Registered user login:

Bright'sBlog

Bright's Blog

Politics uncovered by Martin Bright, New Statesman political editor

Bright's Blog Homepage

Does Anyone Mean What They Say?

  • Posted by Martin Bright
  • 30 April 2008

The Prime Minister is losing the argument on 42 days, but Cameron is still unconvincing standing up for our freedoms

Watching the PM and David Cameron debating 42 days detention without charge at PMQs was a surreal experience. David Cameron accused Gordon Brown of political calculation. He is attempting to present himself as the "security" Prime Minister, said Cameron, with more than a hint of envy. This is the Tory leader's problem. He is not convincing on matters of principle, whether it is telling the Today programme earlier this week how concerned he is for the poorest in society or attacking the government for its record on civil liberties.

Gordon Brown can't really believe there is a sustainable argument for extending detention without charge. He couldn't even get the figure right (his slip of "48 days" is a revealing one). But it looks like he is going to stick with it. Where Cameron is right is that this will drag on until a compromise with Labour rebels can be found. It's all so depressing.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

1 comment from readers

Cassandra
30 April 2008 at 18:38

Was I the only person to spot Mr. Brown's self-contradictory 'justifications' for the 42-day period today?

He started by saying that the '42 days' provision 'must' go on the statute books now, in order to avoid giving terrorists the 'oxygen of publicity' of the Government having to come before Parliament to request more powers after another terrorist atrocity.

Later on, he sought to reassure the Commons that there would be 'no threat to Civil Liberties' posed by this Bill, because it would be necessary for the Home Secretary to come to the Commons to request permission to activate the power to hold a suspect for 42 days.

Eh? Doesn't that count as 'coming before Parliament to request extra powers'?

So - WHICH was a lie?

The grandstanding about the 'oxygen of publicity', or the 'no threat to Civil Liberties' shpeel?

Perhaps *both* were lies?

If the Government were *serious* about protecting society from 'the terrorist threat' - rather than serious about abolishing the Civil Liberties that our ancestors had to fight for so long and so hard to wrest from their 'betters' - it would change the Law to make wiretap evidence admissible in Court.

And - as painful as it is to type this - it's the flippin' Tories who are arguing for that, NOT New Labour.

(Of course, I do know that they'll revert to Michael Howard mode once they get their claws back on Power.)

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

Martin Bright began his journalistic career writing in very simple English for a magazine aimed at French school children. This experience has informed his style ever since. He worked for the BBC World Service, and The Guardian before joining the Observer as Education Correspondent. He went on to become Home Affairs Editor before becoming the New Statesman's political editor in 2005.

Recent Posts

Ingrid Betancourt -- who she?

  • By Martin Bright
  • 03 July 2008

Interview: Ed Balls

  • By Martin Bright and Suzanne Moore
  • 03 July 2008

When discrimination works

  • By Martin Bright
  • 03 July 2008

Duncan v Oborne?

  • By Martin Bright
  • 30 June 2008

Brown's Henley Nemesis and the Anti-Messiah Complex

  • By Martin Bright
  • 27 June 2008

Mr Brown's long year

  • By Martin Bright
  • 26 June 2008

Is it a Boycott or Not?

  • By Martin Bright
  • 24 June 2008