Potential rebels with a cause

"A principled leader who took a stand".

Hardly, if he has to hatch all sorts of side deals with his own parliamentary party to get their votes. Looks more like further evidence of a malignant weakness in his leadership.

Tonight's vote take me back to the dying days of the Callaghan Government - deals with the Unionists and Ambulances driving into Palace Yard to have their occupants verified by the Whips. Are we in the dying days of this Government or at the very least this Prime Minister? I think so. Even if Brown scrapes tonights vote - which I think he will - he is entering the last chapter of his Premiership. How foolish to stake so much on this vote and whatever we personally think of McNulty and Smith they are being courageous and principled to take this measure through the House - which deep down they oppose - in order to save their master's skin.

Comes as no surprise that Ann Widdecombe is set to vote with the Government. Anyone who presided over the hand-cuffing of pregnant women prisoners is not going to worry about banging up someone for a few weeks without evidence!

How tragic our 'democracy' has come to this. It makes me sick to see this issue being used for political gain, and Mr Brown should be ashamed of himself. Far from not being a ditherer, he is so far removed from reality he cannot see that not even the police nor Mi5 want this legislation. Therefore who is it for?
Nick - please do not speak of a recovery for Brown after this because it is just not going to happen. The PM is finished politically as is Labour. The sooner they realise the game is up, the better for the country

Why Brown thinks that begging and bribing MPs to support this appalling measure, which has pretty well no chance of becoming law and even if it does will be repealed by the next government, makes him look stong or principled is beyond me. Everyone knows he is doing it to "look strong". It's like the 20p basic rate all over again.

What a load of rubbish this is turning out to be.

If GB is having to promise to oppose sanctions or give compensation, rather than trying to win people over with a reasoned argument, surely that just shows how fundamentaly flawed his arguments are.

I'm sure that any law can be passed if enough people are bought off, in the end its all just going to come down to how much it's going to cost.

Three chears for democracy

Fantastic… My right not to be held without charge, enshrined in law since 1215 is about to eroded by a bunch of fickle MPs who can be persuaded with by a quick chat with the PM. Such a principled bunch.

Everyone with a real insight into the benefits of extended detention dont want it or fail to see any benefit. Never the less the PM wants it. Thats this PMs version of listening and leading for you.

I cant remember the ins and out of parlimentary procedure, but doesnt this then have to go to the Lords and back three times?

I presume the Lords will bounce it back quicker than you can say "bogus national security reasons" and then what, we'll have another commons debate, more concessions etc etc?

All this political horse trading by rebal MP's is rather sickening, selling your vote for some other reason is rather pathetic, by all means vote if you have been promised some revisions to the bill that saite your concience, but to be bought out with promises for stuff that is completely unrelated is dishonest. Why not just ask for big handouts of cash.

The government will squeak this through and claim it as a great victory, whereas all it is is a defeat for common sense and principles.

God i'm in a cyncial/bitter mood today.

The problem with spinning was always going to be that in the end nobody believes you. Labour have spun so much that when Brown does take a principled stand nobody is going to believe him.

On 42 days, and I believe this is pseudo McCarthyism where genuine anti-terror concerns are cynically harnessed for political expediency. The cost is to the nation is civil liberties and that cost could be great down the line, probably won't be but ..

But Brown must know if there is a victory it won't spark any honeymoon period. The hounds can smell the blood in the electorate. The next election will be fought in the shadow of the 2010 Scottish referendum. At present he is a Scot nose-diving in the polls. His own party aren't quite circling around him but he must be pausing to make appointments after the Party conference.

He's like a man standing in front of a breaking dam trying to hold back the water with his hands.

If he loses will he make the conference?

I would like to know why 42 days is required, why not 43,44,45...100 etc.
If the evidence is not there why detain someone until the State decides otherwise. Big Brother is here and will not be defeated easily.

I think I know the answer but I just want to ask the question out loud.

Why do these things always get reduced to a sort of part-political plebiscite, rather than a vote on the issue in question?

I'm fairly certain many a bad idea has made it onto the statue book in this manner.

I don't hold out much hope for the labour rebels tonight: they've caved in just about every other time.

Isn't politics funny, both parties are less interested in whether 42 days is the right thing to do to help fight terrorism than looking to the implications of the result for their party's fortunes. I think the whole 'political stakes' issue has been over-hyped, by the BBC in particular. Why can't you simply report the substance of the 42 days debate, the key points made by each side, and inform the public of the outcome. It seems that analysis and reporting of the political repercussions of a lost or won vote is more important than the issue being debated.

Here's a question for Cameron.

If he's so opposed to 42 day detention, then will he pledge to scrap when he comes to power?

Well at least Tony Blair had a good set of innings before he was starting to lose important ballots!

I feel a song coming on,

And now, the end is near; And so I face the final curtain. My friend, Ill say it clear, Ill state my case, of which Im certain. Ive lived a life thats full of dithering and back peddling.Ive traveled each and evry highway in search of supporters;
And more, much more than this,
I did it my way.

garethm - Davies sort of did, but then again it was put in legalise which translate to - probably but then again probably not

Well, there you go. The Prime Minister loves everyone. Now, run along and don't choke on your sweets.

In the future this will be seen as one of those defining moments of the New Labour administration. An administraion desperate to secure it's legislation by any means possible

#7 Yes it does have to go to the Lords, but not right now. According to one UK newspaper they plan to delay that till the end of the year - in the hope that "things can only get better" perhaps?

Re this being a good time to make demands, I wonder how many Manchester MPs formed a queue to ask for their recent multi-billion pound tax handout (sorry, congestion charging proposal). Not that there is any suggestion this was compensation for loss of their supercasino, of course...

Remember, when this kind of legislation gets on the books it tend to get used for purposes other than that for that it was intended. Councils use snooping laws for petty things and the USA can seemingly extradite anyone from the UK it wishes for any reason (of course we can't do the same with their citizens).

Mybe GB should change his name to BB and be done with it!

You must all rest your fears - I have a plan to alleviate all your concerns. Once the 'imbecilic' fools who run our country agree to the 'compensation plan' - which they will have to in order to get this 'rushed and badly thught out' legislation through - I will simply quit my position at work and start creating websites which encourage the instigation of terrorist acts. I think I'll start with the Jihad against 'expenses thieves' - then when MI5 pound my door down and arrest me, lock me up for 42 days, before discovering it was all a fake and there are no terrorists - I shall make my huge claim for damages (I heard up to £3k per day). As soon as I'm out I'll create another organisation and round we go again. Sure, I risk that I might be 'waterboarded' but as my government has assured us all that it doesn't torture suspects, I'm sure I will be OK.
If there is anyone out there who wishes to join me - please get in touch - remember it only takes 2 people to create a conspiracy.
With bad governments making bad laws like this - who needs terrorists to instill fear in society and 'restrict the freedom that democracy fights so hard for'.

Hold on. The PM sees a victory in the lobbies on 42 days as "...the first symptom in the story of his recovery"? Does he REALLY believe that will happen even if he wins?

The PM must understand that he is now widely regarded as a figure of fun, inept and lacking in focus. Even those well disposed to Labour, as well as those suspicious of a mild mannered Tory party, still believe that Brown is not PM material.

He may huff and puff and throw tantrums in Cabinet, but that is not a sign of strong leadership. It is a sign of childish, cringe-making, debilitating weakness. This man should take stock of his life's ambition, realise he took the wrong path, and leave office. He can't engage with others, can't bear to work collaboratively, and has the suspicious streak of a Borgia.

Whether he loses the vote or scrapes home will do nothing to change those perceptions in the country.

I wonder if any will have the front to ask if the PM will invade Zimbabwe and enforce a regime change in exchange for a stroll through the aye lobby. There's a clearer case for that than the Iraq debacle.

#9 jcarter69

I agree, its arbitrary and wrong!

Its revealing that we are already holding people for much longer than anybody else in the world, I believe.

To save time for the Labour Party workers its something like USA 8 days, Italy 4 days etc etc.

When Milliband cited Italy on Question Time last week he must have known that he was factually incorrect. He would have had briefings provided by lawyers.

Sexed up dossiers, "we may have misled...." etc.

And when this, ahem, government drags and scrapes this bottom of the barrel legislation through, it will crow loudly and proudly about how strong and wonderful democracy in Britain is.
And, as on so many things, it will be wrong. This isn't democracy, it's kakistocracy!

@19 - they'll get you for wasting police time

Brown is so far removed from the people of this country he may as well be known as The Man On The Moon.

He sees all of us through the wrong end of a telescope. The results are showing themselves to be catastrophic.

Gordon Brown doesn't seem to realise how unedifying a spectacle his last-minute pork barrelling is to us all. It is nauseating his unctuous, obsequious grovelling to the small, charming group of Ulster unionist MPs. Thank goodness for the Lords. They will bat this back and forth in defence of our habeas corpus rights and one night of embarrassment for Brown, will instead become months of painful headlines.

On a different tack, in justification, Brown says that this policy is very popular with the public. So is capital punishment, but he has no plans to lay its reintroduction before parliament.

Weak governments are very expensive for tax payers.

Until our Caretaker-Prime Minister secures an authentic mandate, we are going to keep seeing this expensive horse trading to secure legislation.

Also 42 days feels like a weak government trying to appear strong. I expect to see much more removal of civil liberties until the next general election - it is far easier for the PM to appear strong by spreading fear about certain subjects and then announcing tough sounding policies (which removes civil liberties) than it is to fix genuine issues such as schools, hospitals, the economy and the NHS.

Above all I hope that defence cut backs are not being used to to channel much needed funds away from the over stretched armed forces towards a 'bribes for votes' model.

Sadly number 19 beat me to it. We are talking here about suicide bombers. However, can we please find an alternative term to be applied. They are not 'suicide' bombers. They are human bombs. I want to see some alternatives.
If we accept that suicide bombers are to be feared then what does this say about soldiers who partake of a mission which is doomed to failure and results in their death. Surely, there is a serious problem. Soldiers who went over the top in WWI to certain death were effectively committing suicide. At least it could be said that the suicide bomber takes somebody with them. If you are taking on an enemy who has technological advantages and they have invaded your country under false pretences then you have to defend your country in the best way possible. Would the older generation have just accepted a german invasion in 1940 which resulted in the defeat of this country. Would they have taken on impossible missions to defeat the invader.
The whole problem returns to our illegal invasion of Iraq. I know terrorism predated the attack on Iraq but we have opened Pandorras box.
As for Afghanistan, and I have to ask where is Bin Laden, could somebody explain why to my knowledge twelve Pakistani soldiers have been killed in Pakistan by US bombers. Where will this end. We are the terrorists, we are the invaders, we are the killers. Accept the truth, smell the fear.

It makes me sad and disillusioned that such a fundamental issue of human rights and, arguably, national security, becomes reduced to simple party politics.

It seems to me that if you want to get ahead in politics then you vote with the party - regardless of compromising your own principles or those of your constituents.

Therefore, unless throughout a politicians entire career an MP never partakes in a party political vote on an issue on which they have grave reservations about following party-line (unlikely I should suspect), it subsequently transpires that our nation's leaders must be unnacountable and unprincipled ego-driven persons who vote contrary to their very own principles as well as those of their constituents.

And these are our leaders....

First, I wish MPs would stop referring to carers as heroes.
But my point is that, and I don't think I am being melodramatic, but if you listened to the arguments put forward by David Cameron, and I am no supporter of him or his party, then I actually had tears in my eyes. MPs who vote in favour of 42 days are just so wrong. The terrorists have won if this legislation goes through.
How has this come to pass when we didn't have this legislation during the Irish problem. Where was the anti-Catholic legislation. I think that this is not anti-Moslem, this is is actually about Pakistan and Pakistanis' living in this country. I am beginning to hate this parliament with a vengence.
Brown is shameful with his resort to school-boy debate. I know I can be accused in a similar way but I am not the Prime Minister!

My problem with the vote is that the prime minister is using important national security legislation as a political tool. This is a dangerous road to follow as it immediatly marks out those implementing the policy as part of some political conspiracy. Much like the armed forces who have suffered from association with a flawed political decision to invade Iraq the security services and police could now lose a lot of public goodwill. I agree with a lot of opinion that the legislation could be misused, we can already see how officialdom hides behind the screen of anti terror legislation. This all smacks of something desperate like the Patriot Act.

#9 jcarter69:
"I would like to know why 42 days is required, why not 43,44,45...100 etc."

I was wondering the same but then remembered that 42 is "The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything".

Seems to indicate the governments desperation to rely on fiction - or there again perhaps Douglas Adams got it right.

@24 - Unfortunately the charge of wasting police time only covers instances when you file a false report, knowing lie to the police, or pretend to kidnap your own child for the 'publicity'. In my case I will not be instructing the police - they will do that all by themselves. Ergo, the only people who can be charged with wasting police time - is the police, and I'm afraid that will never happen.
I may have been flippant in what I said, but there is a serious point here. You put in a FOI disclosure in about 5 years time and see how much compensation has been paid out. It's just another elaborate way of wasting money.
This government is so dumb it doesn't realise that when a terrorism case fails in the courts - due to lack of evidence (as they often do) the compensation paid could potentially head straight for the terrorists themselves - thereby funding terrorism. Don't have any faith in the ability of the lawmakers - I have met many of them personally and they don't know their a*se from their elbow.

Nick, is the action of the whips and GB any different to what happens when there is a close vote whoever is in power? Are you sure your not just using this as a big stick for Cameron fans to beat GB with?

Did anyone who voted NuLab in any of the past three elections imagine that they would turn out to be the most illiberal administration in UK political history (certainly since Cromwell) and preside over such a massive assault on our civil liberties? I'm not just talking about 42 day detention but also the entire culture of suspicion and surveillance that now pervades our everyday life.

Shame on you!

1:08 pm on 11 Jun 2008, SeatonCanoe

Douglas Adams' cousin Geoff used to bring Douglas' tape recorder to work; "42" being "the answer to life, the universe and everything" was one of my suggestions, relying solely on 42 = 2 x 3 x 7, 21 being my "lucky' number.

In the case of detention without trial 42 days is a compromise which it is hoped will be approved by a majority in Parliament.

The matter is of sufficient importance that getting a result which can be worked to is of great value I would think.

I'm not surprised that the government has got itself in a mess over this.

I'm not surprised that Tory MPs, many of whom would presumably be quite happy to lock people up on a whim, are voting against it simply for the sake of opposition.

I'm not surprised that Labour whips are resorting to desperate measures such as bribery to gain votes, instead of seeking to win the rebels over by the strength of the argument (which, let's face it, has about as much strength as a rancid blancmange).

What does surprise me is that the rebels appear to be willing to be bought off on the grounds that Gordon Brown has "promised" something in return. Why on earth would the rebel MPs be naive enough to think for a moment that GB has any intention of keeping his promises?

Why do you lot not accept the majority of the public where over 70% want the 42 days?

Why is it that some of you pick and chose polls only when it is convenient to gain political advantage?

The majority wants it, so let's have it. If the Tories oppose it, then they should promise to get rid of it if in power. Period.

It's also about time, that innocent people are compensated for wasting their time. All other EU countries have some kind of compensation in such circumstances.

Who thinks that we are more democratic then other countries? We're a joke, that's what we are. When we go abroad, we manipulate democracy in any way we wish. Read the History books and see that we have a lot to be ashamed of!

By the way Nick, have a nice day.

The government appears to have totally lost the plot? This 42-day issue has transformed into a proxy vote of confidence in Gordon Brown's suitability to govern.

I think that if 28 days is insufficient notice to bring charges, then an extra two weeks is not going to make a difference.

The `sweetener' idea to compensate people by £3000 per day if they are eventually released without being charged is just total and utter lunacy. If the suspects are genuinely potential terrorists, but there's insufficient evidence, (say: because they can't get financial backing to realise their terrorist ambitions, so they've talked the talk and come to the attention of the police) ... that money will likely be used to conduct attacks.

Further, the bribing rebel MPs through concessions will not resolve the issue: confidence in Gordon Brown, but will introduce nonsense onto the statue books.

Suppose the 42 day bill passes; What is the next issue to be hijacked and transformed into a vote of confidence in Gordon Brown?

I didn't vote for an MP or a government to waste time like this. Brown will either recover or be gone by the end of the year, but these powers will remain in force and have a lasting effect long past that point.

The resolution is clear: Gordon Brown must step up to the mark and announce he will hold a vote of confidence in his leadership, both internally within the Labour party, and then through a general election.

Issues in the house of commons can then be debated without these distorting secondary meanings being attached.

I heard that Tony McNulty had said yesterday that it would be a bad day for Parliament if the vote on 42 days goes against the Government. That's just so typically NuLab is it not. If you have the temerity to disagree with us you are bringing the institution into disrepute. Honestly their arrogance knows no limits.

What will represent a black day indeed for Parliament and our democracy is if Labour or DUP MPs trade their conscience over habeus corpus for the promise of this or that as Nick reports. Frankly it's enough to make me weep.

#24 and they'll get you for having no sense of irony.

The comments some people are making try to create the impression we're living in Burma or Rhodesia. The people who claim to stand for a "new politics" are using the "old politics" to achieve ill-defined ends. It doesn't work.

Newsgroups and forums have blazed a path of glory and all emptied just as surely as voters are turned off parliament by these strategies. Both parliament and the web are only as good as the people who populate it.

It's telling that surveys suggest a majority of the public are happy with 42 days, and that makes the table thumping politics of parliament and the web look suspect. That's something the bullies and wannabes might want to reflect on.

Onlywayup (#38)

"Why do you lot not accept the majority of the public where over 70% want the 42 days?"

The results of such a poll depend on the questions you ask them and the amount of background information supplied. Opinion polls are not very good ways of gauging the public's real views on complex issues.

And in any case, even if they were, do you really want government by opinion poll? That way we'd have a 250,000 people in jail (if the NIMBYs would allow the building of a prison in every town), no immigration at all, no provision for travellers or refugees, the UK out of the EU tomorrow, the return of the death penalty, and a whole load of other changes we might repent at leisure...

@41 - more a lack of putting ;) at the end of the sentence

;)

Remember Walter Wolfgang, the 82 year old Labour activist who was ejected from a party conference for heckling.

He was detained under the terrorism act, we all know he'sw not a terrorist... Dont we?

Is it too far fetched to suggest that a future, less benevolent, less democratic government might simply advance the definition of terrorist in order to use laws like this against its critics, that's you and me...

Any MP who unsterstands this risk but votes with Gordon Brown tonight in return for some political pay-off or just to keep the leader afloat should be deeply ashamed.

Charles, but 80% of those questioned want Brown out and another Prime Minister installed. You seem to discount them as delluded, these are the same people who think that 42 days is a good idea.

You cant have it both ways either Polls are always right, or always wrong, you cant pick and choose the ones you want, its not a buffet.

Westminster is a nest of vipers, and the best thing we can do is vote against Labour and their poisonous policies at every opportunity.
No matter what half-truths and outright lies they come up with to control us they still need us to get into office, so come the next General Election let's rise up, vote as one and pull the plug on the Nu-Labour Spin/War/Destruction of society machine.

2:09 pm on 11 Jun 2008, bradshad1 talking compete rubbish to his usual conclusion as usual.

A poll on who is to be PM will be carried out in effect by those who are elected as MPs at a General Election.

Public opinion polls on issues like the up to 42 days detention without trial for terrorist suspects, subject to various parliamentary safeguards have greater value because such an issue will not be subject to a referendum.

The results of such a poll depend on the questions you ask them and the amount of background information supplied. Opinion polls are not very good ways of gauging the public's real views on complex issues.

Some of you need to get a grip. 42 days is not a 'massive assault on our civil liberties'.

There's no great principle at stake, that was lost when 28 days was allowed. 42 days simply reflects what some Police chiefs feel they need to investigate modern day complex terrorism plots.

The authorities have not abused the 28 days rule, and so the paranoia that 42 days will lead to a Police state where we're all going to be dragged from our beds and detained without charge is just fanciful.

The only people who should be worried by the 42 day proposal are terrorists, which to me is a good thing.

45 Jules

I agree totally.

I worked in Romania in the early 1980s when it was still communist - surveillance 24 hours a day. People walking round Bucharest with walki-talkies reporting on what was happening. Secret (actually not so secret) watching all Embassies.

I wouldn't want the UK to go the same route by stealth - a little bit here, a little bit there, lets add a few more conditions to this law, lets include this group as they MAY be a problem.

I know two people who were members of CND and both know that their phones were tapped.

Next we will have identity cards and not really know what is on them. There is already electronic tagging - very small chips - that are used for identifying things and people.

Then monitoring of all calls, emails and internet access. Politicians will probably make themselves exceptions to this, won't they.

As I have already said, 42 days applies to EACH and EVERY ONE of us, if we are unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, received emails by mistake, etc.

The police have enough powers already. Ask the poor Brazilian with 5 bullets in his head. Oh we can't, can we. And the police were found not to be to blame!!!

We knoe this government does everything by stealth - kick the Bill out now before it is too late.

If this goes in, it will never come out - just like "first past the post" - every opposition leader wants it changed until they get into power. There is no chance of the Tories removing this. They will review it, as they have stated, and they will conclude that it is neccessary.

A door could be opened and never closed!

"A principled leader who took a stand".

Except that he is taking a stand on the WRONG policy.

Regarding the apparent public support for 42 days, it's interesting how most commenters (not just here, but elsewhere) seem to be opposed instead. Why, in comments, do supporters seem to be in the minority, when opinion polls say they're the majority?

I think it's quite simple. Most of those who say they agree with 42 days simply don't agree with it strongly enough to bother posting comments on sites like this. Their support is usually only weak. For most of them, the issue of 42 days is probably not something they'd base their vote on at a general election.

When it comes to those who do either strongly support or strongly oppose 42 days, there does seem to be a clear, large majority in opposition. It seems that the more likely someone is to take the 42 days issue into account when deciding which way to vote in a general election, the more likely they are to be opposed to 42 days.

Consistent with this is the fact that the Tories don't seem to be suffering a loss of support as a result of their opposition to the government on this issue.

Perhaps this applies to other issues, too? Might this be part of where this government's going wrong in its populist efforts?

50 ConManDave

If you remember the government originally got 28 days when it asked for 90 days.

42 day now is a much smaller jump than to 90 days, only 50%.

Give them a couple of years and it will be 63 days, only 50%.

And a couple of years more and the 90 will be in place, only 43%.

And we'll hardly notice it. Brussels is expert at this game, and if you don't give THEM what they want they send you back until you do give the right answer.

That's how your liberties are eroded by government, you ask for a lot but are happy with a little, the figure you really wanted all the time.

The FIRST RULE OF NEGOTIATION is "always ask for a lot more than you want. There is always one fool who will pay the full amount!!!"

You cant have it both ways either Polls are always right, or always wrong, you cant pick and choose the ones you want, its not a buffet.

"On a different tack, in justification, Brown says that this policy is very popular with the public. So is capital punishment, but he has no plans to lay its reintroduction before parliament."

So is a referendum on the EU Treaty, but he is breaking a promise to deny us that! He would rather force through a law to lock up innocent people without charge for longer, than give the people of this country a say on the must fundamental level of the way our nation is run and who by.

A beer hall putsch by the right wing, Charles Hardwidge? Have you really sunk to invoking Godwin's law to refute criticism - which, you surely know, has come from all sides of the political spectrum?

In the other blog, you seemed to suggest those of us who disagree with 42-day detention are simply too stupid or morally stunted to understand the issue: do you now really mean to include Ken MacDonald, Lord Goldsmith, Elish Angliolini, Nick Clegg, Shami Chakrabati (and me) in your list of quasi-fascist insurrectionists?

For shame.

2:33 pm on 11 Jun 2008, mikepko

Not true that the police were found to be blameless in the case of the Brazillian shot dead, is it?

The essence of the 42 days problem is that it has become so symbolic of the government's success, and all those arguing blue in the face on principled grounds such as national security on the one hand or civil liberties on the other are playing the game.

Brown has enlisted Smith to show that he can at least get this one thing right. The trouble with that is that too many people think it is one more thing he has got wrong.

So much effort; so little success. How long can a government go on stumbling?

Many people in the above have spoken very eloquently on this subject, some have argued a good point. Whatever the right or wrong of 42 day's detention I would just like to offer up this one point. To every member of the Parliamentary Labour Party this bill goes against everything the Labour Party stands for. If you can prostitute your vote for personal or party gain the may the shame of what action you take to help it through last with you for the rest of your days. Ask yourself how proud you will be when you tell your grandchildren. "I sold you civil liberties for JUDES'S GOLD". I THROUGH MY PRINCIPLES OUT WHEN PUSH CAME TO SHOVE IT WAS ME BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE. "TOLPUDDLE WHO"

Now was'nt there a poll suggesting that 80% of the population would like a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ( Constitution) ?
Did the government pay any attention??

Convenient for them ,don't you think,that they have a poll from the public supporting this bill??

Word the poll carefully and you can manipulate the outcome.
I cannot believe ,from all that I've read, that 65-69% of the population support 42 days.

2:56 pm on 11 Jun 2008, purpleDogzzz

No one promised a referendum on the Lisbon Reform Treaty; no doubt MPs take the opinion polls re capital punishment into account when they vote on the matter; I am unclear why you wish to appear to side with the innocent, shorely shome dishemblensh?

Active Citizen (#54) raises an important point - and it's even more fundamental than that. It's a problem for "democracy" (if we take this as meaning the will of the majority) generally.

The question is this: if 51% support something but don't really care strongly either way, and the other 49% are vehemently opposed, whose will should prevail?

And does a government with a weak mandate but a parliamentary majority have the right to push through controversial policies?

Which question would show a majority of people in favour of 42 days?


WOULD YOU LIKE US TO LOCK SOMEONE UP FOR 42 DAYS IF IT STOPPED YOU OR YOURS FROM BEING BLOWN UP?

OR

DO YOU WANT TO THROUGH AWAY YOUR CIVIL LIBERTIES TO SAVE GORDON BROWNS SKIN?

The 10p tax furore wasn’t about people paying a new starting rate for income tax; the 42-day pre-charge detention is not about the extension of government powers to hold terrorist suspects without charge. These are synthetic controveries spun from virtual issues. They represent the shadow cast by power in a period of consensus politics. An adversarial political system must have conflict; the heat generated by partisan political conflict has to find a site for its release. And so, like the United States and the Soviet Union in 1970’s and 1980’s, we get proxy wars – conflicts purporting to be about one thing (social justice; the liberty of the individual) which ultimately are about something else altogether: the ugly subterranean currents of power politics.

To read these ideas developed at much greater length, link to my blog at:
https://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/

@48 - if thats your oppinion, then I know I'm quite close to being spot on.

Rant on comrade, rant on

59

Near enough.

No-one at the top knew anything about it, did they. The officer in charge got promoted, I believe.

Last year I spoke to a Met police officer on protection duty who said he didn't trust anyone at the top of the government or the Met Police.

"They always protect their own backs, don't they, and blame those below.They're always fireproof."

That about sums it up.

Unfortunately for Brown, be ignored the old saying "Be nice to people on the way up, as your sure to meet them on the way down." How true.

Great!

Yet another British Prime Minister panders to Unionism to make up the Westminster numbers; how very progressive.

Gormless Gordon Brown the Visionless has excelled himself with this pathetic piece of manoeuvring in a sorry attempt to appear principled, regardless of the unforgivable assault on civil liberties. He appears nothing but the polar opposite.

Yes, @31 is right. Either the case about national security has been made, or it has not. If the case *had* been made, then it would not be necessary for the Labour whips to do battle with their MPs. The Labour leadership have had ample opportunities to make this case to their MPs, so their reluctance cannot be attributed to unfamiliarity with the arguments---it is because they have drawn different conclusions to their leadership.

In which case the Labour whips are now resorting to "get it through at any cost". This is a reasonable tactic for a controversial or unpopular policy initiative, but to do so for a matter of "National Security" which removes our Magna Carta rights is wrong.

3:19 pm on 11 Jun 2008, rockyhippo

Most of them would probably ask you to stop shouting. Capitals may become you chosen name, but are harder to read.

Funnily enough the previous PM was also trying to get this limit increased, this has to do with their concern for our (and their) security.

Why do I doubt that you are not actually afraid of being locked up without charge for up to 42 days?

Is it the education system or the parents that is reponsible for the dreadful spelling on this board?

A beer hall putsch by the right wing, Charles Hardwidge? Have you really sunk to invoking Godwin's law to refute criticism - which, you surely know, has come from all sides of the political spectrum?

mike - I blame my fat fingers

3:30 pm on 11 Jun 2008, mikepko wrote:

"Is it the education system or the parents that is reponsible for the dreadful spelling on this board?"

Our wonderful language, I think.

Btw shouldn't that have been "which are" rather than "that is" or might you care to re-write the whole setence?

And my second paragraph, Charles?

Let us all celebrate the fact we can insult our Prime Minister and the Labour Government with impunity.
I suggest you all shut down your computers and celebrate this fact with a pint of real ale at your local. Here you may well find views which advocate banging up terror suspects for as long as it takes to get the evidence for a conviction. Then, and I have heard this at the bar (the pub sort, not the legal kind) if convicted, they should be hung or shot.

Buying votes? Buying people out of their unlawful detention?

This government is financially incontinent and all of us are soon to pay an incredibly high price for their largesse.

Turn on the TV when you get home and watch the story of Sir Fred Goodwin, who has followed the Brown doctrine of splashing the cash. His share price has fallen today to an all time low after one of the worst conference calls. He appears to inhabit the same delusional spend more world of Gordon Brown.

This business model - a crass imitation of Sweden's profiligate welfare state - is hitting the wall so fast the commentators can't even begin to grasp what has gone wrong.

Banks leveraged 50 to 60x is what has gone wrong; encouraged by a flawed Tripartite structure dreamt up by none other than Gordon Brown. The government is in the same boat with billions of off balance sheet PFI debt.

You can run but you can't hide. Gordon is the man bhind all this debt. Gordon Brown is to blame.

#76

Don't bother. Certain posters to these blogs have an unfathomably high opinion of themselves and consistently demonstrate an inability to practice what they preach - and, boy, do I mean preach.

Tune it out, read the sensible posts from people with something relevant to say, and leave the rest in the metaphorical bin where they belong.

This all really comes down to trust in the end doesn't it. Do we trust this government (and all future governements) to have these powers and not use them for anything other that what they are designed for, which is to stop terrorist from killing people, a worthy cause which I'm sure everyone agrees with.

Unfortunately I just don't trust them.

Not because I think they are evil, not because I think they are inept (although I'm sure there are a lot of people on here who do think that), but just because as we've seen with the Terrorism Act, these things have a tendancy to be used in places where they shouldn't.

Everyone who supports the 42 days must be comfortable with knowing that some time in the future some unscrupulous person could use them for something less than honourable....

And my second paragraph, Charles?

#54Active citizen,I agree with you that people do not come forward when they agree with things, I have observed this for many years, thats one of the reasons that I have no truck with marchers.
To march means nothing only to those that march with conviction some go along because friends are going, some go merely to have a laugh and others go along because they have their own agenda that could have nothing to do with the reason for the march, some just for a day out with friends and the children who they lumber up with posters that the poor little blighters have'nt got a clue what it means, all these people rather diminish the cause of the genuine marchers.
I'm afraid it does give a false impression of how many people actually believe in the cause.
People never march to say they believe in things only when they disagree so that we never have any idea how many actually dont agree with the marchers.
Even when we are told how many marchers there were there as in the march against the war in Iraq the marchers said two million the police said one million.
Now on this blog set up today the tories have come out in massive strength not because there right.Unfortunately they do swamp these blogs anyway, they feel that if they keep repeating themselves over and over they might start to believe themselves, I doubt if there's much more than a handful of Tory MPs who are really opposed to the 42 days there are probably more labour MPs opposed than Tories , truth be told and I'll bet money that if it goes through they will not repeal it.

Charlie boy, I suppose #79 was right - if you think you can wander around throwing out 'fascist' (or, earlier, 'idiot') jibes at people like me and then brush off criticism of those remarks as being 'off topic' or 'not nice' (not nice and off topic like comparing principled objectors to 42 day detention to Nazi insurrectionaries in 30s Germany?) maybe we will never have anything like a reasonable conversation.

For shame, still.

Well it looks like 42 days will go through following the buying of a few Irish Unionist votes. But is it worth it?

The Lords will throw the Bill out.

The European Commission will probaly say it interferes with Human Rights (this will cost US a packet for lawyers) and say it isn't legal.

And those who have been bought off will have what they wanted.

Brown will look even more, if possible, the PM who would do absolutely anything to get his way.

What a total waste of time and money

What a total waste of time and money

# 45 Jules Woodell. Lets try to lay this one to rest, although I dont suppose that there are any Tories out there that will let the truth get in the way of a good story. Mr Walter Wolfgang who obviously was a disgruntled labour man was at the Labour conference, sat well back.
There were several thousand people there that had come along to hear Jack Straw, when he began his speech, Mr Wolfgang, as he was entitled to do shouted liar, Jack carried on with his speech, Wolfgang once again shouted liar once again Jack went on with his speech, this carried on for several minutes and people were starting to get restless as this gentleman was not who they had come to hear.
The security guards, not anyone to do with labour appeared and asked the old chap to be quiet, which of course he did'nt comply, so the security guards removed him from the hall.
When he was escorted outside two police officers walked across to him and struck up a friendly conversation with him. the terrorist act had been discussed over the last few days and was a bit of a hot topic and as a joke one of the police officers said laughingly to Walter if you dont behave we will have to arrest you under the terrorist act with which they all had a laugh.
Tony Blair apologised to Mr Wolfgang within hours, The Tories have been trying to make political capitol out of these events ever since. I know because I saw it as it happened, so please stop repeating this simply untrue story.

Does anyone think that perhaps Terrorism is being blown totally out of proportion? Consider for a minute the sentence of the suspects involved in the attempted bombing of the London tube. They were all jailed for life I believe, which is an acceptable sentence, however not really when you put in the context of actual murders (stabbings, shootings etc) carried out in London before and since the attempted bombings, where very few have received life sentences. 10 - 15 years is what you get for actually killing someone, but you get a harsher sentence for attempting to murder? Shouldn't the Government be doing it by numbers? There have been more deaths last year in London from stabbings and shootings than people died in the 7/7 bombings. I am not trying to be incensitive to the losses in either events, but it does seem the law is applied unfairly. (if you must know I think that they should all have got life - and for life to mean life, not 20 years with good behaviour)

I have had enough of this and am invoking my democratic right, at the highest political level i.e. as a European Union citizen, to complain to my EU MEP.

I shall ask my MEP to do whatever is necessary, e.g. raise the matter in the EU Parliament if required, to protect all EU citizens fundamental right to liberty across all EU member countries, subject to a consistent application by the Member States intention to hold citizens without charge for a specified duration.

That duration MUST BE the same period of time, where ever in the EU a citizen is.

The EU must take control in this case and apply a federated law.

Oetherwise, why should we bother being EU members if it cannnot or will not protect us over such a fundamental human rights issue.

#86

"they all had a laugh"

you have a strange sense of humour

Not if you're Dianne Abbott, one of the best speeches I've ever seen, and one I hope will sway many rebels to vote against the 42-day detention. Personally I believe it should be criminal to bribe an MP with anything, be it money, gifts, or concessions. Shame on this government. The only benefit of the government winning the vote is that it means that the public is all the more likely to vote them out next election.

John Constable #88:

Can you be the same John Constable who posts here so much about the English reclaiming their country? If so, how do you square that with your apparent desire now to have sentencing and judicial policy dictated to you by Brussels? Am I missing something?

It's extraordinary that Charles E and other Labour apologists seek to shift the focus of this - and every debate - about government action and policy back on to the Tories. Right now I'm not worried about the Tories -it's the toxic combination of oppressive arrogance and sheer incompetence of the current administration that is at issue here, along with the real and damaging consequences for large sections of the population. This applies across the board - on economic matters, health, education security and the damn thing. This is a Labour government we're talking about here - we expected better. Right now its hard to imagine how anyone could be worse...

It is disgraceful that Ministers accuse the opposition parties of "playing politics" on the 42 days issue.

"Doing politics" is what we pay them for - however much we dislike their arguments and some of the results.

There are many times I'd like to see criminals of several kinds simply marooned on a desert island. That's not the way we work.

The problem is that there has been no evidence produced to show why 42 days are preferable to 35 or 60.

(And producing Sir Ian Blair as a key backer is hardly likely to instill confidence.)

It's possible to argue that the "42 days" are inadequate. What do the security forces do, if they receive a call from Pakistani or other sources on day 42, indicating that they have significant new leads, but could not produce solid information until they have carried out detailed research that could last another 5 or 6 days?

The new law will not contain powers to extend detention beyond 42 days. So someone walks, (apparently with a payment for being held for so long). As a "free" citizen, he or she could depart the UK.

So what benefits would that have given to the security services?

C_E_H talks about "practicality and sociability".

How practical is a law that doesn't achieve the intention, seems to have enormous implications for our existing civil liberties and has a good chance of being overturned in the European Court of Justice?

How do we encourage sociability if some citizens can be held for extended periods when no solid proof of guilt has been produced? (And then offer them "compensation".)

I have no doubt that the Government will achieve a fairly close win on this Bill. Their tactics have been fairly despicable. If the issue is of primordial importance, it can have nothing to do with offering sweeteners to various MPs to "buy" them in to a matter of principle... If you're bought you cannot claim to have principles.

Can anyone else imagine the embarrasment there's going to be when they hold someone for up to 40 days, don't get enough evidence to charge them, then have to pay them £3000 a day compensation = £120,000 and then it turns out that that terror suspect was guilty after all and we've just given Al Quaeda 100K. You can't buy people's human rights - you respect them or you don't. And what incentive is there to talk when you're earning three grand a day staying silent? Unworkable isn't the word.

Lets try to lay this one to rest, although I dont suppose that there are any Tories out there that will let the truth get in the way of a good story.

I have had enough of this and am invoking my democratic right, at the highest political level i.e. as a European Union citizen, to complain to my EU MEP.

I am sure that others have noticed but whenever an MP comes on the media they now say that 42 days has widespread popular support, 69%. You will notice not 70% but 69%. Now when I studied statistics one of the best tricks was to avoid round numbers because they could be guesstimates. Accordingly, I am surprised that the government does not refer to 68.6% or even 68.57%, that would show a truly exact number which of
I wish that the politicians and the media would say that 69% of a sample population of x number of people supported this 42 days, and confirm how they were contacted, was it on the street, via a phone call, internet etc.
The reason, one of the classics was where a political party in America did a poll and they were sure that they would win the election. However, they used a phone poll, and of course the only people who could actually afford a phone were natural supporters of the political party. It all depends on who you ask. Were people in Exeter excluded because only a couple of weeks ago a 'terrorist' set off a bomb. Three arrests followed, the failed bomber who was known to the authorities, and two other suspects, one was released and the other charged with immigration misdemeanours.
Abandon hope all you who enter this country with the current aprliament.

#38: "Why do you lot not accept the majority of the public where over 70% want the 42 days?"

Speaking for myself, the reason why I don't accept that 70% of the public are in favour of locking people up for 42 days is that when opinion polls claim that they do, the headline result is suspiciously unaccompanied by a detailed report of the precise questions and methods used, without which the results are meaningless.

Perhaps they asked the question "If the security services had arrested a dangerous terrorist, and knew that he was about to detonate a nuclear bomb at a hidden in London, but needed approximately 42 days to locate the bomb, would you support keeping him in custody for that time?"

Perhaps they sampled their respondents at a BNP rally.

I doubt that they really did anything quite as bad as that in practice, but their reluctance to publish exactly what they did do means that I don't trust their results.

Personally I think that even if the Government win the vote they have lost the argument and their Leader once again has lost even more respect with the Briitsh People.

Do you think we should lock up terror suspects for up to 42 days while we get evidence to charge them? YES

Do you think we should lock up people presumed innocent on the chance that there might be some evidence to charge them? No

And then of course if they are under surveilance instead of lock and key they might reveal their motives, co-conspirators, sources of explosives and propaganda. The best way to deal with potential terrorists is to secure the evidence - then decapitate the group (i.e. take in the leaders all at once - not hang them).

Suppose in the future, the Prime Minister calls an election for six weeks time and in four weeks time asks his police commissioner to detain all opposition candidiates under suspicion of terrorism?

5:32 pm on 11 Jun 2008, chriskingfleet wrote:

"It is disgraceful that Ministers accuse the opposition parties of "playing politics" on the 42 days issue."

Not at all, because they imply that the opposition parties have been dishonest on the issue, which they have.

No one with any political historical knowledge believes that a Tory government would not have introduced soemthing similar a fair while back.

It s only because Labour has a few libertarians and an awkward squad to match the Tories Eiuro haters that the matter wasn't disposed of yonks ago.

The Tories are playing politics, not practicing politics, which is the honourable pursuit you seem to have confused with the sort of school boy dissembling Cameron D and his Old Etonian crew are up to.

#91

I wish to see that legislation is enacted at the appropriate level in the political heirarchy.

In this case, i.e. loss of liberty without charge, I believe that this should be an EU specified sanction of a consistent duration in every member country, because the common denominator is that we are all EU citizens.

The Americans enjoy this level of certainty and I simply do not see why we Europeans should suffer less.

I do not see any inconsistency with that view (of wanting the EU to mandate a federated law in respect of detainment without charge) and wishing to see the English extracted from the grip of the 'UK' mafia at Westminster.