Qatada's deportation won't end Cameron's headache

The Lib Dems will frustrate Cameron's efforts to reform human rights law.

It was with cheers that Conservative MPs greeted Theresa May's announcement that Abu Qatada has been arrested and will be deported to Jordan at the end of the month. Having decided not to contest the European Court of Human Rights ruling blocking Qatada's deportation, the government has received "assurances" from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture will not be used against him.  After nine years, it looks as if the man who allegedly acted as the intellectual inspiration for 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and other terrorists is on his way home.

But ministers are keenly aware that the Tory backbenches won't be satisfied for long. In her statement to the Commons, May pointedly referred to the need for "a British Bill of Rights". As things stand, for instance, the government is unlikely to win its appeal against the ECHR's ruling in favour of prisoners' votes and it may struggle to deport other extremist preachers. But as long as the Tories remain in coalition with the Lib Dems, it's hard to see any progress being made towards a British bill. The government commission examining the proposal is dominated by supporters of the ECHR (one Conservative appointee, Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, resigned in protest) and Clegg is determined not to see the Human Rights Act undermined. As he declared in his speech to last year's Lib Dem conference:

The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act are not, as some would have you believe, foreign impositions. These are British rights, drafted by British lawyers. Forged in the aftermath of the atrocities of the Second World War. Fought for by Winston Churchill. So let me say something really clear about the Human Rights Act. In fact I’ll do it in words of one syllable: It is here to stay.

Cameron's recent statement that the Tories "would be going quite a bit faster, in fact, quite a lot faster" if they weren't in coalition was an admission that the Lib Dems are winning this political tug-of-war.

Jordanian preacher Abu Qatada was arrested on Tuesday morning by officers from the UK Border Agency. Photograph: Rex Features.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Dan Kitwood/Getty
Show Hide image

I believe only Yvette Cooper has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy Corbyn

All the recent polling suggests Andy Burnham is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy Corbyn, says Diana Johnson MP.

Tom Blenkinsop MP on the New Statesman website today says he is giving his second preference to Andy Burnham as he thinks that Andy has the best chance of beating Jeremy.

This is on the basis that if Yvette goes out first all her second preferences will swing behind Andy, whereas if Andy goes out first then his second preferences, due to the broad alliance he has created behind his campaign, will all or largely switch to the other male candidate, Jeremy.

Let's take a deep breath and try and think through what will be the effect of preferential voting in the Labour leadership.

First of all, it is very difficult to know how second preferences will switch. From my telephone canvassing there is some rather interesting voting going on, but I don't accept that Tom’s analysis is correct. I have certainly picked up growing support for Yvette in recent weeks.

In fact you can argue the reverse of Tom’s analysis is true – Andy has moved further away from the centre and, as a result, his pitch to those like Tom who are supporting Liz first is now narrower. As a result, Yvette is more likely to pick up those second preferences.

Stats from the Yvette For Labour team show Yvette picking up the majority of second preferences from all candidates – from the Progress wing supporting Liz to the softer left fans of Jeremy – and Andy's supporters too. Their figures show many undecideds opting for Yvette as their first preference, as well as others choosing to switch their first preference to Yvette from one of the other candidates. It's for this reason I still believe only Yvette has the breadth of support to beat Jeremy and then to go on to win in 2020.

It's interesting that Andy has not been willing to make it clear that second preferences should go to Yvette or Liz. Yvette has been very clear that she would encourage second preferences to be for Andy or Liz.

Having watched Andy on Sky's Murnaghan show this morning, he categorically states that Labour will not get beyond first base with the electorate at a general election if we are not economically credible and that fundamentally Jeremy's economic plans do not add up. So, I am unsure why Andy is so unwilling to be clear on second preferences.

All the recent polling suggests Andy is losing more votes than anyone else to Jeremy. He trails fourth in London – where a huge proportion of our electorate is based.

So I would urge Tom to reflect more widely on who is best placed to provide the strongest opposition to the Tories, appeal to the widest group of voters and reach out to the communities we need to win back. I believe that this has to be Yvette.

The Newsnight focus group a few days ago showed that Yvette is best placed to win back those former Labour voters we will need in 2020.

Labour will pay a massive price if we ignore this.

Diana Johnson is the Labour MP for Hull North.