be common in the UK. Now they are mostly career politicians
Silhouette 9y ago
I suspect the difference between a UK Home Secretary and many of the other roles involved in policing, security and the legal system is that the HS is probably only getting involved in the most serious cases, where there are already sufficient grounds for thinking someone is a very bad person to want to take things to a level that requires such high-level approval. If you're a lawyer who practices in court or a senior police officer overseeing a whole area, you see the bad people but you also see people getting found not guilty or people being arrested on suspicion but then released when the evidence points elsewhere. I claim no special knowledge of whatever sensitive matters the HS sees on a daily basis, but I'm guessing with the filtering that must surely happen before any particular individual comes to the Home Secretary's attention, they see a much higher ratio of actually very bad people to suspected very bad people than most. Just to be clear, I'm not defending May's policies as either HS or PM here. I think she demonstrates both a lack of technical knowledge and a biased perspective that make her very dangerous to the public good, and as such I believe she is not the right person to serve as PM. I just think that those flaws are somewhat understandable and probably something that would affect any human being who had served in her former post for as long as she did, unless perhaps they came from a background particularly relevant to these kinds of issues. The real problem may be expecting any single individual to do what is currently required of a Home Secretary for an extended period, certainly without some sort of mandatory recovery period after they leave the post before they take any other high-level position within the government.