As the extended detention issue rages once again, you might find an old Rachel Sylvester article interesting. It's from 2004 and was written during the last heave on the issue, during the Blair days (which, one imagines, Labour backbenchers hark back to as halcyon days).
She offered a breakdown of the positions of then-leading cabinet proponents, some of whom you may remember:
Pro lengthening detention periods
Blair
Blunkett
Reid
Prescott
Anti
Lord Falconer
Lord Goldsmith
Patricia Hewitt
(and, until booted, Lord Irvine).
Here's the most interesting bit: "Gordon Brown and his henchman Jack Straw flit from one side to the other, depending on how much money is involved in a particular plan."
I accept that the veracity of any conclusions drawn from this depends upon the accuracy of Sylvester's breakdown and analysis, but IMHO she tends to be right on the money, not least because members of this Government have leaked like sieves on all sides of all issues.
So, presuming that she is right, Brown evinced almost total lack of interest in the principle at stake in this argument last time around. That he has now turned so thoroughly into a pro voice is... what, exactly? Is it a sign that one becomes captive of a bureaucratic system that feeds the top end the conclusions that are supposed to be reached? Or that he's simply become more informed on the issue now that he has had to consider it in detail, and has come to this conclusion reasonably? It can hardly be that he wishes to take a politically comfortable course - for that, manifestly, it is not. If this is Brown coming to a reasoned conclusion based on the advice of experts, and doggedly taking up what he thinks to be the right conclusion in the face of opposition within his own party just when he most needs parliamentary support, then (and I say this as one who opposes the extension of such detention on principle) isn't his position rather... admirable?