ConservativeHome's ToryDiary

Should 42 days be a litmus test for the new Met Chief?

We know that most readers oppose 42 days (unlike this blog) but what do people think about it being an issue that stops an otherwise effective police officer from running the Met?  The Sunday Telegraph suggests confusingly that Boris Johnson both "may" and "will" object to a Met Chief that supported the Government on 42 days.  Such a litmus test (if it exists) may discourage police officers from making any statements on controversial issues in future - like drugs, speed cameras or stop and search.  Is that a good thing?

Three cheers for PNJ

We're a little late with this but yesterday's intervention by Dame Pauline Neville-Jones on the Tablighi Jamaat proposal for a 40,000-worshipper mega-mosque for East London is worthy of note.  Paul Waugh covered it in yesterday's London Evening Standard:

"Ministers should review plans to build a "mega-mosque" in the East End in the wake of the airline bomb plot trial, the Tories urged today. Shadow security minister Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said the case had shown that the group behind the mosque may have given cover to extremist activity. Tablighi Jamaat, which describes itself an Islamic missionary organisation, is pushing for the mosque to be built next to the 2012 Olympics site in Stratford. But the group was revealed in court as having links to some of the terror suspects, with several having passed through other mosques run by the group."

This is also an issue that Paul Goodman MP has rightly raised before.

Homeland security and community integration are emerging as two of the Conservative Party's most impressive (and very related) policy areas.  David Cameron's speech in March to the Community Security Trust set out the strength of the party's thinking.

Let's not forget that we have a new Shadow Home Secretary

The shock of David Davis' resignation and the joy of Ireland's "no" has distracted us from paying sufficient attention to what is very significant news in its own right.  The Conservative Party has, of course, a new Home affairs spokesman, Dominic Grieve.

Over at The Spectator's Coffee House, James Forsyth hasn't missed the significance of the appointment and has listed five reasons why he is worried.  James fears that...

• DG unbalances the frontbench and tips it away from the C2s,
• Is a passionate supporter of the European Convention on Human Rights,
• Is not above threatening to resign,
• Is weak on Islamic extremism, and
• May not be a strong enough media performer to channel public anger on crime.

ConservativeHome knows Dominic Grieve to be intelligent and one of politics' gentlemen.  Few have done more to build better relations with minority communities but we worry with James Forsyth, in particular, about his views on the ECHR.

One of the first things that Mr Grieve needs to do is rebut Labour suggestions that the party is soft on terrorism.  David Cameron made an excellent speech to the Community Security Trust in March.  Dominic Grieve needs to revisit the themes of that speech and make it clear that, unlike Labour, a Conservative Government will not allow extremists to enter Britain and will ensure no public funds go to extremist organisations.  Mr Grieve must also make it clear that he shares Dame Pauline Neville Jones' view that the Conservative Party does not approve of many of the attitudes of the Muslim Council of Britain.

> Mr Grieve recently gave a speech on Britishness.

Our case for 42 days

We know this isn't going to be popular among a great many ConservativeHome readers and 92% of adopted Tory candidates but we ought to publicly nail our colours to the mast and stand up with Ann Widdecombe, Norman Tebbit, Matthew d'Ancona, Melanie Phillips and Frank Field as supporters of the Government's attempts to introduce a period of 42 days' pre-charge detention.

This debate is often portrayed as a great clash between those who care about civil liberties and those who don't.  Between those who are too worried about the threat of terrorism and those who are blind to the dangers we face from extremists.  This isn't helpful.  Is there really a substantial, principled difference between the Conservative leadership's support for the existing 28 day detention period and the Labour leadership's preference for 42 days?  David Cameron has always been careful to appear pragmatic on the issue - repeatedly saying that he and the Tory frontbench were open to persuasion that more than 28 days might be necessary.  He hasn't been persuaded but he has never ruled out a longer period of detention on the grounds of high principle.

Experts are divided on the issue but we have heard enough in recent days to tip us into the camp supporting the Government's plans.

Crucial to our conclusion was last week's article in The Telegraph by Peter Clarke, former head of Scotland Yard's Counter Terrorism Unit.  He argued that the complexity of the terrorist networks we currently face - using hi tech methods and operating across borders - may mean that more than 28 days of investigations might soon be necessary.  Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, the former Met Chief, who advises David Cameron on security issues, has told this morning's Times that "anti-terrorist police have come close in the cases of six suspects to needing more than 28 days to detain them".  A mature political party, interested in public safety, shouldn't lightly dismiss the arguments of such a senior anti-terrorist specialist and a senior police chief.

John Major: "The threat to liberty is graver than terrorism"

Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has written for this morning's Times about the many ways in which he sees Labour assaulting Britain's fundamental liberties:

Complicity in rendition: "We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or - to put it in plain terms - the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.  Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus."

42 days: "The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular - and no less violent - assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering.  After terrorist attacks on London, Parliament doubled the time that suspects could be held without charge from 14 days to 28 days. Probably, that was justified. But soon Parliament will be asked to increase detention without charge to 42 days... There is no proof that an extended period of 42 days would have prevented past atrocities. There is no evidence it will prevent future atrocities. No example has yet been given of why the police need more than 28 days to frame a charge."

ID cards: "They were to be voluntary. Now it is clear that they will be compulsory. Yet the Government has admitted that such cards would not have stopped the London bombers. Nor will they cut illegal immigration, since asylum-seekers have been obliged to carry ID cards for nearly eight years. Nor will they have any real impact on benefits fraud, as this is typically caused by misrepresentation of financial resources rather than by identity."

Recording DNA: "Under present legislation, DNA can be retained permanently for even minor misdemeanours, such as being drunk. A total of more than four million samples are already on the UK database - far more than in any other country. This includes tens of thousands of children, and a disproportionate number of black men. If this is accepted, it will one day go farther. This cannot be right: for me, it is all uncomfortably authoritarian."

Tory victory on Yusuf al-Qaradawi

A victory for David Cameron and Pauline Neville-Jones today.  A big victory.  The Times is reporting that Ken Livingstone's favourite preacher of hate, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has been denied entry to Britain.  The Muslim Council of Britain has accused the Tories Government of surrendering to “unreasonable demands spearheaded by the Tory leader”.  That statement tells us a great deal about the MCB.

ToryDiary reported David Cameron's demands for Qaradawi to be excluded from Britain last week.  Dame Pauline Neville-Jones had singled out the controversial cleric much earlier - in her security policy group report.

The decision of the Government is a snub to Ken Livingstone who has regularly defended Qaradawi despite his offensive remarks about gay people and the merits of suicide bombing.  This is Boris Johnson's reaction:

“It is absolutely right that this preacher of hate has been refused entry to the UK.  This decision highlights Ken Livingstone’s gross error of judgement in inviting a man to London who espouses such vile opinions.”

But it's one step forward and one step back.  The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has told the BBC that Sharia Law is unavoidable in the UK.  Harry's Place has erupted: "Isn't there something particularly pathetic about a Bishop in a church which - in theory - exists to evangelise, shilling on behalf of the theocratic politics of another religion, which wishes to write their version of "god's will" into law?"  It can't be long before Melanie Phillips has something strong to say, too...

What can the British Government do to persuade young Muslims that they should reject terror and fully embrace the British way?

The title of this post was the question asked by Paul Goodman MP within a speech he gave to the New Culture Forum on Monday night.

Mr Goodman, Shadow Minister for Social Cohesion, analysed three potential strategic answers to that question: appeasement, assimilation and integration.  We summarise the speech below and this PDF contains the full text.

Appeasement is a course that Mr Goodman quickly rejects: "If our armed forces withdraw from Afghanistan – the argument runs – if we simply let Iran acquire nuclear weapons without sanctions or resistance; if we actively seek the replacement of our allies in the Islamic world by Islamists, if we abandon our support for the existence of Israel and if we connive in Britain at special legal dispensations for Muslims, then the problem will go away... You don’t have to be a neo-conservative – as I am not – to dismiss this option with the contempt it deserves.  It’s hard to perceive how abandoning parts of Afghanistan to Al Qaeda could help weaken that movement rather than strengthen it; how writing special sharia provisions into British law could strengthen community cohesion rather than weaken it, above all, how knuckling under to extremism could possibly help mainstream Islam worldwide."

Paul Goodman also rejects assimilation: "At heart, this school of thought usually believes that Islam in particular, if not religion in general, is at the root of separatist extremism... If government is to hold that religion in general is a problem – a habit that, like smoking, is bad for your health, and is to be tolerated only in private, if at all – it must surely move towards, say, cutting off all state support from faith schools, removing all tax breaks from religious-based charities and, eventually, scrapping the Coronation Service.  You can make your own judgement about whether such courses of action are more or less likely to lower school standards, remove support from vulnerable people, offload new burdens on the taxpayer, damage civil society, harm the current quest for shared values and dent our common sense of Britishness.  I’ve already made mine."

Mr Goodman then devotes a large section of his speech to discussing whether Islam is different from other religions and deserves special prohibitions.  His strong conclusion is that there is enough hope within certain traditions of Islam to firmly reject the idea that Islam needs to be suppressed.  He focuses particularly on Sufism as catalogued by Bernard Lewis.

Patrick Mercer on the "appalling" reaction of Tory supporters to his working for Brown

Highlights of an interview with the civil service newspaper, Whitehall and Westminster World:

How did Tory supporters react?  "Their reaction was appalling.  Their behaviour was appalling. Not in my constituency but nationally. They were just like children. To the point where I asked myself whether it was worth carrying on. It was as if I'd assassinated the pope or something.  A lot of people really were very difficult – very abusive to my wife for example. On those that would reason with me, I asked them if they would oppose cross party consensus on Northern Ireland and they said 'No, of course not.' Why? 'Because that was a Tory idea.' I was just flabbergasted with their logic."

Any regrets?  "I don't regret it at all. I think it has probably, how can I put it, pushed me even further to the periphery of the Tory Party but that's not important. I'm not in politics to be a member of the Conservative Party first and foremost – I'm in politics to serve my country and I'm very happy to do that."

On tackling Gordon Brown: "You can either say he is the biggest shyster in modern political history and will do anything for self and political party advantage, or you can say he is the prime minister of this country who is trying to do the best possible job he can do.  The trouble is, if you're a professional politician, well, what do you say? You say he is a shyster. I don't know what the truth is and frankly it doesn't interest me very much. I don’t care about his motives – the result should be a safer country."

On Lord West: "I'm impressed with the fact that he said 'I haven't a political bone in my body. I'm not here to do politics – I'm here to protect the country'. I know he has taken the Labour whip but big deal. It's not about politics it's about defending the country so yes I was impressed with him."

Has CCHQ taken all necessary measures to ensure the Conservative Muslim Forum cannot be infiltrated?

This open letter has been sent to the Party Chairman today:

"Dear Caroline,

You will be aware of the recent controversy caused by the Conservative Muslim Forum's response to Pauline Neville-Jones' national security report, 'An Unquiet World'.  The CMF, which is headquartered at CCHQ and uses the party's logo, took issue with a number of The Unquiet World's conclusions.  You will remember that it opposed the proposal that preachers who campaign against our nation's democratic institutions be refused entry to Britain.  It also called for full engagement with the MCB, an organisation that Baroness Neville-Jones said "uses identity politics to pursue a domestic and international policy agenda sympathetic to Islamists.”

It is, of course, vital that free speech flourishes within the Conservative Party but I would value your reassurance as to what steps have been taken to ensure that the CMF has not been - and cannot be - infiltrated by groups or individuals with hostile agendas.  Given its privileged place inside Conservative HQ I hope you agree that these are reasonable concerns.

For example:

• I understand that Lord Sheikh is Chairman of the CMF but does the Forum have a governing board?  If so, who sits on the CMF's board?
• How often does the CMF meet?
• Are any of its meetings minuted?  Who has access to those minutes, if they exist?
• Is it a democratic body?
• Who exactly wrote the CMF's recent paper and its criticisms of the policy group report?
• Is the CMF part-sponsored by Conservative Party funds?  Who, for example, pays for its website?
• Do you know if its leading players are attached to some of the groups that Baroness Neville-Jones has criticised?

Thank you for your time.

I will be publishing this letter on ConservativeHome.

Yours sincerely,

Tim Montgomerie"

A thought for Guy Fawkes Day

This from John Redwood's blog:

"On November 5th we remember that terrorism in the name of religion is not a new problem.  We should also remember how this plot was foiled. It was not intercepted through the issue of ID cards. The police or army did not spot the plotters carrying huge barrels of gunpowder into a cellar. It was not prevented by a cordon of oak or iron - today’s concrete and steel - around the Palace of Westminster.  The murderers were prevented from killing the Parliament and government of James I by intelligence picking up a family tip off."

David Cameron to challenge Saudi leader on funding of extremist literature

This morning's Times reports that the Conservative leader will confront King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia later today about Saudi Arabia's financial support for extremist literature that is available in British mosques:

"The Conservative leader will ask the Saudi King to curb the export of fundamentalist religious ideology in books and pamphlets that advocate the suppression of women’s rights, hatred for non-Muslims and the execution of lapsed Muslims."

Mr Cameron will be drawing on yesterday's report from the Policy Exchange think tank which found that a quarter of UK mosques contained literature, much of it Saudi-funded, that was hateful to gays, Christians and Jews.

Mr Cameron is also expected to point to evidence compiled by Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' security report that Saudi Arabia's religious establishment is still exporting extremist propaganda across the globe.

There is something deeply objectionable about the way that the British state has given Saudi Arabia the red carpet treatment.  Yes, we should certainly talk to this important nation but do we really have to deck The Mall with its provocative flag and have the whole British establishment honour the leaders of this repressive, terrorist-exporting nation?  Dan Hannan writes this on his blog:

"Saudi Arabia is one of many dictatorships around the world, neither the mildest nor the harshest. We should deal with it in a brisk and businesslike manner, as we do the many other regimes which fall somewhere between the categories of “distasteful” and “rotten”... When a free democracy lowers its standards in order to accommodate a sleazy autocracy, the former is diminished and the latter magnified."

***
The video below from last night's Channel 4 News captures the hilarious moment when King Abdullah is greeted by the Queen.  And the music that is playing?  The music from Star Wars that accompanies Darth Vader's arrival.  I'd love to think that that was planned.

Related link: In past years the British state rolled out the red carpet for Ceausescu and Mobutu; it's King Abdullah's turn today.

You couldn't make it up

Today's Sunday Times:

"The Foreign Office has cleared dozens of Iranians to enter British universities to study advanced nuclear physics and other subjects with the potential to be applied to weapons of mass destruction.  In the past nine months about 60 Iranians have been admitted to study postgraduate courses deemed “proliferation-sensitive” by the security services. The disciplines range from nuclear physics to some areas of electrical and chemical engineering and microbiology."

Conservative Universities spokesman David Willetts, who uncovered this fact, commented:

“Given that we need to have tougher sanctions against Iran, it does seem extraordinary that the government is not yet stopping Iranians coming here to study nuclear physics. There is legitimate concern about what some students have been studying.”

Tory Muslims' report defends Iran's nuclear ambitions and offers comfort to extremists

The Telegraph highlights a number of recommendations from a recent report on security by the Conservative Muslim Forum.  Having had a chance to look at the report (that appears to have been written last month) I fear that The Telegraph's report is an accurate summary.  I've also discovered other troubling recommendations.

The Forum, chaired by Lord Mohamed Sheikh, enobled in 2005 by Michael Howard, offers comfort to Iran and its ambition for nuclear weapons: "Given Iran's position in the Middle East, facing a nuclear armed Israel, Iran appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes."  Let us never forget that Iran's President has spoken of wiping Israel off the face of the map.  Last year Iran hosted a conference that gave comfort to Holocaust-deniers.  There can be no equivalence between Israel and Iran.  Although not without fault, Israel is a democratic nation - besieged by totalitarian states.  Iran is a sponsor of global terror.  It is a great shame that the CMF could not have begun to made this clear.

The Forum rejects Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' suggestion that “foreign preachers and scholars advocating the rejection of the institutions and values of democracy” should be denied entry into Britain".  The Forum suggests that "If a political party wishes to campaign, constitutionally, for the abolition of democracy in the UK and its replacement by a totalitarian system, why should it not be free to do so?"

The CMF then criticises David Cameron's support for 'Zionism'.  On 12th June the Conservative leader, asked if he was a Zionist, said:

“If what you mean by Zionist, someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then yes I am a Zionist and I’m proud of the fact that Conservative politicians down the ages have played a huge role in helping to bring this about” and “There is something deep in our Party’s DNA that believes in Israel, the right of Israel to exist, the right of Israel to defend itself and that a deal should only happen if it means that Israel is really allowed to have peace within secure borders and real guarantees about its future”.

Nothing wrong with that but the CMF is displeased.  "Pro-zionist statements only damage relationships with Muslims nationally and internationally," the Forum concludes.

The Forum concludes that "the Muslim Council of Britain is well-respected by many Muslims and non-Muslims" and encourages the Conservative Party to recognise that.  Paul Goodman is just one of many Conservative MPs who worry about the MCB's tolerance of extremist attitudes, including its unwillingness to support Holocaust Memorial Day.

The report then defends Yusuf al-Qaradawi - a Muslim scholar who has made unacceptable remarks about homosexuals.  Conservatives have rightly criticised Ken Livingstone for having rolled out the red carpet for al-Qaradawi when he visited London.  It is deeply troubling to learn of a group within the Conservative Party giving comfort to this extremist.

4.45pm update: LGF has now picked this up and is quite depressed about the state of Britain, as has "Islamophobia Watch" which has a rather revealing tongue-in-cheek headline: Conservative Muslims back Ahmadinejad shock!

Giuliani lifts depressed Tories

Yesterday evening some of the Conservative Party's top donors mingled with MPs, including Iain Duncan Smith, and journalists, including the Editor of The Sun, at the inaugural Margaret Thatcher lecture - hosted by Liam Fox's Atlantic Bridge.  Before the Mayor spoke all of the reception talk was of an autumn election and people were very downbeat about the party's prospects.  The mood was much improved after Rudy Giuliani had spoken.  It was not a great speech and the former New York Mayor went on a little long, but his remarks were rich in content and a tonic to British Conservatives who hear too little from their own leadership about security and defence issues.

Giuliani began by paying handsome tribute to Baroness Thatcher - who looked magnificent at the main table (Liam Fox pointedly told his guests that he had enjoyed a wonderful and wide-ranging conversation with her over dinner).  The frontrunning candidate for the Republican nomination also said that he had been inspired by her leadership and conviction.  Thatcher and Reagan were the golden years in the very special relationship between Britain and America.  He joked that he was lucky she wasn't running for President.  She would certainly win!  He spent some time saying how much he also admired Nicolas Sarkozy and said that he hoped that he would do for France what Thatcherism did for Britain.  The speech also included tributes to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair.  They understood the challenge of terror, he said.  The longest and warmest applause came when he paid tribute to all of the British troops that had "liberated" Iraq and Afghanistan.  They should be so proud of what they did and it was now for all politicians on both sides of the Atlantic to ensure the job that started with those liberations is properly completed.  Pointing to Margaret Thatcher, this is not a time to go "wobbly", he said, and there must be no going back to the appeasement of pre-9/11.

His speech was built around four main themes:

1. The need for institutionalisation of intelligence-sharing. Both nations had much to learn from each other and he hoped to introduce a 'TerrorStat' intelligence system that would monitor 'precursor activities' of terrorists to act as early warning signals for the authorities in the same way that lesser crimes were used as a warning of a larger propensity to criminality in his New York war on crime.
2. Expansion of NATO.  Any nation with military readiness and a commitment to global responsibility should be able to join NATO.  He mentioned Australia, India, Israel, Japan and Singapore.  These nations might encourage existing European members of NATO to take their own responsibilities more seriously.
3. A bigger military.  All armed forces (and intelligence services) were cut too deeply after the end of the Cold War.  We need new capacities including the capacity for a large war with a nation state.  Gulp!  'Prepare for the worst but hope for the best,' Giuliani said.
4. Winning the war through ideas.  This area of ideological warfare had been neglected, he implied.

At the end of the evening Giuliani went up to Liam Fox and hugged him.  I liked the humanity in that.

PS Ben Brogan has posted this report.

***
Earlier in the day the Mayor had criticised the British system of healthcare:

"Healthcare right now in America, and I think it has been true of your experience of socialised medicine in England, is not only very expensive, it's increasingly less effective.  I had prostate cancer seven years ago. My chance of survival in the US is 82%; my chance of survival if I was here in England is below 50%.  Breast cancer, very similar.  I think there's something to the idea that there are many more private options driving the system that create altogether better results."

Noon update: Photographs of Giuliani with Blair, Brown and Thatcher

'Meet the shadow minister for militant Islam'

This week's Spectator - of which I've just seen an advance copy - includes an interview with Shadow Communities Affair minister, Paul Goodman MP.  Mr Goodman is characterised as 'the shadow minister for militant Islam' by The Spectator's James Forsyth.

Labour get back into bed with Muslim extremists

Gordon Brown talks tough on terror but, as always with the Brown-Blair years, the actions are very different.

Last year Ruth Kelly - to her credit - broke off relations with the Muslim Council of Britain.  She criticised the MCB's boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day.  The MCB's extremism has been well-documented by the New Statesman's Martin Bright and by our own Michael Gove in Celsius 7/7.  Yesterday, as revealed by The Spectator's Coffee House blog, Hazel Blears has u-turned on Mrs Kelly's policy and appears to have restarted engagement with the MCB.

It is encouraging to see our frontbench pursuing the Government vigorously on this issue.  Paul Goodman MP, Shadow Communities Minister, has written to Hazel Blears demanding an explanation:

"As you know, Ruth Kelly announced last year in a major speech "a fundamental rebalancing of our relationship with Muslim organisations from now on".  She continued: "In future, I am clear that our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values.". She said that it was "not good enough" to pay lip service to combatiing extremism.

The speech was briefed by the Government as signallling the end of its engagement with the MCB as a partner in preventing extremism.  Indeed, Ms Kelly specifically criticised the MCB's boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day, as follows: "I can't help wondering why those in leadership positions who say they want to achieve religious tolerance and a cohesive society would choose to boycott an event which marks, above all, our common humanity and respect for each other."

Yesterday, your Department conspicuously failed to deny that the Government has once again engaged the MCB as a partner.  This is a significant policy U-turn.  I write to ask what's changed in less than a year.  On what basis do you believe that the MCB is now proactively tackling extremism?  Does it plan, for example, to attend Holocaust Memorial Day?"

This re-engagement with the MCB follows Gordon Brown's failure to act against Hizb ut-Tahrir.

On a not unrelated matter ConservativeHome has given space to Michael Ancram to make the case for talking to Hamas.  I greatly respect Michael Ancram but I think he's profoundly wrong on this issue.  Hamas must moderate considerably before they can be allowed at the negotiating table.  Again on the indispensable Coffee House blog, James Forsyth highlights the following quote from the representative of Hamas that Mr Ancram has met:

“The final goal of the resistance is to wipe that entity [Israel] off the face of the earth. This goal necessitates the development of the resistance until the entity has been destroyed.”

Is Britain policing or appeasing Islamic extremism?

That's effectively the question being asked by Paul Goodman MP.  Paul will take part in a Policy Exchange seminar this lunchtime that will discuss the recent decision of the West Midlands police to refer Channel 4 to Ofcom.  The West Midlands police made the decision after they had decided not to prosecute a number of Muslims featured in a Dispatches programme entitled 'Undercover Mosque', broadcast earlier this year (Google video).  The programme uncovered a number of quotations including:

“No-one loves the kuffaar, no-one loves the kuffaar, not a single person here from the Muslims loves the kuffaar, whether those kuffaar are from the UK or the US. We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of kufr, we hate the kuffaar.”

“Whoever changes his religion from Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state.”

“Do you practise homosexuality with men?  Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.”

“I don’t agree with those individuals [the 7/7 bombers], but at the same time they are closer to me than those criminals of the kufr.”

“He’s better than a million George Bushes, Osama Bin Laden, and he’s better than a thousand Tony Blairs, because he’s a Muslim.”

The West Midlands police decided that these quotations may have been taken out of context and decided that no action should be taken against those who made them.  That decision will seem extraordinary to some but more extraordinary was the decision of the police and CPS to refer the programme makers to Ofcom on the grounds that they may have stirred up racial hatred.

In a letter to the Home Secretary Paul Goodman seeks to highlight the danger that in behaving in this way our police and law enforcement agencies are choosing to deal with extremist voices by effectively appeasing them.  Mr Goodman's letter (which is attached here_as_a_pdf) concludes with these words:

"This referral is likely to encourage extremists, discourage moderates (including those who appeared on the programme), damage public confidence in the CPS and West Midlands Police, compromise media freedom and undermine the Government's stated community cohesion policy.  As you know, Ruth Kelly, the former Communities Secretary, said last year that "our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values. It is only by defending our values that we will prevent extremists radicalising future generations of terrorists."

It's time for hardball against Brown on security

One of the most interesting findings in the YouGov survey for today's Daily Telegraph (its headline 9% Labour lead was reported here last night) is overwhelming public support for extra detention powers for the police.  74% favoured "detaining terrorist suspects without charge for as long as the police need to carry out their enquiries, provided adequate judicial safeguards are in place."  17% did not favour such powers and 9% didn't know.  Tory MPs are overwhelmingly opposed to these extra powers.

Conservatives must find their own security issues - including the banning of extremist Muslim organisations like Hizb ut Tahrir - if they are to become competitive with Labour on security.  This is no time to allow Brown to dominate the agenda.  It's time for hardball tactics against Labour's record.  The summer must see the Tories launch a guerrila war against the Brown administration and its record.

Neville-Jones to present security ideas

Yesterday Gordon Brown announced his initiative on border policing - an idea originally proposed by the Conservatives.  After initially being welcomed by the Tories it was attacked by David Davis for excluding the police.  The Independent also found a delicious quote from Labour minister Liam Byrne when the Tories first proposed the policy:

"The chaos of a damaging, distracting and disruptive reorganisation of three agencies on the front line into a single border force. That idea is outdated and is rooted in a concept of a frontier that is long past.  It is simplistic and dangerous in the disruption that it poses. The number of people who seek to come to this country might double in the next 10 to 15 years, and I simply cannot think of a worse use of time than to consume front-line staff in the process of reapplying for their own jobs in a reorganisation, the benefits of which we are already achieving by equipping different agencies with the powers to do each other's jobs."

Today is the Conservative Party's turn at presenting their ideas on homeland security.  Dame Pauline Neville-Jones will present the findings of her policy group on security.  Here are some expected highlights:

• There is be the heavily-trailed promise of a US-style National Security Council to form long-term strategies on foreign policy, defence, internal security and national cohesion.
• The establishment of a dedicated civil emergencies force that would provide coordination and leadership in the event of a major terrorist incident.
• It will call for people from ethnic minority backgrounds to be respected as individual citizens rather than as members of groups.
• It proposes a new "Partnership for Open Societies" that would bring together major democracies and Middle East powers to promote stable, liberal democracy throughout the Middle East region.
• Attacking overstretch of the armed forces it calls for a review of defence policy every four years to ensure capacity matches mission.

Immigration and security concern voters most

Yesterday we published the headline 6% Labour lead suggested by Ipsos-MORI.  Ipsos-MORI have just published some more detail of their survey of 954 adults.  Answers to Questions 7 and 8 show that 'race relations and immigration' remains the most important issue for 23% of respondents.  The same percentage agree that defence, foreign affairs and international terrorism are the most important issues facing Britain today.  That would also be ConservativeHome's top issue.  Crime comes next (12%) for voters, then the NHS (7%), then housing (6%) then education (5%).

Economic issues figure low on voters' concerns in this poll.  2% say the economy is the most important issue facing Britain today (7% say it is an important issue); 2% identify unemployment (7%) and 1% tax (7%).

Europe hardly registers either.  Only 1% think it the most important issue.  3% think it an important issue.

The core vote issues of crime, Europe, immigration and tax are often lumped together but crime and immigration appear to be significantly more salient as issues.

Pollution and the environment (3%/ 9%) are not near the top of voters' concerns but some political strategists regard it as a 'permission issue'.  Only when a political party crosses a minimum ethical threshold - on issues like concern for vulnerable people and for the environment - does it, the theory goes, become a voting option for certain values-orientated voters.

Davis and Chakrabarti slam "internment" suggestion

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has joined Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti in condemning a police chief's call for  "as long as it takes" detention of terror suspects.  The head of the Association of Police Chief Officers Ken Jones told The Observer the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers:

"We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes. We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit. We understand people will be concerned and nervous, but we need to create a system with sufficient judicial checks and balances which holds people, but no longer than a day [more than] necessary.  We need to go there [unlimited detention] and I think that politicians of all parties and the public have great faith in the judiciary to make sure that's used in the most proportionate way possible."

Ms Chakrabarti said that Jones was campaigning for internment.  Mr Davis was also vigorous in his opposition to the ACPO intervention:

“All the evidence shows that when the police tried to claim the need for 90 day detention without charge they were wrong and parliament’s decision on 28 days was right.  If 90 days was wrong, indefinite detention is even more wrong.  The argument that this should be under judicial supervision is facile in the extreme. The current 28 day limit is already under judicial supervision.  What is more, since the 28 day limit was introduced neither the police or security services have produced one shred of evidence to demonstrate the need for extension, either in public or in confidential briefings.”

Matthew d'Ancona is unwilling to attack Ken Jones' intervention.  Over at The Spectator blog he writes:

"It is clear beyond doubt that many modern terrorist cases involve forensic problems of unprecedented complexity - codes, languages, international connections - and that the police will increasingly require longer than they used to in order to sift through the evidence. It will not always be possible to charge a detainee. So why not make it possible for the police to continue detention indefinitely, but only if they can persuade a judge that it is necessary to ensure public safety?"

Gordon Brown will have the backing of the bulk of his parliamentary party if he chooses to legislate for a longer period of detention without trial.  Most Tory MPs do not see the need for any change.

William Hague: Iraq not to blame for terror wave

Interviewed for BBC1's Politics Show, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague made it clear that he did not believe Iraq was to blame for the latest attempts to terrorise Britain.  The attacks of 9/11 happened before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, he noted.

He urged the Government to eschew confrontationalism in responding to the latest attacks and promised that Conservatives could support a longer period of detention without trial if presented with "compelling evidence" that it was justified.  That evidence had not been presented so far, he continued.  He also urged the Government to consider adopting Conservative proposals on intercept evidence and post-charge questioning.

Towards the end of the interview Mr Hague rejected calls from Edward Leigh for a greater emphasis on issues like tax, deregulation, stronger immigration controls and strong defence.  He said that Brown was not capable of delivering real change.  He was the very man who had presided over the pensions crisis and one hundred extra stealth taxes.

Earlier today George Osborne told Peter Sissons that there would be "absolutely no change in strategy" and that the party would remain "in the mainstream of British politics":

"We are not changing our strategy. Our strategy is to be in the mainstream of British politics - talking about the issues, like the NHS, like social breakdown, like pensions - that matter to people in this country."

Today's Mail on Sunday is reporting that Mr Osborne may be given new powers over party campaigns and General Election plans in the forthcoming Conservative reshuffle.

How should Cameron respond to Brown? (On security)

Thanks for your reply to my opening post of yesterday.  Because I agreed with just about everything you wrote and in the light of today's aborted bomb attack I thought we should shift our exchange to how the Tories should respond to Brown on homeland security and - furthermore - how the Tories can show some leadership on this issue.

My own belief is that it won't be too long before one or more of these attacks are successful.  Security issues will then rocket up the agenda and we know that this could help Brown. I don't think voters will blame our new PM for attacks in the same way many voters mistakenly blamed Blair and his Iraq policy for 7/7.  Even when Brown was in the opinion poll doldrums a few months back he led on security issues.

The Tories are probably right to say that this incompetent Labour government won't get ID cards to work and that the expenditure would be better spent on "community policing, more prison places, drug rehab services and a proper border police force" (as David Cameron wrote in yesterday's Sun).  The message that always seems to come over most loudly, however, is our opposition to security measures that Labour propose rather than our own ideas.

I think we need a big hitter who is in charge of our security message and that person should certainly sit in the shadow cabinet.  David Cameron has waited too long to replace Patrick Mercer and when he reshuffles next week I wonder if he could persuade Baron Trimble or Lord Stevens* to be the Tory spokesman on this issue?  Both could help the Tories get back in the game on this topic.  What do you think?

That person could then take the lead in exposing Labour's appeasement of extremist Muslim groups, the need for much greater investment in intelligence, the improvement of infrastructural resilience and the case for allowing intercept evidence.  Protecting the public should be any government's top priority.  Team Cameron need to demonstrate they understand that.

Best wishes,

4.15PM UPDATE: MATTHEW D'ANCONA HAS NOW RESPONDED (BRILLIANTLY)

* 4.25PM: "Commenting after Lord Stevens was appointed adviser on security to the Prime Minister, Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis, said:  "We welcome this appointment. We hope it will lead to a more measured response to the security threats we face.""  Lord Stevens continues as head of the Conservative Party UK Border Police Taskforce.

Security is back on the national agenda

"Constitutional reform" was penned on to Gordon Brown's grid for today but the breaking news that the Metropolitan Police has disabled a car bomb in Haymarket will change all of that.  The new Prime Minister has just been on television promising vigilance and he will undoubtedly use this event to make it clear that he will continue the Blair-Blunkett-Reid approach to security.  The Sun will certainly get behind any attempt to increase police powers to detain without trial for a longer period.  One of the most important appointments that David Cameron will make next week in his expected reshuffle will be a replacement for Patrick Mercer.

11.20am: "One of the great delusions of our time is that once Blair, in the UK case, and Bush, in the American one, stepped down from office the terrorist threat would disappear. The news that a car bomb attack was foiled in London last night illustrates just how wrong this belief was." (James Forsyth on The Spectator blog).

2pm: "Tory leader David Cameron has pledged to "work as closely as I can" with the government to make the country safe, after a car bomb was found in London.  He said the discovery was "a reminder of the huge threat that we face as a country from terrorism"." (BBC)

David Davis highlights Labour's ineffective authoritarianism

On the day that it is revealed that John Reid and Tony Blair plan to introduce new stop-and-question powers for the police the Shadow Home Secretary (writing for The Independent on Sunday) documents the extent to which Labour has taken liberties without improving security:

1. Groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Tamil Tigers are unbanned, he writes, but there is a ban on demonstrations within a kilometre of Parliament;
2. The DNA database records information on 100,000 innocent children but fails to record many serious criminals;
3. "Experts say that ID cards will cluster our personal information in one place, making it a prime target for criminals and terrorists";
4. The anti-terrorist forces have been under-resourced and in their place we get unwarranted proposals such as ninety days without trial that would drive "disaffected young Muslims into the arms of extremists".

The film Taking Liberties - referred to by Mr Davis - is released nationwide on 8th June.

David Cameron was asked earlier this week why he still had not appointed a replacement for sacked homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer.  He replied that he was waiting to see how the Government's own new arrangements for home and security affairs bed down.  There is some speculation that Mr Mercer might return to his old position in the summer reshuffle.  Another name in the frame is Baron Trimble because of his Northern Ireland experiences.

Related link: The civil libertarian Tories