A Noble Endeavor

I agree with Ali entirely over the following:

I do not exaggerate when I suggest that this, if handled correctly, could give Labour the chance to race ahead again. It is of monumental proportions

but over effectively everything else we differ.

I must firstly emphasise further the point made aptly by Ali, as there is little other place to start: this is a stunning move which I can think of no precedent for. It is unquestionably an exercise in grand-standing and as far as can be determined was entirely unexpected by anyone save Davis himself. I also feel that it would be hard for Davis to return to the high standing he achieved, but differ in there being much uncertainty over whether the Tories will offer support, given that Cameron has wished him luck but has apparently pledged no assistance.

Ali suggests that this makes a mockery of the principle of parliamentary democracy, but I would suggest that yesterday’s vote made it clear that the Labour Party was not interested in winning the argument but instead enforcing Brown’s will. Quite simply I doubt severely that the number of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who were opposed to the measure numbered 37, just as strongly as I doubt that the government’s announcement of a vast increase spending on Northern Ireland was coincidental.

What brought Brown victory yesterday was not winning the argument, indeed it was not even the public electing a set of petty authoritarians to act as their representatives. The problem lay with the Whip System, which results in an over-powered executive capable of forcing through even this, the most sinister and muddled piece of legislation to encounter parliament since Blair’s attempt to make it 90 days. Quite simply the executive being able to bring about the ruination of all within the party that oppose it gives it an excessive quantity of power, allowing it to threaten all those that wish for advancement with their hopes being dashed should they opt to follow principle rather than party.

Ali suggests that Parliamentary votes are a matter of conscience. I argue that they should be.

So David Davis decided not to let the matter stand and took a radical approach anticipated by no one. This certainly unsettles many, but I do not consider this to be an instance of egoism on the part of Davis, nor do I consider it “disgraceful”. No egoist in their right mind would abandon the second most powerful position in a party almost certain to reach power on account of a law which could be over-turned upon them reaching power. No, Davis has clearly been affected by the mood of the nation seemingly being in favour of the measure and intends this campaign to be one of scrutiny being placed upon the relationship of state and people. Although this was certainly of interest to Cameron regardless it is worth considering to what extent Davis shaped this distinct focus of theirs and worth observing how things shift now that he has departed.

My respect for David Davis was great after witnessing his firm and robust defence of our liberty during the debate but now my feelings have solidified into outright admiration. It is at moments such as this that I am pleased not to be a partisan. This is certainly an approach that anyone bearing their own political positioning in mind first and foremost would not have taken, but others would do well to follow. Are we to understand that the doyenne of the hopeful leftists, David Miliband, who recently wrote an article for The Times about radical liberalism and social democrats truly was in favour of this draconian piece of vicious statism? Far more likely that he and many others like him were wary of destroying their professional futures by opposing something which was pledged in no manifesto {as Davis mentioned in his fine speech} that somehow became a key policy over which there could be no negotiation.

This is the sort of system that is antithetical to earnest liberalism: the collective body subsumes the individual and this system exploits human self-interest at the cost of liberty. As any liberal knows the appropriate response to such tyranny is to overthrow it and we can but hope that Davis is the spearhead of such a revolution. I even find myself able to forgive him for using a slippery slope fallacy in his speech, for what have the government done save witness a 28 day detention approved and then attempt to force through a lengthier period that lasts six weeks? They used the original as a launch pad rather than accepting defeat over the matter and given this the only plausible response is that the government wishes to be able to imprison people without trial for as long as they could get away with in parliament.

Their motivations may be benign, they could have our national interest at heart, but this is not the appropriate approach to take to the relationship of state and individual. If there is any truth in human rationality this will be revealed in the further national discussions which occurs as a consequence of Davis’ noble and bold move.

The following 36 Labour MPs rebelled against the 42 Days Vote:

Diane Abbott; Richard Burden; Katy Clark; Harry Cohen; Frank Cook; Jeremy Corbyn; Jim Cousins; Andrew Dismore; Frank Dobson; David Drew; Paul Farrelly; Mark Fisher; Paul Flynn; Neil Gerrard; Ian Gibson; Roger Godsiff; John Grogan; Dai Havard; Kate Hoey; Kelvin Hopkins; Glenda Jackson; Lynne Jones; Peter Kilfoyle; Andrew MacKinlay; Bob Marshall-Andrews; John McDonnell; Michael Meacher; Julie Morgan; Chris Mullin; Douglas Naysmith; Gordon Prentice; Linda Riordan; Alan Simpson; Emily Thornberry; David Winnick; Mike Wood.

Note the abscence of one particular figure from this list: Jon Cruddas, erstwhile rising star of the Party left.

That left-wing of the Labour Party needs to wake up and realise how impotent it’s become. Nobody listens to them anymore. Their last tangible achievements were in the 90s with the minimum wage and devolution; since then, nothing. Not on Iraq, not on civil liberties, not on privatisation. They claim they stay in the party because it’s the only way they’ll have influence - but they have no influence in the party.

The government went over their heads today by cutting a deal with the DUP. Those with power in the party would now prefer to deal with a party consisting of conservative nationalists and religious extremists than with secular, socially liberal democratic socialists. And now even their usual allies in the Compass group MPs and Jon Cruddas abandoned them for fear of the whips today.

Shouldn’t that tell the Labour-left something? It has no influence; New Labour stopped listening when it realised how responsive MPs were to threats from the Whips. If it ever wants that power back, there would need to be a grassroots revolution in the party. Activists and constituency parties would need to seize power back from the creaking and undemocratic hierarchy and deselect MPs who voted for measures like this. They’d have to deselect them, find suitable candidates and win the constituency for that new face. And this in the face of great pressure from the national machine that hands out funding and support. Can you imagine how fast that funding would dry up if local activists deselected one of Gordon’s favourite faces and replaced them with a snarling (yet wonderfully bearded) socialist calling for his immediate impeachment for economic heresy? The cash would just go (if, of course, it’s not already gone to pay off the party’s debts…). So - the revolution could happen, but it’d be slow.

The other alternative would be to jump party and head somewhere else. The current fringe socialist parties - the SWP/Left List, RESPECT Renewal, the Socialist Party, blah - are sectarian basket cases who’d destroy those MPs’ careers. The Lib Dems wouldn’t have proper socialists. That leaves joining the Greens - who’d welcome the support and funding and seats. But whether they could persuade their local support bases to come with them is another question.

But the other choice is founding another party. This would be difficult. Every attempt to found a new socialist party since the inception of the Labour party itself has died of Trotskyite infilitration and sectarian squabbles. The SWP might well enter as a bloc and break the new party in the way they did Socialist Alliance. And funding and ground support might prove an issue if local Labour parties didn’t move with the MPs. Not to mention First Past the Post…

That’s why any attempt to set up a new party would need great care. The MPs would have to go to their local parties and make the case for change. Some of the unions would have to go with them - and that’s possible, given the recent discontent from the GMB and other left-leaning groups. And they’d have to go as a concerted group; if they immediately formed a unified parliamentary body when they defected, they’d have a parliamentary record to stand on next election, and would be less vulnerable to sectarian collapse. It’d be difficult, but it could work. Just so long as they keep the SWP out, of course.

The Labour Left has several options. It can find another party, or it can establish its own. Either way, they’d have more of a voice than their current whisper. The government seems more frightened of other parties eating up its votes all round. Just as triangulation against the Tories constantly drove New Labour to the right, perhaps a threat from the left will pull them back again. And they’d have more luck in the Commons judging by recent events; Brown was more willing to deal with another, small party than his own MPs.

The Labour Left has no influence now, and needs to move on. If anyone doubts that, I’ll remind them of the results in the 42 Days debate. For: 315. Against: 306. The difference between those numbers: 9. Number of DUP MPs for: 9.

Number of Labour MPs against: 36.

Get out before it’s too late, rebels.

The bill to extend the period of detention without charge to 42 Days passed the Commons.

315 MPs voted for.
306 MPs voted against.

Note that there are 9 DUP MPs. Who, I’m told, voted for.

So now we know. What were they offered to stick with the government? Perhaps Gordon agreed that any homosexuals detained under the bill would be entered for “re-education” while imprisoned…

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. The DUP has never been known for its attachment to liberalism - or anything approaching it. The government doubtless offered concessions to them, as it was a perfect opportunity to levy something, but had their votes not been so important, they might have gone this way as it is.

Which, of course, says nothing for the DUP.

The Lords will now be crucial. They’ll reject it, I suspect; but will the government use the Parliament Act? It’d be drastic, but it could happen. There’s a lot riding on the Bill, after all. If the government gets defeated on it, they’ll sink from barely treading water to drowning, such is the emphasis they’ve laid on it.

And they might just get away with forcing it through the Lords this time. Their Commons majority was tiny - but it was there. More importantly, they can claim to have the support of the public; that poll showing 80% public support (I worry…) for the measure may see some air again soon.

But would it be in their interests? A devious voice in the back of the mind says the government might not want the bill to pass the Lords. Ministers may well know the bill will have disastrous effects for which they’ll be clobbered in key marginals at the next election. They couldn’t back down from a Commons fight without losing face. But if the Lords reject it, they can blame that for the bill’s defeat and scurry away without as much of a dent to the reputation. I do wonder, at least…

Until then, I’m off to seethe…

This is of course the sort of moment that Shami Chakrhabarti lives for and she hasn’t failed to deliver. Liberty being against such things is to be anticipated, but the extent of their influence is considerable.

I suspect, though, that the reason they have come so close to killing this measure and the reason they assisted so greatly in Blair’s single defeat was the total alteration in the relationship of executive and those around it caused by the “45 minute” claim. As we were told in total confidence that weapons existed capable of causing carnage on a national level {albeit a nation other than our own, a fact often lost in the whirlwind of controversy and repetition} and this later turned out to be a fabrication at best how is it possible for any government to be entirely trusted again?

We must be wary that this proto-cynicism does not develop into the full thing, but this is perhaps one of the most notable features of the Blair legacy and well worth noting.

Hear here David Davis arguing against the 42 day detention bill. This comes after John Major. When these two politicians are looking like pristine liberals compared to Gordon Brown and David Miliband is being flown in from the Middle East especially to vote “Yes” we have perhaps witnessed a total break-down of the left-right dichotomy. Can the Labour Party truly be considered social liberals any longer? And can David Davis having his ear held by Liberty and nodding approvingly at their reasoning really by a feature of reality?

Perhaps Conservative authoritarian tendencies would revive themselves once they reach power. For the time being I’m mildly baffled.

We will be covering the Commons debate and vote on 42 days’ detention without charge. The vote is expected at about 6.00pm.

Apparently negotiations between the DUP and Labour high-rankers is on-going over the 42 Days extention which, given that things were meant to be nearing wrapped up prior to this weekend, probably suggests that things are going slightly less well than hoped.

Should this really surprise us? Those that lived through The Troubles will surely wonder why legislation is now needed to deal with a threat that has achieved a horrific yet relatively modest single terrorist attack, while none was required to handle an organisation that made regular bombings and upon one occasion came close to succeeding where Guido failed in detonating the Prime Minister along with much of cabinet.

Although it is worth noting that the state only “coped” without extended spells of untried detention through emergency determent this, in itself, begs the question of why the tools capable of dealing with the IRA are inadequate for Al-Qaeda.

Let us hope that Jacqui Smith can come with a fine response to that point, hopefully one that does not include the phrase “existential crisis”. Failing that I imagine we could have a good explanation for the hold-up…

I really hope the government is defeated on 42 day detention.  After being knocked back from 90 days, Parliament settled on a compromise amendment at 28, and the issue should have been settled there.  The government has proposed 42 days for purely political reasons - plucking a number it thinks might be acceptable from mid-air - and hopes to force it upon an unsuspecting House of Commons.

The measure is wholly unnecessary.  The current limit of 28 days has never been reached, so there are no grounds upon which one could pretend it is a required move.  The principle is a strong affront to liberty, enabling someone to be locked up for six weeks without any charges being made.  This is not the stuff of liberal democracy.

Jacqui Smith’s latest peace offering to the rebels is classic political trickery.  It is an attempt to make rebels believe the measures are limited and somehow impotent (”it’s not so bad after all…”) while the government are still running around the country telling everyone how much the police need the powers.  It’s just like when Tony Blair came back from Europe boasting about how Britain’s economic position in the EU had changed for the better, when in reality he had signed away much of our rebate.  The compromise package suggested by Smith is so brilliant because it does not actually compromise on the controversial issue (ie a reduction to 35 days).  It is like going to Argos to return a dodgy blender and being given a fruit juicer in return.

The emotional blackmail being used is also concerning.  Rebelling against 42 days is a victory to the Tories, will magnify Brown’s problems, will bring about the end of Labour government.  In truth, it is Brown’s own stupid fault for re-opening this minefield.  He is to blame for the idiotic strategy trying to win on the issue, and he is to blame if he fails.  The Labour rebels can sleep easily at night knowing that Brown is ultimately at fault for his own downfall because he re-opened an issue that caused a backbench rebellion last time.

One final observation, of course, is that there are all manner of better things for Parliament to spend time debating.

This is just becoming tiresome.

The government is, apparently, considering concessions on the 42 Day Detentions. These will be much the same as the concessions over the 10p tax band, I fear. That is, a meaningless fudge designed to allow MPs to live with their consciences while failing to address key objections to the measure:

Ministers want to extend the limit suspects can be held without charge to 42 days, which many Labour MPs oppose.

To avoid losing a Commons vote, the government is to suggest halving the period during which police can enact these extra powers from 60 to 30 days.

To translate: special powers to detain suspects for 42 days without charge will remain on the cards. The only thing that’s changed in when police are allowed to use those powers, not that they’ll have them.

Which is a shame, as most objections to the bill are over the very fact that police could hold people without charge for 42 days.

Further evidence that the government hopes to pass the bill by fudge and fudge alone comes here:

The government wants to secure the support of the nine Democratic Unionist Party MPs for its plans.

One possibility might be with offers of seats on the intelligence and security select committee.

Or it could be by ensuring income from the sale of surplus Army land in Northern Ireland stays locally, rather than going to the Treasury.

Now, a test for you: spot the part of that deals with persuading those MPs with rational (hah…) argument rather than making shady backroom deals that have nothing to do with the substance of the bill.

Did you find it? No, me neither…

Brown says he’d rather “do the right thing” and lose than back down. Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to realise that the right thing is to lose.