Flawed in 42 ways
The former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller, told the House of Lords that she objected to the bill to enable the security services to hold suspected terrorists for 42 days without charge because:
I don’t see, on a principled basis, as well as a practical one, that these proposals are in any way workable.
She also pointed out various other obvious home truths - that Labour don’t appear to get - that there is a “balance between the right to life”, that “the fact [is] that there is no such thing as complete security” and that “the importance of our hard-won civil liberties” massively outweighs any potential benefits of this law.
This intervention may well mean that Garbo’s declaration that “David Davis has failed“, well, fails.
Categories: All WW, Political Blogging, Politics
This has very little if nothing to do with Davis’s actions. The Bill was always going to receive a frosty reception in the Lords. If anything, this backs up the assumption that what Davis did was miscalculated - he should have left it to the Lords and then himself as a future Home Secretary to sort out.
Unfortunately his action became bigger than the issue.
Remember - I am not saying that what Davis did was wrong in principle, I am saying what he did has not worked.
If he returns to parliament (as I am sure he will) next week, it will almost certainly be with less people having voted for him. From then on he will be a thorn, not an asset, in Cameron’s side. And all for making very little difference - if anything he smothered the issue.
I think DD’s action in calling a byelection has done two good things:
a) Helped in some way to keep the issue on the political agenda.
b) Helped (I think anyway) make the movement against 42 days less sectarian.
I am not sure whether the loss of a strong opponent of 42 days and similar laws as Shadow Home Secretary was a price worth paying, or how this is going to turn out for DD politically in the long run.
There are at least three ways it could go:
DD becomes a backbench Frank Field type figure, saying things which are uncomfortable for some but useful for the rest of us from a prominent independent platform.
Assuming a Tory win, DD come into government in a different position and can’t make a big impact.
Assuming a Tory win, DD comes back in at the top of government.
I suppose there is a fourth, DD gets bored and leaves politics. I hope that doesn’t happen.
In one way, the best thing for politics as a whole will be if he becomes an independent-minded back bencher and that tradition continues to come back. God knows we need them.
Matt
a) Helped in some way to keep the issue on the political agenda.
In this area I think he has failed most significantly. The only by-election that people are talking about now is the Glasgow East one. While he may have had a limited impact, it is by no means the great national debate he had envisaged. Most of what has been said would have been said anyway as it enters the Lords and none of what has been said could he not have done had he been in the Commons hold the opposition directly to account as shadow home secretary.
b) Helped (I think anyway) make the movement against 42 days less sectarian.
The issue was already this way. If anything, it made it more sectarian it is far harder for a Labour MP to speak out now as they will be seen supporting a Tory candidate in an election.
I just can not see how he could not have had more impact by keeping his place as a Tory shadow minister - and it would have left no doubt about Cameron’s role as leader in the future.