Will limiting liberty lose Labour’s liberals?
December 7th, 2007
What’s the political impact of extending the detention limits?
Those papers that cover the government’s latest plan to extend the detention without trial period won’t make comfortable reading this morning at the Home Office and Number 10. The Home Secretary’s paper proposing a two week extension to 42 days has triggered off bitter protests and there must be a possibility that it will fail to get through the commons.
According to the Guardian the plan “appeared to be foundering last night” although “government business managers claimed they were confident they had provided enough parliamentary and judicial oversight for ministers to win the vote”.
The Independent has a hostile main leader which concludes “..when even the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis – who yields to no one in his enthusiasm for punishing felons – produces an ardent defence of civil liberties to support his opposition to longer detention for suspected terrorists, the Government should know that it has lost the argument and retreat with what remains of its dignity intact”.
One question which nobody has answered is what political advantage the Brown government would get by proposing and forcing through such a change? What groups of voters would stay or stick with Labour because of the Brown-Smith stance on this issue?
For to get back into electoral contention Labour needs to focus on two groups of voters - the LAB>LD waverers who switched to Kennedy’s party in 2005 in their droves and the 10%-13% of Labour voters last time who now tell pollsters that they plan to vote Tory.
These are centre ground electors who are less likely to respond to tough law and order rhetoric than other voters. The next election is about “niche” marketing and it is these largely ex-Labour supporters who will be crucial.
In the first months of Brown’s premiership all the signs were that the new man fully realised this. His objective, we were told repeatedly, was to push the Tories off the centre ground. With the detention extension proposal it appears that this strategy is not being followed any more.
On the spread betting markets there’s been an easing of the Tory prices suggesting that some profit taking has been going on. I got out of part of my Tory buy and Labour sell positions at the weekend when the Sporting Index spread was 300-306 seats. It has now dropped to 294-300.
Contacting PBC: We have a new email address so if you want to contact the site please use politicalpunter@googlemail.com.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
“what political advantage the Brown government would get by proposing and forcing through such a change”
Reasonably obvious I would have thought: he wants to paint the opposition as “soft on terrorism”. Gosh how clever clever. The trouble is nobody believes him anymore and he will just end up looking foolish. If he doesn’t lose in the Commons he will lose in the Lords.
Not sure i agree with this argument, Mike. I think what you have here is two separate (although not mutually exclusive) groups. I agree such proposals will do nothing to attract back those voters lost to the Liberals in 2005, but then their electoral significance is relatively minor.
But i think you are attaching far too much attention to the extent to which “policies” affect the other group, what i like to call the pragmatic centre, who are centrist because of their preparedness to vote for either main party (in the right circumstances), are disproportionately found in marginal seats and are most important under our FPTP system. If there was one characteristic that could be attached to this group it is “risk averse”, and as such i can’t agree that these people are less likely to be attracted by tough law and order policies. They will only really object if they feel they are personally affected (hence hatred of speeding clampdowns, parking etc).
There is nothing different in Gordon’s approach to that engaged by Blair. The problem is that he has been so cackhanded about it. Note whenever Blair was forced to compromise, he always made it clear that he did so against his will and better judgement - not very “centrist” by your definition. And he certainly wouldn’t have allowed his ministers to go out and muse in public about the validity of the moves.
Not sure i agree with this argument, Mike. I think what you have here is two separate (although not mutually exclusive) groups. I agree such proposals will do nothing to attract back those voters lost to the Liberals in 2005, but then their electoral significance is relatively minor.
But i think you are attaching far too much attention to the extent to which “policies” affect the other group, what i like to call the pragmatic centre, who are centrist because of their preparedness to vote for either main party (in the right circumstances), are disproportionately found in marginal seats and are most important under our FPTP system. If there was one characteristic that could be attached to this group it is “risk averse”, and as such i can’t agree that these people are less likely to be attracted by tough law and order policies. They will only really object if they feel they are personally affected (hence hatred of speeding clampdowns, parking etc).
There is nothing different in Gordon’s approach to that engaged by Blair. The problem is that he has been so cackhanded about it. Note whenever Blair was forced to compromise, he always made it clear that he did so against his will and better judgement - not very “centrist” by your definition. And he certainly wouldn’t have allowed his ministers to go out and muse in public about the validity of the moves.
I think this is a clear case of the leadership of the Labour party looking at opinion polls without having the instinct for truly understanding them. Most people may be in favour of ID cards, the children’s database or extending these limits, but thats because they are the people that haven’t thought about them too much and won’t be voting on it. However, there is a very firm hardcore of people from all three parties and swing voters who feel very strongly against these things. Not only will they abandon Brown over this, or turn out for Cameron when they otherwise would have abstained, but they will judge the guy long term for playing politics with national security.
It will lose them activists (or ensure they don’t return). This still matters
Why push for this when Labour MPs like David Winnick are saying that 28 days is long enough? Brown will just look even weaker if he pushes through a vote and loses.
Almost 20 years on from the release of the first long-running epic, yesterday it was time for the glittery Holyrood première of Scottish Constitutional Convention II - The Return of the Prodigal Lib-Labs, but this time with two exciting new starring features:
1. the Tories
2. the lucky taxpayer (who gets to play a key supporting part: paying its invoices)
And no product launch is incomplete without a bit of hyperbole from the marketing department:
The key meaty bit (or should that be fishy bit?) of the Unionist scheme would appear to be:
1. as a response to the Barnett Formula, they propose abolition of the block grant, to be replaced by “assigned revenues” (or “fiscal independence” as it is sometimes referred to), as part of a Treasury-led “needs assessment” review of funding allocation
2. as a response to the West Lothian Question, they propose the continued regionalisation of England (aren’t you lucky!), although Wendy Alexander stressed that this was actually “for UK colleagues to consider” (ie. it is really none of her business)
We know that Wendy, Annabel and Nicol are serious, because they made sure that they got the nod from their boss at Westminster: Des Browne, the soon erstwhile Secretary of State for Defence and Scotland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2007/12/the_national_conversation_alte.html
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1908452007
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1887906.0.0.php
Dianne Abbot has this to say on last night’s This Week:
…well it was Jacqui Smith, my Home Secretary anouncing at a press briefing, rather than to the House of Commons, that she’s put her hand in a hat and come out with 42 days
… it’s a nonsense, the figures are random, the safeguards she is talking about are worthless
…they (the Government business managers) do not have the votes.
In the first months of Brown’s premiership all the signs were that the new man fully realised this…
I wonder if that is right - didn’t those first months include the appalling BJFBW speech with its references to ‘immorality’, the stage managed photo shoot with Mrs. Thatcher, and the attraction of the caricature-Tory Quentin Davies? It looked more like Brown was trying to woo Daily Mail-style authoritarian voters than centre-ground liberalish ones. His other main aim seemed to be to try to stir up trouble between Cameron and his own party.
I’d personally be a lot more convinced by entending detention limits if they could actaully decide for how long they want to lock people up for without charge.
Because right now, it seems like a series of utterly arbitrary figures, 28 days, 90 days, 42 days…
He’s aiming for the “It’s the Sun wot won it” theme.
The Sun’s leader today goes something like:
“GIVING IN TO FEAR IS ESSENTIAL
Yes, we know that the murders caused by terrorists are simply the mechanism by which they mean to force us to change our way of life.
Yes, we know that in no case to date has there been any need to go beyond 28 days detention.
Yes, we know that the security services have no need for this 42 days measure and there is in any case a known method for a more prolonged detention if absolutely necessary.
But this surrender of our ancient liberties to the fear of the terrorist is essential! The Government’s transparent attempt to play the ’soft on terrorism’ card are statesmanship of the highest order. Cameron had better not attempt to block this out of principle (again). We MUST GIVE IN TO FEAR!”
Okay, I may have paraphrased it a bit …
11. I just read the Sun comments for the first time in years - they really are written for three-year olds, aren’t they?
Yes. And in Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, Hurricanes Hardly Ever Happen.
This seems to me just like another typical ‘lurch to the right’ from the government - plumping for 42 days in the hope that they might be able to get it through the HoC after floating 90, 56 and 58 days previously (so obviously, it’s a concession to drop the limit to 42). There’s been no serious argument as to why it should be 42 days, just that it must be ‘more’: as ‘more’ was needed to increase the limit from 48 hours to 7 days, from 7 days to 14 days, from 14 days to 28 days, and now from 28 days to whatever they think they can get away with. Andy’s parody of The Sun’s comments could equally well apply to the government’s case. Whe the going gets tough, act tough.
On a less abstract vein, it does seem like a poor time for the Home Secretary to be introducing this. Hasn’t she enough on her plate at the moment, or is this somehow meant to distract from overcrowding prisons and police discontent?
It is difficult to look tough on crime when the Police Federation have come out and declared a collapse in confidence in teh Home Secretary. This is far more serious for the law and order agenda than anyone realises
14. Actually, prisons might be Justice these days? I’ve lost track a bit of these reorganisations. Police is certainly hers though.
14. Actually, prisons might be Justice these days? I’ve lost track a bit of these reorganisations. Police is certainly hers though.
12
Three-year olds, that high?
Its an amazing fact, that people who support a political party will often turn a blind eye, to that party’s actual performance even when it conflicts with their basic beliefs.
There are Labour supporters, who will shrug this off, when if it was the Tories doing it would be crying, ‘Police state’ and vice versa.
Most voters, (lets be honest) would be quite happy to see anyone suspected of terrorism, ‘banged up till they rot’ the Sun’s view is probably near the public’s view. Its sad but there it is!
The classic was the, ‘Prevention of Terrorism Act, Labour passed it, in I think 24 hours, spent years regretting it, the Conservatives strengthened it, faced by Labour opposition. Mrs T of course believed in, ‘Starving the terrorists of oxygen, this lead to the ludicrous situation, where Sein Fein spokespersons had their voices dubbed by actors. The Tories didn’t take a ‘liberal’ view then.
18
Well I believe it’s called learning from the past mistakes.
Obviously Gordon Brown does not.
Or he’s doing it for politics per se.
1 - I’d concur with Ed B - this is all about being seen as ‘tough’, and should go with the new prisons and ban on unskilled non-EU migrants.
It looks like Brown can deal with being described as visionless, or incomptetent. But as soon as any politician attracts a label of ’soft’ then they are in real trouble - how many times have you all seen leaflets attacking the LDs for being ’soft on crime’ without any justification? These hurt.
But it’s become a farcical, pick a rabbit out of a hat way of arriving at the right number of days, and I can only hope the Government is utterly humiliated. But why has the terror debate come down to this? This is such a tiny part of the solution to terrorism but it is overshadowing everything else. What about phone tap evidence? What about rooting out extremism within Islamic communities? What about allowing post-charge questioning? And what about tackling why young Muslims aer so alienated and influenced in the first place? But no, the Government just seems to want to look tough by playing bingo. Shame on it.
1 Ed B
That’s Ed Balls-up, I take it; I thought that he had gone missing, possibly in a canoe
Let’s think. Blair drove supporters away over Iraq and civil liberties. When Blair went, they came back: this was the Brown bounce. The Number Ten strategy is to alienate them again. Brilliant!
19
If the Conservatives were in power, they would be doing the same thing! A government can’t be seen to be ’soft on terrorism’ I’m the first to admit it’s all pretty pointless, but then gestures usually are.
As the Koran could be construed as the inspiration for Islamic terrorism and using Mrs T’s dictum, do you think she’d have banned it?
42 days is just a made up number. It’s lame that their only possible jutification is nakedly political in trying to paint opponents as ’soft on terror’ but they have cried wolf about 6 times on this, and they can’t have it both ways. No major terrorist attacks in 2 years, so why do we need more powers?? We don’t. It’s just really lame.
[18] Well, Coldstone, probably not “most” voters, but a fair few. I’m actually quite surprised that the Sin isn’t running a campaign to have all the 2,000 (or is that 4,000? I’m getting old and can’t keep up) terorists sympathisers the security chiefs tell us there are banged up for ever and a day.
I read somewhere that the rationale for 42 was that it is the bust size of our Home Secretary.
11. Good spoof. Seriously though I think this might be a fruitful line for the Conservatives to take, i.e. “Doesn’t the prime minister agree that surrendering our fundamental British values and freedoms = giving in to terrorism?” Wheel out some remembrance day type WW2 veteran to say “this isn’t why we fought Hitler”. Flash back to the Brighton bombings. Cue strains of Elgar in the background etc.
This would skewer Brown on Britishness and being soft on terrorists all in one go.
23. It seems like your thinking is on much the same level as the Sun editorials.
Masson ward Derbyshire Dales By-Election on 6 December 2007
Belinda Heaney Labour 256
Garry William Purdy Conservative 359 ELECTED
Tracy Louise Steadman Liberal Democrat 126
Con Gain from Labour
26 Rubbish.
It’s the answer to Life, The Universe and Everything.
Last 2 results from last night both Conservative gains from Labour:-
Derbyshire Dales Masson Con 359 Lab 256 LibDem 126
May result 2 seats Lab 427/366 Con 403/380 LibDem 159/152
Maidstone Shepway South Con 251 Lab 240 LibDem 173 Green 34
2006 result Lab 397 Con 386 UKIP 148 LibDem 140
Hymie @ 21. Er, no I’m not Balls. I live about 8000km away from Westminster.
28
The Sun is a highly successful newspaper, because it has a constituency, we may deplore its attitude, but we shouldn’t deny that the Sun views reflect the beliefs of millions of people in this country.
If you are a Tory I wouldn’t get too highminded over the SUN.
When the SUN was in its pomp giving Mrs T 100% support, George Gardiner then MP for Dorking, was asked how he could reconcile Page 3 with the Tory belief in family values, he said, ‘I see nothing wrong in selling Tits with Toryism’
This looks politically dangerously like Browns potential poll tax moment to me.
Just like the Poll Tax he has got his knickers in a twist over it and what for? Where is the upside?
There just isn’t one.
It’s all about him striding round his office and saying ‘I’m in charge and I say 28 days isn’t enough’
And behind his back (just like with Mrs T) half-hearted ministers and whips are wondering round Westminster saying “It’s going to fail. I know it, you know it, but we gotta do it anyway…”
I think the public are going to get the message that 42 days was just picked out of a hat. If the 42 days don’t get passed they are also going to look a bit silly.
Good.
34
Marcus so glad your on.
I do hope as a ‘Libertarian’ (well Tories are all for liberty when their in opposition, its when their in government they aren’t) I do hope that the ‘Farting Pensioner of Paignton’ will be getting your full support. I mean surely the ultimate freedom, of any ‘Freeborn Englishman’is to break wind when ever and where ever he wants.
35 It was picked out of a hat, Benedict, and it is silly.
35, it was not “picked out of a hat”, it was picked out of a double D cup, which is even more ridiculous.
Carry on Jacqui….
Outrageous policies such as extending detention limits will certainly lead to some Labour supporters looking at the Lib Dems with a slightly keener interest, especially if Clegg/Huhne can deliver the goods. Self-doubt must be rife in the party at the moment.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
Re 37, Peter the Punter “35 It was picked out of a hat, Benedict, and it is silly.”
yep.
Re 38 HF “35, it was not “picked out of a hat”, it was picked out of a double D cup, which is even more ridiculous.
Carry on Jacqui…. ”
Carry on Home Scretary! Did they ever do that as a film
39
Don’t tell Marcus Labour supporters could switch to the Libdems, if they do in Torbay, Marcus is ’stuffed’
98 days, down to 56 days, now down further to 42 days. Why doesn’t Jacqui Smith show some bottle and tell Brown she has had enough of him humiliating her by sending her out to make these increasingly ludicrous statements? Everybody knows by now that this is just a pathetic and childish political stunt which Brown, in his delusions, thinks will show the Tories to be “soft on terror”. It is a disgrace the way Brown uses British soldiers and fear of terror to play political one-upmanship with the opposition. He has shown himself to be totally unfit to be Prime Minister.
As for “liberals” in the Labour Party, you’re joking aren’t you. Most of them got out long ago and any remaining are in despair.
I’m liberal on some issues and less so on others but I ditched Labour in 1998/99 when I realised the grim reality behind Blair and Brown’s sinister grins.
Blair got out in time but Brown is still around to meet his economic nemesis in 2008.
Actually, I don’t think the “security chiefs” could give a coherent defence of 28, 42, 56, 90 or any other number.
There are only two coherent positions. Either you believe, as I do, that if someone’s a threat, they’re enough of a threat to be charged within 48 hours or else you believe in internment tout court. Of course there’s a constituency for the latter - as C.P. Snow once pointed out, civilised behaviour is a “coat of varnish”.
I am increasingly attracted to the philosopher Peter Singer’s view that morality and politics have nothing to say to each other.
I’m sorry but ID cards and 42 days detention are needed so the police state can be properly enforced.
That’s what it looks like from here. Then road charging so they know where you are and add a computerised imaging system to a hi gefinition TV system and you have face recognition systems which can track any individual.. anywhere.
I speak in half jest but that is where it is inexorably leading.
Plus the occasional leaking of sensitive data such as those on witness protection programs to discourage criminals being informed on.
orwell was about 40 years too ealry .. 1984 will be 2024 if Labour have their way and continue on.
39: Trying to look tough probably has more to do with improving the general image of Brown, and getting headlines than attracting voter group X or Y. Doing it on the same day as an interest rate decision just shows how bad they now are spin.
41: Lib Dem voters going to Labour is probably easily countered by the large moves to the Tories from the Lib Dems that the locals showed.
I think we should extend the period of detention without charge. In fact, we should stop pusyfooting around and introduce internment for people who the security services believe are involved in conspiring to kill the rest of us.
Why wait for them to blow up tube trains when we already know what they’re planning?
30 Wrong again, Its ” The Summer of 42″ (film) Jennifer O’Neill (serious babe IMHO)…. before the “Winter of Discontent”
PS
Nick Robinsons blog is worth a read this morning.. more bad news for Gordo
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/
[44] It would be nice to think that kicking the rascals out would fix the problem. But that’s only what it would be nice to think. Nick Palmer’s insidious “decent people have nothing to hide” line will be peddled by governments of any old colour.
As you rightly point out, the driver is the fact that the technology exists. You could also add in the fact that we have an ageing electorate, and older people tend to both be more fearful and to have less desire to exercise their liberties anyway.
This issue will not register. Tories should not forget that they cannot win the next GE. Sure, GB can lose it, and is favourite to do so right now.
But there is no enthusiasm for the tories. Now the LDs have corrected a ludicous error by dispatching grandpa Ming, they are much better placed than they realise. They need to be able to get across the message ‘you can get rid of GB without voting tory’. Not impossible?
I disagree with your assesment. There might be strong arguments against ID cards on fiscal grounds but voters oscillating between Labour and the Conservatives tend to be quite socially conservative. If anything would attract them it would be measures like abolishing tuition fees and/or ruling out a further relaxation of the cap.
I’ve just read through yesterday’s thread so sorry for being inadvertently disruptive and thanks to those kind posters who didn’t agree that I should be horsewhipped…..
…. Without wanting to reinflame passions it’s notable that insulting Cameron is considered quite differently from insulting any other politician. To some (younger?) Tories it’s rather worse than insulting your nearest and dearest…Whether they are the same posters who regularly pillory Brown in the most personal terms I’m not sure……
But they should note that far more discomforting for us lefties than being battered by their handbags are the insufferably confident and relaxed posts from Test Anatole and Kingbongo which really are a bad sign (though not on a par with Tyson eulogizing Thatcher which really was excruciating!)
48 I’m not impressed by this argument that “they’re all as bad as each other” because experience of several British governments going back to 1970 has taught me that some are far worse than others and the current lot are by far the worst I can remember.
From last night’s thread, 231 Andrea “Richmond-Barnes, ward is in Richmond Park constituency”
Con 1643
LD 1103
Lab 91
Greens 87
Con hold, an increased majority.” 5% swing LDs to Conservative.
In a key battleground constituency. With real votes (Mark Senior), the LDs go backwards in a large by election. What happened to the LD by election machine?
One poster “middle englander” reckons the Conservatives averaged a 5% swing in all yesterdays elections, but as with all by elections they are all just one all events.
http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/index.php?topic=1816.30
re 50 On what do you case your assertion that “voters oscillating between Labour and the Conservatives tend to be quite socially conservative?”
51: As a ‘lefty’ you must love being part of a party that has gone so far to the right it is calling the Tories soft on terror.
Can a Brown supporter call themself a lefty any more?
From what I have heard on the radio, there does seem to be a bit of spin about the 42 days internment without trial, in that this is to be applied to “terroritsts”. Seemingly *only* terrorists.
But who decides who is a terrorst and who not?
I suspect that some of our Tory posters here would consider Nick Palmer to be a terrorist. And so would I, in that he wishes to bring about State tyrrany starting with the introduction of ID cards (as Madasafish outlined above).
And if Nick Palmer could be interned for 42 days, so could any of us.
51 - You can slag off Cameron all you like, Roger. The problem is your nasty class bias. If people slagged off Brown by saying he was a thicko Jock or a one-eyed cripple we’d rightly be offended. Yet you peddle the grossest stereotypes of ‘toffs’ imaginable - and libel Cameron while doing so by accusing him of criminality. Just because you went to a public school yourself doesn’t get you off the hook. It merely raises rather dark questions about your motivations.
Gotta agree with the main thrust of the article.
To over simplify Labour’s vote is built upon a coalition of voters who see Labour best representing their social and economic interests (that would be your working classes in old money) alongside middle class social liberals.
I believe Lab’s strong poll leads after brown took over were based upon stronger wilingness to vote from Lab identifiers plus lab voters who defected lib dem returning to the fold.
The “brown tories” stuff and they casual disregard for civil liberties seems almost deliberately designed to alienate both the main blocks of our “core” vote.
49. “This issue will not register”. With respect, I think that is a brave statement. You may be right that it will not actually win the Conservatives more support, but it could lose Labour further support from the thinking classes.
57. Lest we forget stevo…….
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mar2007/school_picdc.html
Some pretty sexist arguments above - what has the Home Secretary’s bust size got to do with anything?
alex’s post at 3 is interesting, because it highlights a difference in approach from TB which many of us have been asking for, but which does have downsides. As alex say, TB’s instinct was always to go for broke, counting on the power of argument to carry the day. The more vigorous the opposition, the more he enjoyed the battle.
I enjoy an argument as much as anyone, but I felt we were getting to the point that people were being needlessly offended for the sake of setting up a stark them-or-us alternative, and we ought to be a bit more modest in our approach: set out the problem, admit that it’s not certain what the best policy is but make some suggestions, and listen to the response.
That’s exactly what has been done here, and I have to admit it’s not working well: every sign of open-mindedness is taken as indecision, and every compromise as a sign of weakness.
The truth is simple: most people close to the problem - not all, but most, including the LibDem watchdog on the issue - are advising the Government that 28 days is cutting it fine, and there likely to be cases that need a bit longer, with the alternative being the premature release of people whom we believe are working to blow us up. Should “a bit” be an extra 14 days or 30 days or what? It’s obviously impossible to say, but we have to settle on a number rather than leave it open. So the proposal is a small increase with pretty extensive safeguards.
This has the virtue of reflecting exactly what we’re being told behind the scenes and what we actually think is needed. But does this approach work better than TB’s dramatic challenges? I’m not sure.
As for the practicalities, I’d think it’ll get through the Commons all right; the Lords may be harder.
On Mike’s more general point, my sense is that the Tory lead is coming off the boil and the next poll ill show it down to the 6-7% range. The Derbyshire by-election last night was good for the Tories; the Maidstone one, although a Tory gain, a very marginal change; the Birmingham defeat of the BNP very welcome but a special case - basically the usual mixed bag.
56. “the 42 days internment without trial, in that this is to be applied to “terroritsts”. Seemingly *only* terrorists.”
Is that convicted terrorists only or terrorists suspects in general? Traditional British values hold that there is a difference, you know.
I heard a chilling radio interview a couple of weeks ago with a member of the Pakistan government during the emergency. He was defending the detention of social activists on the grounds that they were effectively terrorists because they were not supporting the government.
5 John Wheatley “It will lose them activists (or ensure they don’t return). This still matters”
Very true. Neither Blair or Brown really understand the need for a strong activist base. At the last GE Labour had a far lower ratio of its members turning out as campaign workers than LDs or Conservatives.
Far from Brown re-vitalising the party he is actually doing more centralising and a swing against his activists views. Next May’s council elections will be interesting although one poster on here thinks there are few councillor positions up for election.
Re 58, Labour Humanist “The “brown tories” stuff and they casual disregard for civil liberties seems almost deliberately designed to alienate both the main blocks of our “core” vote.”
Yes. Its a sort of lose lose stratagy. (sic).
If it were not so awful for civil liberties I’d quite like it.
Calm down Tressage, “State tyranny” - a touch OTT don’t you think?
The judiciary can decide who is a terrorist in the same way they decide who is a criminal. Detaining someone for 42 days is a smaller decision than sending someone to prison for life don’t you think?
ID cards are used throughout Europe right now with no insult to civil liberty at all. Prsonally it would be useful to have an ID card to replace the hotch-potch of pseudo ID cards, utility bills (WTF) and passports we all need to do basic tasks. Whether it’s worth the cost is a more relevant question IMO. The civil liberty question is a total and utter dud.
As for being a Brownite lefty. No problem at all. Labour is far from perfect, but it’s the only party in the UK not run by a patrician, that has consistently invested in Families, Education and Health and set the agenda for tackling poverty in the UK and Abroad.
Admitted these days Cameron’s big govt “something must be done” approach is getting pretty Leftwing. We’re all leftwing now!
I would have thought the affair Abrahams would lose them more activists and voters than Brown. Abrahams was a Blair/Levy creation.
OK lads, detain that chap Jonathan for 42 days - he seems a bit of a trouble maker. That’ll learn him!
61. Agree with the first line of the comment their! It amuses me the press coverage that both the home sec. and theresa May get for their “arse in the shirt look!”
I still think Blair was far better as PM than Brown, although ridiculed by your side on this site: i think Brown has shown to be better at being chancellour than PM. Brown is absolutly hopeless in a nutshell at being PM. His performance at PMQ’s is dreadful - you cannot really blame the tories for stuff when you have been in office for 10 years. Don’t think he has grasped that point as yet.
I don’t think ID cards are a worthwhile policy and extending the 28 days seems uteley pointless IMO.
Although regreatfully it means curtains for your career, i really do hope Cameron comes in soon.
Re 61, Nick Palmer “The truth is simple: most people close to the problem - not all, but most, including the LibDem watchdog on the issue - are advising the Government that 28 days is cutting it fine,”
I’d rather listen to the former Attorney general, the current DPP and his man for terrorism as well as taking note of the private briefings we are getting that it is not needed.
67 If you can get some evidence together to convince a judge or judges that I am a terrorist be my guest. Could do with the time off.
60: Lest we forget what exactly? What point are you trying to make? So he dressed up for a photo and went to Eton.
How many of us can say that our opinions and world view when we were 19 years old is one we still hold to? Not many I would wager. It is wholly irrelevant what drinking society Cameron was in. Better that than a nerd with no mates surely?
Get over yourself you sad case.
Labour’s calculation is that by being tougher on anti-terror laws, it will benefit at the election from those who aren’t prepared to gamble with security. That calculation is usually sound. However, it presupposes that these members of the general public regard the Government as competent enough to carry out its forcefulness effectively. At present, instead of looking like Robocop, they probably look like the Keystone Cops.
Susan Kramer will not take much comfort from the Barnes result
69 it is a very sad situation for the country where chiefs of police are frightened of ending their career prospects by openly stating that 28 days is enough.
This is another reason why we need a locally elected person to be in charge of police in each area.
Yes Roger, it clearly shows DC engaged in smashing up restaurants - as per your defamatory statement yesterday.
Care to withdraw it before someone drops a writ on you?
Have the police ever ‘needed’ more time than 28 days to charge terrorist suspects?
The small increase from 28 to 42 represents a 50% increase in time to hold suspects.
As for ID cards how on earth will they help stop terrorism? After the fiasco with the tax records, can anyone really feel that their data is ’safe’ in this government’s hands?
61: Nick, why do you think Smith and Brown chose this weak to announce their plan to extend detention times? Anything to do with crying to divert attention away from Labour’s woes? If your party actually was concerned about protecting us for terrorists we might listen but that’s not why you are doing this is it?
The big problem for Smith with this legislation is that she is refusing to back date Police pay and breaking the arbitration agreement. These are the very pi££ed off people who are to implement the policy.
Jonathan - But I don’t have to convince a Judge that you are a terrorist. You have not been charged with anything. You have a brown skin though so you might be!
Many of the people held so far have not been charged with anything!!
Stevo. “The problem is your nasty class bias. If people slagged off Brown by saying he was a thicko Jock or a one-eyed cripple we’d rightly be offended. Yet you peddle the grossest stereotypes of ‘toffs’ imaginable”
Cameron chose to join the Bullingdon Club. He wasn’t forced to do so by circumstance of birth as you seem to be suggesting. I don’t care less what public figures do in their early lives unless it has a bearing on their future behaviour.
Joining this exclusive club tells us quite a lot about the enigma that is Cameron and is therefore useful information to those of us who want to know what sort of a Prime Minister he’ll make. In the same way that Brown’s ’soup kitchen’ (which you ridiculed yesterday) informs about his priorities.
70
But would you look good in an orange suit? A free holiday in Cuba….could be worth it!
HF: Middle Englander talks about a 5% increase in the Tory share, which is something very different than a 5% swing. As in this case both the Labour and Lib Dems share of the vote also increased over the five by-elections, the actual swing is considerably lower than 5%.
O/T - US elections:
I think Romney screwed up in the end yesterday. I think he got overly worried about Huck and let himself be bounced into a speech when he didn’t have a clear idea of what he wanted to say. As a result, he just ended up drawing attention to his Mormonism without really setting anybody at ease about it. I’ll be interested to see if it has any effect on the polls.
Clinton is still losing ground. I think that Iowa is going to spring a big surprise.
The Bullingdon club is clearly relevant to discuss how we are governed and by whom. If you don’t believe that look at the list of members on wikipedia.
* Alexander Thynn, 7th Marquess of Bath[3]
* David Cameron, MP[1]
* Alan Clark, MP[4]
* David Dimbleby, broadcaster[4]
* David Faber, MP
* Darius Guppy
* Peter Holmes à Court
* Boris Johnson, MP[4]
* Frank Pakenham, 7th Earl of Longford[5]
* Harry Mount
* George Osborne, MP[4]
* Nathaniel Philip Rothschild[6]
* Radosław Sikorski
It’s clearly a rather impressive little clique. How self serving it is, is a relevant question to any future Tory govt. Wouldn’t trust Dimbleby to interview Cameron fairly as a result of this link.
81 Sounds better than a wet London in December! If we detained terrorists in commuter trains, we would be taken to court for human rights violation!
84. And I was a member of my college rugby club. We did far more damage than those Bullingdon pooftas.
Jonathan, please get a life.
84. ‘The Bullingdon club is clearly relevant to discuss how we are governed and by whom.’
Getting beyond parody now. What will you start on next? shadowy links with the freemasons?
Labour posters’ obsession with this club is getting as bad as the hilarious UKIP conspiracy theories surrounding the Bilderberg Group.
51 Roger
As you know, you and I have had our disagreements in the past but they have been invariably been about substance and of course have never degenerated into personal abuse. I did not defend you because it was you, but because I would defend anybody who is subject to persistent, vindictive personal insults on Site.
You will have noted that I received no answer to my objections. In particular, the assailants were unable to answer what on earth their diatribes had to do with Political Betting. This is not surprising, because it is plain the only answer is ‘nothing’.
Since they disdain to answer civil and pertinent questions, I wonder why you trouble to answer their querulous posts.
PA reports:
Labour gained a much needed morale boost in the latest council by-elections, scoring a landslide victory against the British National Party, but it lost two marginal seats to Tories.
Its candidate Delia Edwards won at Princes End, Sandwell Borough, West Midlands. The defending BNP trailed in third behind the Tories.
Labour had won another of the ward’s seats with a majority of just 20 votes in May’s main polls.
But it went down to two defeats by the Tories this week.
Conservative Garry Purdy comfortably gained at Masson, Derbyshire Dales District while Sheena Williams won by 11 votes at Shepway South, Maidstone Borough, Kent, leaving the party just one seat short of an overall majority.
In London, Liberal Democrats slumped at Barnes, Richmond-upon-Thames Borough.
Although this is traditionally Tory territory, it had been marginal last year.
Analysis of this week’s five contests suggest a projected 14.8% nationwide Tory lead over Labour. A calculation based on four wards fought both times by all three major parties gives a line-up of C 44.0%, Lab 28.0%, Lib Dem 21.1%.
RESULTS:
Derbyshire Dales District - Masson: C 359, Lab 256, Lib Dem 126. (May 2007 - Two seats Lab 427, C 403, 380, Lab 366, Lib Dem 152, 149). C gain from Lab. Swing 7.2% Lab to C.
Maidstone Borough - Shepway South: C 251, Lab 240, Lib Dem 173, Green 34. (May 2006 - Lab 397, C 386, Ukip 148, Lib Dem 140). C gain from Lab. Swing 1.3% Lab to C.
Richmond upon Thames London Borough - Barnes: C 1643, Lib Dem 1103, Lab 91, Green 87. (May 2006 - Three seats C 1891, 1847, 1749, Lib Dem 1569, 1531, 1513, Lab 147, 146, 123). C hold. Swing 5.1%. Lib Dem to C.
Sandwell Borough - Princes End: Lab 796, C 517, BNP 314, Lib Dem 29. (May 2007 - Lab 898, BNP 878, C 498, Ind 241). Lab gain from BNP. Swing 14.1% BNP to Lab.
Wokingham District - Remenham, Wargrave and Ruscombe: C 913, Lib Dem 237, Ukip 83, Lab 60. (May 2006 - C 1398, Lib Dem 357, Ukip 75, Lab 72). C hold. Swing 1.2% C to Lib Dem.
65. “The judiciary can decide who is a terrorist in the same way they decide who is a criminal.” When I can see a definition of ‘terrorist’ that could not be used to justify incarcerating Nelson Mandela but which would capture IRA and Noraid ‘freedom fighters’, I would have some confidence in your argument.
Terrorist is a very loosely defined term, incorporating (rightly IMO) non-violent supporters who ‘only’ provide logistical and financial support. Extending detention without trial to these ’supporters’ will bring the whole war on terrorism into disrepute as the distinction between legitimate political activity is blurred. Narrowing the definition to only violent terrorists defeats the objective - if there is enough evidence to classify someone as ‘violent’, then existing laws including POTA and conspiracy provide more than enough flexibility.
Another badly thought through, knee jerk, response. GB seems to be in love with COBRA and the whole security apparat - mainly I suspect as they are one of the last few state organizations competently managed. It was said that Maggie was in love with the SAS for the same reasons - and she found plenty of reasons to deploy them. I really don’t want GB to get his hands on this toy - when he throws it out of the pram, many liberties and lives will be destroyed.
71. Jon. All I know about Cameron (that can be separated from his PR guru Hilton) is that he went to Eton joined the Conservative Party when Thatcher was Prime Miniater joined the exclusive Bullingdon Club joined his father’s exclusive gentemans club ‘Whites’ worked for the Green brothers as their PR man stood for the leafy Cotswold constituency of Whitney and within only four years of entering parliament felt sufficiently confident to stand for leader.
I’m sure there’s plenty more but that’s about all the man in the street would know. Surely it’s reasonable to consider this when deciding whether I as a voter would like to have him as PM? And surely it’s reasonable to compare this with alternatives who might have spent their lives in less hedonistic activities?
84. I hear they do good nosh. How do I join?
The Independent are showing themselves up as a bunch of thickos if they are surprised that David Davis should stand up for the civil liberties of suspects whilst being tough on “felons”.
In this country you’re innocent until proven guilty - at least you were until Labour introduced control orders. With that standard of intern journalism, it’s no wonder the Independent have to bump up their circulation figures by giving away most of their papers for free.
91. “And surely it’s reasonable to compare this with alternatives who might have spent their lives in less hedonistic activities?”
- an intersting one. One of the attractions of Cameron is he seems like a good lad, fairly normal, looks like he has had a good time in his youth and has settled down now. Unlike Brown who is pretty obviously an obsessive workaholic with quite a lot of issues. I know who i would prefer in charge.
Roger
If they asked me to join the Bullingdon Club I would.
91. I’m confused, it seems that all of Camerons history that you have told there has absolutely no hint of scandal or in fact anything other than a seemingly normal life for someone with his kind of family. He got involved with politics at an early age, moved up the ranks, became an MP, became leader.
re 44
Further to my points above, I would be prepared to believe anti terror laws were justifiable IF I believed they would be used for bona fide terrorists. (A contradiction in terms I know for the pedants but I hope the meaning is clear
BUT
we have had examples of these laws being deilberatley misused in the past and NO-ONE has been held to account.
Abuse of draconian powers unchecked leads to a police state.
I have no faith in the judicial system at all and none in the police when any government of any hue deliberately tells lies to make a case - and does not fear the consequences (electorally none, judicially none).
91 everyone likes a bit of posh of Roger - it’s one of the reasons you’re so popular.
we tories are confident that we (finally) have a leader who could be PM. We are relaxed to the extent that our navel gazing is over and Labour’s is just beginning. Also we aren’t lefties - you guys just get so wound up about everything because of your need to emote constantly and let everyone know you are sharing everyone’s pain.
Brown is a disaster and coming to terms with that is going to be painful for the party. This doesn’t mean I think we are going to cruise to victory - a hung parliament still seems the most likely outcome of the next GE.
88. Peter - Roger comes on this site largely to engage in conflict with other posters and mouth off about a variety of topics on which he has no particular knowledge (the Bullingdon remarks being yet another example). I don’t know why you feel you need to stand up for him when he is pretty much getting what he wants.
a seemingly normal life for someone with his kind of family
Yes but it’s the family type which irks Roger et al so much.
New editor of The Times announced by Murdoch.
“The Times Newspapers Holdings Board, which approves the appointment of a new editor, is set to meet on Tuesday, December 11 to approve Harding’s appointment.” Guardian
Being a member of The Times Newspapers Holdings Board sounds a demanding job - I could do that!
Roger @ 91. Yes, it would be good to have someone with a bit of breeding as PM, don’t you think?
82 Noorderling yes tks for pointing that out.
From Fraser Nelson’s article in the Spectator
“David Cameron has meanwhile been going back to his constituency and preparing for government. This has involved a fairly sober assessment of how many genuinely Cabinet-grade people he has on his team (he struggled to get into double digits). Ideally, his next reshuffle should be the last. It is vital for his prospects that the Tory frontbench look and sound like a competent government-in-waiting in comparison to the disintegrating Brown Cabinet.”
http://tinyurl.com/26a58m
[102] Especially if he gets rid of that pesky Parliament Act those demned radicals brought in back in 1911, was it? Bring back the hereditaries, all we get these days is bogus Whiggery, what?
Hooray, my day is made… I’ve been waiting for absolutely yonks for an opportunity to use that phrase… shame I couldn’t get the moniker right, must take me pills…
106 Glad to be of service
“Poll: Huckabee in 2nd Place GOP Race
AP Poll: Huckabee Leaps Into Second Place in National GOP Race, Hurting Giuliani and Thompson”
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3967338
99 “I don’t know why you feel you need to stand up for him when he is pretty much getting what he wants. ”
Read my post again at 88, Shhh.
I took care to explain that I would stand up for anybody who was subject to persistent, personal, vindictive attacks.
As you know, I am Site regular and have posted for many years. I know of nobody else on Site who has been subject to the same personal abuse and animosity.
I do not recognise the name ‘Shhh’. Rightly or wrongly, it makes me suspect you are one of those who posts under different names because your credibility is shot under your previous name - wha we sometimes mockingly refer to as a ‘Tarquin’.
Whether you are or not, your credibility is significantly undermined by your evident failure to read or comprehend my earlier post before framing your response.
roger, you should not discriminate against someone because of their background. He didnt choose to be born into a rich background. His parents chose to send him to eton because they, like any decent parent, want the best for their child. It just happend that they could afford to.
Discrimination on all levels is wrong, including class and wealth.
91: Well OK that’s your opinion to which you are entitled. But if I was judged on my 19 year old self i would likely be unemployable! I just think it very strange you are so fixated on this when most people see it as irrelevant.
What was Brown up to at University? Why aren’t you judging him on that rather than his current performance, as you seem to be doing for Dave. All most odd.
108 Thanks Me.
I should think Huckabee is now likely to win Iowa, but my guess is that will be his high point.
I was amused to note that the commentary which explained his surge also, inadvertently I think, explained why he wouldn’t win the GOP nomination. The surge, it says, is due to “…a burst of support from evangelicals, Southerners and conservatives”, i.e., nutters.
You need a slightly broader base than that to take the Nomination, let alone the Presidency.
[112] Not sure that’s still true for the GOP nomination.
I need - before I toddle - to make an apology (didn’t get a chance on the last US thread, came to it too late). I’ve previously portrayed the Yanks’ evangelical rightists as being prepared to stick at nothing in order to turn their country into a theocracy. I’ve since discovered that this is a minority tendency within American evangelical conservatism, the majority tendency being Apocalyptic, keen to use nuclear weapons a.s.a.p. to bring in Armageddon (which they know they alone will survive).
In other words, they’re a lot lot more scary than I thought they were…
Polly Toynbee seems to have fallen out of love with Gordon Brown. This time, she’s condemning the government for intending to build more prison places, in today’s Guardian.
She’s the sort of person who believes that smashing someone’s face in is a cry for help on the part of the perpetrator.
89. How does the PA work out that the Tories have got a 14% nationwide lead over Labour, after just 5 by-elections? I’ve never understood how you can make such national prediciton with such few seats?
88. PtP. Yes I noticed your sterling work in trying to restore some propriety to the site and as always your arguments were compelling and impartial (which is probably why they were unanswered).
I’m sure most of the real screamers are very young indeed and still believe that insulting their political opponents will make them change their minds or at the very least hurt!
Though it’s true that I attract some personal criticism (and have my own stalker)it is nothing compared to that dished out to Nick Palmer. There are too many on here who think he’s a surrogate for Brown himself who some hate in a way that goes well beyond politics. Nonetheless his example of how to take criticism without ever resorting to malice is an example to the rest of us.
Re Cameron at Oxford — is Dave’s restaurant-smashing, Class A-not-saying past impeding his ability to call for the dismissal of ministers taking dodgy donations?
101: “New editor of The Times announced by Murdoch”
Let’s hope his first actions are to get rid of Tit Hames, and pension off Riddell…
(that wasn’t a typo in 118 btw…)
114 - How I love Polly! Only reason I read her column is for the comic value. For her sake I really hope she doesn’t believe half of what she writes.
112-PtP-”You need a slightly broader base than that to take the Nomination, let alone the Presidency.”
Totally agree with you. But yesterday I was amazed with the poll that showed Huckabee leading in SC. I didn’t see Romney’s speech, but for what I read it was good, but not enough to gain the evangelicals vote. And he chose the worst time possible, it seems he’s just responding to the Huckabee “surge”(actually, I think he is, but I shouldn’t =)
116. Amen….sainthood clearly beckons.
121 LOL! You ever been to SC, Me?!!
Sorry, got to dash. Racing is starting. Catch you (and others) later.
116 “vatican curia”
You are a Tarquin…and I claim my 5 Green Shield Stamps.
Toodle pip!
5. Test. I thought you were the one on the right with the white bow-tie……..
These big brother policies have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. The borders are wide open, hundreds of thousands are entering Britain with no checks, virtually no border controls at ports and our intelligence services tell us they have not even got enough operatives to do their job and have to choose which groups to let through the net. Couple this with years of unchecked hate preaching and the backlash from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the War of Terror and it is easy to see that the government is not that bothered about the terrorism threat. In fact the government has actively encouraged it to use fear as a political tool. ID cards and 42 days are all political hobby horses for nerds in the Labour party and they are about trying to look tough whilst otherwise acting like imbeciles. Increasingly the British public are seeing through this shameless shower who have no interest in protecting the public.
121,112. PtP and Me. People whose opinion I regard, including yourselves and Jan, keep saying Huckabee won’t get the nomination for various reasons. Lack of funds, lack of a broad based support, creationist views, lack of knowledge and experience on foreign policy issues. But the betting and the polls don’t seem to be worried about any of these issues.
The most important characteristic required of a US President is good communication skills. He and Obama both have it in spades. I don’t rule either of them out from achieving their nominations
126. Correct.
112/121. Iowa looks locked down for Huckabee now.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDllZjgxOGM3YjA1YjI4MjBmZDJkZjcwN2JhYzAwM2U=
with Mitt likely to hold New Hampshire from McCain.
The focus is on which of the So-Cons takes South Carolina and how much momentum it gives them into Florida where they have to take on Rudy head to head.
I was brought up in a rough part of Manchester in what in those days were called “slums” where “posh bastards” were as despised as scousers and coppers. I therefore have a “nose” for stuck-up, snobby tw@ts who think they’re superior to the rest of us.
In Cameron’s case however, I have no problem with the man at all. So he’s a bit posh, so what! To me he comes across as a fairly down to earth lad with no snobbiness or airs and graces about him at all. Similarly George Osborne. They can’t help their background any more than I can but despite the privileges they’ve obviously had they both seem to have turned out fairly normal and likeable. (and that’s certainly not something I’d say about the repulsive and sinister Brown)
Now if a manc lumpen prole like me has no problem with Cameron why does a middle class boy like Roger get so agitated about him. Perhaps Rog is just jealous?
re 61 “On Mike’s more general point, my sense is that the Tory lead is coming off the boil and the next poll ill show it down to the 6-7% range.”
What gives you that sense, Nick? I’m rather expecting ICM to run at 40ish/30ish/20ish for a month or two, at least.
123-PtP-Not yet, I live a little far from there!
127-stjohn-Maybe he will get it, and surprise me, but I don’t think it’s possible right now. Even if he can win in Iowa, I’m not sure if he can win in NH(the group of evangelicals, conservatives and others that support Huckabee are not as big as in Iowa). If he loses in NH, he will lose much of the “momentum” for the other candidate…
129-Thanks for the link!
129. A lot can change before South Carolina if the current front runners there perform badly in Iowa and New Hampshire. Momentum is very important in all this - especially with the shorter timescale this time round - and I won’t be cashing in my 33/1 on Huckerbee just yet. Can he go through to win the nomination? Yes, I’m quite sure he can, though whether he will is a different matter - probably he won’t.
The one group of people who should be enjoying Huckerbee’s surge is the Democrats. Not only is he an eminantly beatable candidate in November, but a close race for the Republican nomination will help them no end. That said, the ability of the Democrats to fail to take their chances is surpassed only by the French left.
129. Caveman. Huckabe 11/8 for the Iowa Caucus with vcbet. Romney 10/11. Should we be steaming in at 11/8 do you think?
132. Me. Yes. It’s all about whether he can retain the “Big Mo”.
65. Jonathan “The judiciary can decide who is a terrorist in the same way they decide who is a criminal. Detaining someone for 42 days is a smaller decision than sending someone to prison for life”
Yes a 42 detention decision would be a smaller decision in the sence the person (who may in practice never be found be a terrorist) would go to prison for less time but it is could be a much more difficult decision. A decision to send someone to prison for life is based on evidence and is decided “beyond reasonable doubt”. While a detention for 42 days decision would not be based on evidence but based on suspicions and the test would be a lot less than beyond reasonable doubt.
61 Nick P “On Mi