open Democracy News Analysis - 42 Days - the vote closes in plus first reactions, Anthony Barnett - Comments

Dougthedug on "42 Days - the vote closes in plus first reactions"

Dougthedug — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 21:31:58 +0100

A good point. We are already in a state which can arrest you and hold you while the police look for evidence that you did anything wrong.

The principle that you can't be held without charge went with the 28 day bill. Now the time limit has gone up to 42 days.

The argument is not now about whether you can detain somebody without charge, the argument is now how long you can hold someone without charge and the next logical step will be to widen the scope of terrorism to bring in legitimate protest groups the government doesn't like.

I used to think the jokes about Brown as Stalin were satire but I'm not laughing now.

Toque on "42 Days - the vote closes in plus first reactions"

Toque — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:49:28 +0100

"No he is not 'repeal[ing] the Magna Carta'"

Isn't he? Does the fact that it's being done incrementally mean its not happening? The precedent has been set. Why stop at 42 days; what difference will a few more make?

owly on "42 Days - the vote closes in plus first reactions"

owly — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:17:33 +0100

No he is not 'repeal[ing] the Magna Carta'. However it seems that dim Gordon has picked a fight with his own MPs over an issue that never have need be.

While it is true the examining computer hard drives takes time I can see no reason why a person should be detained for more than 28 days, and certainly not 42 days. This is a very dangerous and very illiberal thing to have proposed. It should also be a matter of concern that the Home Secretary would be able to authorize such a detention. While I have no objection to the Home secretary sitting ex-judicial (for example in what would have been capital murder cases for setting tariffs) I think this is too far. I am also worried at how previous acts have been grossly abused by the 'bin police' etc and it is quite obvious that no further powers ought to be granted except under exceptional circumstances. This aint one of 'em.

Toque on "42 Days - the vote closes in plus first reactions"

Toque — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 16:01:43 +0100

It comes to something when the Prime Minister stands at the despatch box quoting a blog in order that he can repeal the Magna Carta and prevent a vote of no confidence in his Government.

I hope that Brogan is right about the Lords, or at least what's left of the Lords after New Labour's "reforms".

42 Days - the vote closes in plus first reactions, Anthony Barnett

Anthony Barnett — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:51:25 +0100

UPDATE ON LINKS TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING BELOW

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Well it seems that Ben Brogan will have called it right and with a wide variety of bribes and sweeteners Brown will get his 42 days. I hope he will regret it. Brogan suggests:

"So what happens next? The Lords will overturn it, the Government in turn will use the Parliament Act to get 42 days through. The fear among opponents is that this will turn out to be the high-water mark of the resistance".

We'll see about that.The argument of both principle and practicality has been won by the opposition to any extension of detention without charge. Prime Ministers Questions was very striking in this regard. You can see it over at PoliticsHome whose neat aggregation comes into its own. Iain Dale thought it was a high level draw. Yes, and no. In parliamentary terms perhaps, Brown was ready with his replies, but they were all derivative, drawn from the flawed authority of others, not least some police. On an issue like this political leaders should make the case for themselves, presenting their own assesment of the evidence and their own judgement of the issues. Cameron did this, it seemed to me. A high point was Brown quoting Tim Montgomery (I presume) at ConservativeHome which joined the Spectator and what we can now call the neo-d'ancons. Strike one for the blogosphere I suppose. As for public opinion - has anyone asked the public if they think innocent people should be held for 42 days without charge? The public think it is a matter of holding terrorist suspects BEFORE they are charged, not innocent members of the public themselves.

Over at the BBC Nick Robinson with his nose for a great story picked up on Shami's charge that the police are "sexing up" the case. I have no doubt that they are. But again, the problem with this argument is that it brings the focus onto the people being held who are then charged (the case is that they were held for 27 days and then charged with evidence known on days 4 and 12). Meanwhile, people are being held who are not guilty at all - and it is these cases that are counter-productive. I feel I have set out the case but a good argument is always worth repeating. All the stuff about amounts of evidence, complexity etc, which ConservativeHome have now bought and is part of the whole panic our civilisation is under threat watch the skys con trick, is - polite word - nonsense. It is not a matter of building a case for the prosecution which may well take a year. It is having enough prima facia evidence to present a charge.
Iain was appalled at ConHome playing the Blair/Brown game. Another figure lurking in that camp is Michael Gove, now self-proclaimed as a "Runnymede refusenik". Or is he? His so subtle as to be incomprehensible coded column in this week's Times which concludes with covert irony that the subversive view is to be on the side of the "authority" aka the well-read Gordon Brown. If he is not careful, by voting one way (I assume) while speaking out of the side of his mouth in another, Gove will become the Tory Party's Jack Straw.

PS: Over at Compass a row is breaking out over whether Jon Trickett and Jon Cruddas will vote for 42 Days or not. It may have very damaging consequences for the nascent alternative to New Labour in the Labour Party and its fresh thinking if they do. PSS: Neal Lawson of Compass has tried to stop the rot, saying his is not an organisation operating democratic centralism (right on!) but on this if they have voted for 42 it will hurt.

MORE LINKS Chicken Yogurt very cross about the deals! Linked to by Sunny in a useful Pickeled Politics roundup followed up by good round of quotes by him in Liberal Conspiracy, you seek him here, you seek him there, where CAN'T you find Sunny? Well, not in the Spectator's Coffee House now serving distinctly watered down brew of its least impressive instant caf ("Men of Goodwill disagreed today" - so it's Goodwill Gordon is it?) as it realises that neo-d'anconism relys on the DUP - how 21st century is that! And the DUP get the focus of Iain Dale's contempt. I'm going to bed. But this is a big one, the Prime Minister may even rue the day that he 'won'.