Dirty fast-tracker?

I guess there are some important questions at the heart of the Blunkett resignation -- eg: if you're performing competently at your job should you have to go because it turns out you're a bit of a dirty shagger* and you pulled a few strings?

But I find it hard to care. Because I don't like him. Good riddance. I didn't like Jack Straw either, and let's not even contemplate liking Michael Howard.

So I think a more interesting question is: is it possible to like a Home Secretary? If my mum was Home Secretary (for example), would I like her? Binge drinkers would be locked up, and those seeking UK citizenship would have to attend ceremonies swearing they would iron their pants.

As it stands, I can't see how it's a job that can bring out one's tolerant side. All you get to do is make rules that mean students will sit around smoking dope and calling you a fascist (this analysis might be expecting too much political awareness from students), and mean that Guardian readers, um, will sit around smoking dope and calling you a fascist.

And what sort of person does this job appeal to? An arrogant workaholic control freak. Is this the sort of man (I have just checked on the Home Office website and in 222 years there has not been a female Home Secretary) we want defining our liberty, in fact defining liberty full stop? I Don't Think So.

How do the Scandinavians do this? Surely there must be a liberal Home Secretary paradigm that we can tap into.

joella

*Strictly speaking, it's Mrs Quinn who is the dirty shagger of course, but the term can also occasionally be applied to those who conduct clandestine relationships with dirty shaggers.