Quizzing the home secretary
| 09:36 UK time, Friday, 23 January 2009
Newsbeat and 1Xtra listeners have been putting the home secretary on the spot. We broadcast an interview with Jacqui Smith on the day the new crime figures came out - and not surprisingly for our young audience knife crime and cannabis were the big issues.
We asked five of our listeners to do the inquisition. We find this gets a very different and often more stimulating response than the journalist v politician style favoured elsewhere on BBC News.
Did she do well - or not? You can judge for yourselves by watching the video - and I'd love to hear your views:
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The five Newsbeat and 1Xtra listeners spent more than 40 minutes grilling her. Afterwards, most of them said they were disappointed by the way she dealt with their concerns.
"I expected a text-book answer," said James Kennedy, a 28-year-old highways worker from Leicestershire, "and that's exactly what I got. She treated us as if our opinions didn't count."
Mechanic Adam Richardson, 27, from Bury St Edmunds, said, "She didn't give a straight answer. She isn't someone I'd go for a drink down the pub with."
Young mum Jodie from Crawley was also frustrated, saying, "She just sat there gabbing on. By the time she'd finished, you'd forgot what she said because it wasn't directed at the questions that were asked."
Jodie explained to the home secretary that she's frightened, because her younger brother goes out on the streets at night with a knife in his pocket. She said he carries a blade to protect himself.
And it's this point that was picked up by listeners to 1Xtra. Some echoed comments made by a contributor to Panorama's investigation into knife crime that there's a perception that jail terms for carrying blades are seldom enforced - and even if they are, time behind bars is preferable to being unarmed on dangerous streets.
Of those who contacted 1Xtra News afterwards, 80% were in favour of legalising cannabis. The argument that strong weed, such as skunk, is contributing to mental health problems was raised by the home secretary, who admitted she "didn't know" whether cannabis was more or less dangerous than alcohol. Radio 1's listeners couldn't agree on that either:
Adam said: "I've been in trouble for getting in a fight when I was drunk. If I'd had a smoke, I would have avoided it. I've seen so many people become aggressive on alcohol." An anonymous texter replied: "I go out drinking in London every weekend and have never had a fight. I've seen much more damage done with people smoking weed. The mental health effects are massive also the fact that cannabis sales go towards much worse things."
Adrian Luke, a 25-year-old from Bedford, told the home secretary that he needs to get a job or he risks going back to his old life of selling crack on the streets. He says he's spent 18 months in prison, and now he wants to stay straight. But he told Jacqui Smith, "I need to support myself and my kids and my family. I'm very tempted to go back to doing what I was doing before".
"I'm sympathetic to you, Adrian," she told him, "because it sounds like you're really trying hard."
Rod McKenzie is editor of Newsbeat and 1Xtra News.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~28~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Good programme Rod.
Regarding disapointment of some of your contributors.
Is this an issue of unrealistic expectations?
It's not realistic that because a couple of drug users and the sister of a knife carrying criminal want a change in the law the home secretary is suddenly going to change her policy on the spot.
To avoid disapointment, could they be warned of this next time and then come into the project with a more realistic expectation?
How about the format - is asking a cynical, professional politician (who happens to be home secretary this week) questions the best approach? Even professional interviewers like Paxman struggle to get a straight answer out of them. How about letting her give a comment on topic X - raised by you - then letting the real people have their come back?
Complain about this comment
I know this is a poor thing to say but I agree with jon112uk - What did people expect? Polititians do not answer questions - And this woman is about the worse of the bunch - I have never heard her give a straight answer or listen to a damn thing anyone in the electorate says.
She like Brown does not care less what people think at all - Well its not election time is it...
Complain about this comment
Although #1 and #2 both state the obvious there is a deeply disturbing aftertaste to their comments. The fact is that Ms Smith can get away with whatever she likes (no matter how the interrogation is done or who does it) as long as she says nothing. It is the politicians trump card in a game which is rigged from the start.
What expectations were being dashed? That she would listen and participate? That she would play the game and exit? If the former (which seems the most likely) then she failed and it would be appropriate for someone to support the questioner to at least put her on the spot - unceremoniously. "You are not answering the question, Ms Smith. What are you doing here if you are not prepared to answer people's questions?" etc etc.
We allow our politicians far too much latitude in the aftermath of public debates. There is seldom follow up unless it can contribute to selling paper or air space. These people contributed which is more than can be said for Ms Smith.
Complain about this comment
Is this the same Jacqui who mindlessly plugged ID cards, DNA database for innocent people arrested, and classified a natural herb as B -> C -> B
Has she gone yet?
Complain about this comment
Given the setting, Jacqui Smith had a great opportunity to listen to the views and concerns of some of the young(ish) public, and to talk things over with them.
Instead they got a lesson in pre-prepared buzzword speeches with no real answers attached. This, and politicians talking over the top of people debating with them really annoys me.
The public aren't bothered about statistics and how they prove NuLabour is better than the previous government. Any student of statistics knows you can argue any point you want with them (you can prove any argument with statistics).
The public want someone to listen, act, and discuss their concerns with them.
Politicians are servants of the people, and they should recognise that they are there to act on the concerns and ideas of them, not on their own agenda.
Smith is hopelessly out of touch with both the Public and with reality, and she is well past her sell-by date.
She seems out of touch with society, both in a social and technological sense (how I laughed when I heard that the ID card database would be secure because it wouldn't be connected to the internet!)
Thats what you get when you put career politicians in charge, instead of those who have been out and worked, had a job, family, home, understand the fears of others, and have some life experience.
Smith is only interested in furthering her own career, nothing more. Thats why I won't be voting for her or her party at the next election.
Complain about this comment
The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers were quizzed
http://www.freaknet.org.uk/pages01/p02/gl01.html
Free Whelin' Franlkin advises about Times with no money
http://www.freaknet.org.uk/pages01/p02/gl05.html
Complain about this comment
#4. Unfortunately not. They still wheel her out surely in the knowledge she'll never answer a question directly, merely trot out some down-talking, patronising rehearsed phrase, repeating it ad naus (and I'm nauseated by her most of the time) in a kind of robotic way.
She doesn't connect. She and Brown have stripped me of the last of my trust in politics (not that they had much to strip). She plods on in her obstinate way making it clear to all but the most naive, surely, that she's either hiding a truth or unable to support her position and policies. She will not listen, never will (certainly not to reason) and the less I see of her the better. She has no personality to which I can relate. But she does succeed...without her I'd have to find someone else to get annoyed with!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I predict a brain-drain to jamaica
Complain about this comment
Jacqui Smith is not out of touch with the ordinary person - she was never in touch with them. She is just one of a number of "new wave" New Labour brothers and sisters who are not up to the standard we should expect.
These people negotiate the party machine by stating what other people want them to say. The first training course is "how to be a convincing liar" followed by "how to say a lot without saying anything at all". Once those have been negotiated the memory course helps them to store the meaningless dribble of statistics which will come in handy when the audience gets out of line. And the "what your opponent has in their cupboard" course is a great weapon for putting fear into your electorate in case they are thinking about getting rid of you. And of former colleagues who join the media in an attempt to expose the fiasco of government there is the "how to stitch up nosy people" course with its accompanying "idiots in the media you can trust" directory. And if things get really out of hand there is the "judges you can trust" handbook.
New Labour have redefined our political base by taking hold of Thatcher's master-plan and tinkering with it mercilessly until it is full of glossy white paper that catches the light and does absolutely nothing else because no BBC journalist is ever going to ask if they can read it.
Complain about this comment
Ms Smith never answers questions they all have spin doctors and so they can not answer a question with an answer it endless in fighting about them and their party we have a group of people who really believe now they have the job of PMs which is a good job to have after all you look at the likes of Lord Mandleson and Brown and Blair money by the shed load for messing up who does not want a job like that and get husband and kids on the pay role as well. Wonderful job, so they will cling to it as she will never get anywhere else but the voice piece for Brown. If you are getting paid for pushing the ideas of some lobbyist through and getting paid for it,.
Brown sees in black and white because of his nature but Ms Smith is typical of the the company woman. There is a list of them Purnell,Flint, Burham,A Murry, and J Smith they are there to fill their boots, like Mcnulty, Ed Balls and his wife Mrs Balls she is another who is like the nodding dog. They are all good at the mantra of never answer your question leant of Blear, and Hewitt e, and Harman its about being a PM for life and getting paid for old rope. Nothing has changed in this country till we are a Republic.
Complain about this comment
I agree with most comments.Ms Smith has to my knowledge never answered a question with yes or no.How this woman managed to attain to the position of Home Secretary is beyond me.In charge of the Police,Home security,Identity cards, FRIGHTENTING.
Complain about this comment
Did she do well?
I think I'll answer that in a manner similar to that used by many in parliament, with another question.
Do any of them do well?
I wonder what happened Britain - something to do with a lack of real leadership I think. As a nation we are manipulated, not motivated. Whatever happened to pride? Pride in Britain, the pride to be gained from doing a good job - many these days just couldn't care less.
Of course, it goes without saying that it's difficult to have pride in anything while government and those working for it (and us!) are pouring public money down the drain.
I wonder, if The Home Secretary might care to comment on the total cost of the "investigation" into the death of Christopher Alder while in police custody?
Perhaps she might also care to comment on my views of it and of the report produced by the "Independant" Police Complaints Commission as being a whitewash and, a
national disgrace!
Complain about this comment
Jodie's comment that her brother FEELS safer with a knife was met with the idiotic statement that he's wrong.
People's feelings are not wrong - they simply are. Why he feels safer is another kettle of fish and one that politicians SHOULD be trying to understand not dismiss - after all how do you solve a problem if you don't understand it?
Complain about this comment
Thought I should add a little more information to my earlier comments #13.
When Christopher Alder died in police custody in 1998 Jack Straw was I believe, The Home Secretary, and he's now The Justice Secretary. I think that at the time the "Independant" Police Complaints Commission released their 400+ page report the Home Secretary may have been John Reid (2006).
I wonder how many of those we elect AND TRUST have even bothered to read that report which must have cost a great deal to produce. Add to that the costs of the actual "investigations" (a joke, surely!) and the total must be significant.
I know the present Home Secretary only became an MP in 1997 (one of the so-called 'Blair Babes') and that she did not become holder of that post until 2007. She has however advocated strongly authoritarian policies since taking up that post and has been a member of the privy council since 2003.
I wonder if I will be able to get straight answers to straight questions? Only time will tell but very long experience of dealing with government, it's departments and so-called public servants would seem to indicate that it is most unlikely.
Complain about this comment
Please can we storm the gates and change ALL of the houses of parliament.
Complain about this comment
the woman is completely out of touch and unwilling to listen
she is the embodiment of this government, just look at the cannabis argument - their actions are against (their own) medical advisory board and the public, based on false logic
awful, awful woman
Complain about this comment
What a tangled web they weave when first they set out to deceive.
And they certainly do, download a copy of the "investigation" here:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0506/hc09/0971/0971_i.pdf
It's a very tangled web indeed.
Now for the BIG question: Can we trust those we elect to represent us, are they all brain dead, just a few sandwiches short of a picnic or, are they protecting their own reputations, jobs, pay, perks & pensions etc?
Yes, I'm talking once again about the death of a former British soldier in police custody, the death of Christopher Alder.
Complain about this comment
And here's more added to my previous comment, #18.
The document referred to above should be made compulsory bedtime reading material for EVERY 'representative' of the public (MP).
Why, even the occupants of the Lords might find it revealling, just as revealling as I have.
Once again we have something which should raise questions about the holders of high 'public office', and their fitness to hold them.
Complain about this comment
I always find it difficult to understand what exactly people expect from these sorts of broadcasts.
1) She's a professional politician, a salesman in affect. A salesman is never going to give an impartial, non-biased account of everything; if she did then she really wouldn't be a very good salesmen or politician!
This is a fundamental flaw in our political system, blaming individuals is utterly pointless (if they stop giving 'salesman' answers then they'll soon get unelected in favour of someone who is happy to gloss over the negative).
2) A question is a request for information. However, rather than making requests for information most 'questions' on these sorts of programs are usually just statements dressed up as questions. The person asking the question actually just wants his opinion on some matter heard rather than actually requesting information - which most of the time is far more readily available through other sources anyway.
The only viable conclusion is that the purpose of these 'Question Time' type programs is to be entertaining (i.e. keeping the attention of the listener/viewer) rather than informative. Entertainment is based on conflict (not necessarily violent conflict) and whilst being informative is boring; conflict is entertaining.
If you want to go for purely informative (without dumbing down in the name of entertainment), you have to listen/watch Radio 4 or BBC 4 in the evenings and watch. Unsurprisingly, shows on these channels get relatively few listeners and have far higher drop-off rates due to the fact that they aren't entertaining enough.
This brings me back to my original point of just how pointless such 'radio/TV debates' are, beyond providing entertainment for listeners/viewers and ratings for broadcasters.
Complain about this comment
Did she do well?
What are you on?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS