Andy Burnham's incautious remark

In an interview tonight with the Culture Secretary by the Blairite Progress magazine, saying David Davis should pick up the tab for the by-election which he forced today. But this call has rather got lost in the turmoil being caused by this section from his speech:

But in the culture secretary’s book, there seems to be only one thing worse than Davis’ ‘posturing’ and ‘flouncing’ and that’s those who have fallen for it: ‘To people who get seduced by Tory talk of how liberal they are, I find something very curious in the man who was, and still is I believe, an exponent of capital punishment having late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti.’

To DD and Jeremy Hunt, this is nothing short of a smear. Government clearly worried since they've put out a corrective "It was a light-hearted comment ... nothing more should be read into it" comment. "They're playing the man not the ball again, big mistake" says a Tory source. How big will this go?

Comments

[Steve Garner]

Can't help feeling a bit envious of DD if he's had some heart melting moments with Shami Chakrabarty.

On a slightly more serious note I think Burnham's comments represent another example of Labour concentrating on tactics rather than substance. When will they learn?

[Chuck Unsworth]

So this 'Culture' 'Secretary' never has any 'late night' telephone conversations with members of the opposite sex, eh? I take it that he only has such 'discussions' with other chaps.

What does that tell us about the delightfully made-up Mr Burnham? I did wonder slightly at his appearance on Question Time a few weeks ago. Now all is revealed. Does he do 'hand-wringing' and 'heart melting' with these gentlemen callers? For that matter does he not 'posture' or 'flounce'?

My goodness.

[Dave B]

The Smear is one of New Labour preferred tools.

[Gary Pepworth]

Sorry but I can't see the smear. What I can see is that someone who may have been made responsible for internal security, is so ready to take the advice of someone who appears more concerned with the "rights" of the bombers than those of the bombed.

On her part she appears to have found a new best friend in someone who supports the death penalty and has consistenly voted in favour of bigotry.

They make very strange bedfellows and no, that is not another "smear".

[Watching Them, Watchig Us]

How exactly does Andy Burnham know if and when there are phone calls between David Davis and Shami Shami Chakrabarti ?

Is the Labour Government snooping on their phone calls ?

[Emma]

What a shock! Labour takes personal attack stance rather than address debate head on. Gutless government led by a Gutless pm.

[simon]

There is a pretty obvious tension between opposing 42 day detention but supporting capital punishment. I think that Labour is entitiled to point that out.

[Robert]

What is obvious the tension between capital punishment and 42 days detention?

When we had capital punishment we certainly didn't have 42 days detention.

I think this tension exists only in your mind Simon.

[David Boothroyd]

David Davis said he had told Shami Chakrabarti of his plans in a late-night phone call, and Shami Chakrabarti confirmed that he had; it seems Andy Burnham was just having a light-hearted joke about it.

Given the way Shami Chakrabarti brought in an entirely inappropriate comparison with the run-up to the liberation of Iraq, and the way David Davis has indulged in ludicrous rhetoric about "sustained assault on British liberty", neither is on firm ground in criticizing outspoken comments of others.

[Paddy]

There is no contradiction between supporting capital punishment and defending civil liberties.

The point is that there are many possible sentences for criminal behaviour, but they should be arrived at through a due process that includes our historical rights and respects them.

Many polls show a desire for capital punishment to be reinstated for the most severe crimes and in cases of no doubt about the defendant's guilt. Such an opinion does not mean that most people want suspension of people's rights without proof of guilt.

The prospect of the presumption of guilt and a suspension of habeus corpus should be surely much more distressing than someone's opinion that after full and due process an individual guilty of a 'capital' crime should be executed by the state.

[Bill Rees]

Chakrabarti deserves all she gets in crticism ,she is more interested in the liberty of criminals than the victims.She and Liberty punch well above their weight and the media give the organistion with only 3500 members to much coverage.

[John]

RE: tension between 42 days and capital punishment:

the argument against locking people up without charge for a significant period rests (for many people) on the fact that seeing as we presume people are innocent before charge, its wrong to lock up innocent people for a significant period. Why do we presume people are innocent before they have been charged? well one of the reasons is we don't believe that the police get it right all the time.

one argument against capital punishment (there are many!) says that even if a court has convicted someone, there's a possibility that a court could get it wrong and society would have murdered an innocent man.

This leaves you with a few possibilities:

1. You accept that there is always a possibility of doubt, and that therefore there is a possibility that the police and the courts can get it wrong, therefore you have a problem with 42 days and capital punishment.

2. You accept that courts and the police can get it wrong, but that the consequenes of locking up an innocent person for 42 days isn't that bad, compared with the alternative of not giving the police this option, and that the consequences of killing innocent people isn't that bad compared with the bennefits of having a death penalty in place.

3. Or you don't believe that the police or the courts could get it wrong.

4. You believe that the police can get it wrong but that courts never do. This is tricky because if the police can get it wrong and they have a key role in a court process, their falibility will introduce errors into the court process. Courts may of course still get it wrong less times than the police.

Hence the tension arises because if one of your arguments against 42 days is that you believe the police could get it wrong (which I'm sure DD has argued is case), therefore you then accept that the courts could get it wrong also, you would have reason to worry about capital punishment. Unless that is you feel that the bennefits of killing guilt people outweights the bennefits of killing innocent people.

I'm sure I could complicate matters more, but nevertheless it strikes me that there is a clear (enough) tension between the two issues which we could expect DD to address.

[David Richards]

The above, however, neglects the fact that when someone is imprisoned without charge, they haven't really been accused of a crime, much less convicted of one.

The burden of proof in the one case is much less than in the other. To equate the two is to confuse the issue. If the two are to be equated, why bother with trials at all?

[Eddie Carnihan]

Bill Rees is spot on with his comments on Liberty and Chakrabarti. Asked on Question Time what detention period she would support, she said none. If Libertys' agenda on human rights and it's impact on criminal law were implemented in the UK there would be absolute chaos. Chakrabarti gets a consistently easy ride from the BBC in particular, with her often eloquent, but fundamentally half baked ideas left unchallenged.

[john problem]

It's just good old knock-about political debate. That's what our leaders call it. It's good to know our Culture Minister is such a devotee of Punch and Judy. One suspects Prescott would have floored him One suspects the nation would have cheered..

[SH]

I recall DD saying quite clearly in a recent interview that "I like Shami Chakrabarti" - it struck me at the time as quite odd.

[Chuck Unsworth]

@ David Boothroyd

Andy Burnham is himself a 'light-hearted joke' of a Minister of State.

And 'the liberation of Iraq'? When did that happen? Was this when Bush postured in front of the cameras aboard an aircraft carrier miles away from the sharp end and declared 'Mission Accomplished'? What 'Mission' and what 'Accomplishment'?

Ludicrous rhetoric indeed.

[Paul]

Considering the money New Lab has spent on advisers, focus-groups and quangos, £80k for a bi-election to debate the erosion of civil liberties is cheap. Bring it on, DD.

[David H]

Nulabour are just a load of dumbed down idiots and 'Andy' Burnham's remarks just go to show how low this bunch of cretins will stoop. Brown and his motley crew are running scared...this is why they won't stand against DD. They clearly don't feel that they have an argument so they resort to cheap jibes.They are finished and they know it; they have been 'found out' and they no longer have the confidence or trust of the country. I see that they are even paying their lying propogandists to leave messages on this board trying to support this pathetic excuse for a politician - that's how desperate they are! I mean please, we are talking about a man (Burnham) who quite clearly overdid the mascara on Question Time and then tried to deny it....as if we are all idiots! (Whoops! now I'm making cheap jibes?!)

[Andrew]

I took this comment from Burnham to mean that not only did the Cabinet Minister have grounds to accuse both Davis and Shakrabati of conducting an affair but that he must have received such information from phone-tapping sources.

It is very disturbing that someone who is meant to be a Culture Secretary has defiled the status of his position but also caused immense offence to respective spouses and their friends. It is of course totally connected with his announcement that the government would not contest the Haltemprice bi-election. He was therefore speaking on behalf of the cabinet and with the personal authority of the prime minister.

What an absolute disgrace!

[Leigh boy]

Can't wait for any to open up on COngestion Charging in Manchester - its a shame it won't lose him his seat. Sadly most of the people in Leigh will back him blindy 'cos he wears a red rosette. Time for a change I feel - out with the mascara.....

[Cynical Voter]

"Burnham married Marie-France van Heel in 2000 after 11 years together,[5] and their son attended the wedding. "

Wikipedia says it all really

[Leigh boy]

Don't forget Burnham's wife appeared on Blind Date (while they were dating) and went out on a date with a Tory Marketeer.

The question out of this is what was he really trying to achieve with his comments?

Answers on a post card please.

[Richard Weatherill]

I can't get too excited over Burnham's remark about the phone calls between DD and Shami. It wasn't in particularly good taste, but they'd have done far better to laugh it off. (Surely they would want Burnham to have the freedom to make a fool of himself?)

What irritates me is his suggestion that DD should foot the bill for the by-election. After Burnham's government blew 2.7bn on a failed attempt to bribe the voters of Crewe & Nantwich, it rings a bit hollow.

[John]

re: David Richards

There's clearly lots of good reasons to have trials.

"The burden of proof in the one case is much less than in the other."

true. And hence the likelyhood of error is much less after trial than before. But that's not to say that there isn't a possibility of an error occuring and this is one reason why people who are uncomfortable with the death penalty find reason to be.

I'm not saying that in some way the two positions are mutually exclusive, what I am saying though is that it is wrong to deny that there is a case to answer here, which I believe was the original point made by simon.