Former Conservative attorney general Dominic Grieve leaves No.10 Downing Street earlier this year. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Dominic Grieve warns Cameron that anti-terrorism plan would breach UK law

Former Tory attorney general says proposal to prevent British terror suspects from returning home would "offend basic principles of our own common law". 

After several days of coalition negotiations, David Cameron has just delivered his Commons statement on how the government plans to fill what he described as "the gaps" in Britain's anti-terrorism armoury. As expected, he announced that the police would given the "temporary power" to seize passports at the border (currently they can only be removed by the Home Office). But he also went further and promised to explore a new "targeted, discretionary power" to prevent British terrorist suspects from returning to the UK and to reintroduce "relocation powers", which the government earlier abolished. 

In response, in a largely supportive reply, Ed Miliband criticised Cameron for "the mistake" of scrapping Control Orders in 2011, which allowed the police to relocate suspects. It is worth noting, however, that even in their tougher form, the government's TPIMs (Terrorism Investigation and Prevention Measures) remain less draconian than the measures they replaced.  

But the most notable moment came when former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve, who was sacked in the recent cabinet reshuffle, warned that Cameron's plan to prevent British nationals from returning would breach both international law and UK law. He said: 

I do share concerns that have been expressed that the suggestion British nationals, however horribly they may be alleged to have behaved, should be prevented from returning to this country. Not only does it offend principles of international law, it would actually offend basic principles of our own common law as well.

He added: "The best course is to bring these individuals to justice". In response, while agreeing that it was best to prosecute people where possible, Cameron insisted that the most important thing was to address the "gaps" in the government's powers. While earlier promising cross-party talks on the issue, he offered no indication of how he would overcome Grieve's objection. 

After his forced departure, owing to his strong support for the European Convention on Human Rights, the former attorney general is emerging as a fierce critic of Cameron's approach. He recently warned that allowing parliament to overrule the ECHR would be "not dissimilar from Putin using the Duma to ratify his annexation of the Crimea". With Cameron likely to make human rights reform one of the centrepieces of the Tory conference, Grieve will be a useful ally for Labour and the Lib Dems. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour to strip "abusive" registered supporters of their vote in the leadership contest

The party is asking members to report intimidating behaviour - but is vague about what this entails. 

Labour already considered blocking social media users who describe others as "scab" and "scum" from applying to vote. Now it is asking members to report abuse directly - and the punishment is equally harsh. 

Registered and affiliated supporters will lose their vote if found to be engaging in abusive behaviour, while full members could be suspended. 

Labour general secretary Iain McNicol said: “The Labour Party should be the home of lively debate, of new ideas and of campaigns to change society.

“However, for a fair debate to take place, people must be able to air their views in an atmosphere of respect. They shouldn’t be shouted down, they shouldn’t be intimidated and they shouldn’t be abused, either in meetings or online.

“Put plainly, there is simply too much of it taking place and it needs to stop."

Anyone who comes across abusive behaviour is being encouraged to email validation@labour.org.uk.

Since the bulk of Labour MPs decided to oppose Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, supporters of both camps have traded insults on social media and at constituency Labour party gatherings, leading the party to suspend most meetings until after the election. 

In a more ominous sign of intimidation, a brick was thrown through the window of Corbyn challenger Angela Eagle's constituency office. 

McNicol said condemning such "appalling" behaviour was meaningless unless backed up by action: “I want to be clear, if you are a member and you engage in abusive behaviour towards other members it will be investigated and you could be suspended while that investigation is carried out. 

“If you are a registered supporter or affiliated supporter and you engage in abusive behaviour you will not get a vote in this leadership election."

What does abusive behaviour actually mean?

The question many irate social media users will be asking is, what do you mean by abusive? 

A leaked report from Labour's National Executive Committee condemned the word "traitor" as well as "scum" and "scab". A Labour spokeswoman directed The Staggers to the Labour website's leadership election page, but this merely stated that "any racist, abusive or foul language or behaviour at meetings, on social media or in any other context" will be dealt with. 

But with emotions running high, and trust already so low between rival supporters, such vague language is going to provide little confidence in the election process.