David Blunkett reputedly went to the Home Office with the avowed intent to make his predecessor Jack Straw "look like a liberal".
This was a chilling prospect for British liberals who thought Mr Straw bore more than a passing resemblance to the last Tory occupant there, Michael "something of the night about him" Howard. They are now beginning to fear Mr Blunkett is in the process of proving true to his word.
After the American atrocities of September 11th there is a natural political sympathy for the Home Secretary as he seeks the balance between civil liberties and the protections citizens rightly expect. Among lawyers and civil libertarians, however, there is more than a suspicion that Mr Blunkett wears this burden relatively lightly.
At the Labour conference he displayed his impatience with judges and human rights lawyers, declaring: "We need to remember that it is justice we seek, not the primacy of jurisprudence."
Said to be privately scathing about jurisprudence and due process, this prompted one newspaper to wonder aloud if the Home Secretary actually believed in the rule of law.
Mr Blunkett has appeared more measured in the intervening weeks, acknowledging in the Commons on Monday the need to get anti-terrorist legislation right rather than quickly. However, the apprehension among civil liberties and human rights campaigners is again building as parliament awaits the detail of his proposed emergency Bills.
Two weeks ago they celebrated at least a temporary "victory" over the government on the issue of compulsory identity cards. Now the stage is set for a fresh fight over a proposed derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights which would see internment powers back on the statute book.
Mr Blunkett has conspicuously avoided the "I" word. But it is now clear that internment - or detention without trial, possibly for unlimited periods - would be the effective fate of asylum seekers believed to pose a terrorist threat whom the Home Secretary is unable to immediately deport, either because they faced torture or death or because there is no extradition treaty. There are, as yet, unanswered questions about the basis and quality of the evidence on which such executive decisions would be based, and why new legislation is required since existing asylum law excludes terrorists.
Mr Blunkett's confirmation that suspected terrorists fleeing to Britain will lose the right to seek judicial review of decisions taken in their case will also fuel anxieties about the implications for judicial review and due process of the proposed EU-wide fast-track extradition process.
As anthrax scares sweep Britain, and the threat of mass terrorism fills people with a sense of deep foreboding, Mr Blunkett can presently count on popular support for his view that terrorist suspects should not be able to shelter here under cover of court proceedings which can be strung-out over many years.
Mr Blunkett said he intended to extend bomb hoax laws to cover threats from bio-terrorism and anthrax scares. Individuals prosecuted under the new laws could face seven years in prison.
One recent opinion poll showed an astonishing level of support (90 per cent) for the use of internment to counter the terrorist threat. However, there is recognition, too, that legislation introduced to cope with a specific contingency can be left on the statute books and subsequently put to uses the legislators had not intended.
The actor and satirist Rowan Atkinson yesterday observed that Monty Python's Life of Brian could have fallen foul of such legislation as he voiced growing fears that comedians who lampoon religious views might also find themselves at the receiving end of Mr Blunkett's attention.