Dean Godson: The Tories' Molotov-Ribbentrop pact against anti-terror measures

In the aftermath of 7/7 a YouGov survey found strong public support for tough action against terror:

"70% said “yes, it may sometimes be necessary” to restrict the civil liberties of suspected terrorists even though there is not enough usable evidence to charge and convict them.  81% supported taking action against people who have not yet done anything but the intelligence agencies believe may be planning an act of terrorism."

That survey confirmed the suspicions of Matthew d'Ancona, noted some months previously in The Sunday Telegraph:

“We live in an individualistic society and one in which people take many liberties – economic, social, sexual – absolutely for granted. But it is wrong to extrapolate from this that liberty is the voters' touchstone on all issues. When it comes to the handling of the post-9/11 terrorist threat, I doubt that the public consensus is remotely libertarian: quite the opposite, in fact. Just as the voters expect noisy neighbours to be dealt with sternly, and the right to tackle intruders in their homes without the fear of prosecution, so they expect the State to put the prevention of terrorism before – well, just about everything else, to be honest.”

The Conservative frontbench has ignored this advice and allied itself with the most devout of civil libertarians.  Writing for today's Times Dean Godson is unimpressed:

"Whose judgment would you sooner trust on national security? Liberty, the law lords, the Liberal Democrats and the worst of the hard Left — Chris Mullin, Alan Simpson and Clare Short? Or the Metropolitan Police, the Association of Chief Police Officers, MI5 and the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation?  It should be a “no-brainer” — but not for the modern Conservative Party. The most unedifying aspect of the passage of the Terrorism Bill through the Commons has been the pleasure with which the Tory home affairs team, led by David Davis, has entered into a kind of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with the do-gooding classes and Campaign Group crusties to dilute key elements of the Government’s response to the 7/7 suicide attacks."

Mr Godson blames David Davis' opposition to Labour's measures as a function of his "crude" appetite for "opposition for opposition's sake".  He encourages the Conservative Party to listen more carefully to the advice of the police who have said that the international nature of the terrorist threat explains their request for a much longer detention period for terrorist suspects.

Mr Godson contrasts the Tories of today with the homeland security Tories of 1974.  Tories, he writes, then helped Roy Jenkins to "repulse the hard left's amendments" to the Prevention of Terrorism Act that followed the IRA's Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings.

Mr Godson concludes:

"The Conservatives should be making mincemeat of Labour — not because Labour is too tough, but because its rhetorical robustness is a veneer that conceals multiple private compromises with the civil liberties lobby and the Muslim Council of Britain. Why has the Government been so slow in dealing with Islamist hate preachers? Why can’t the police use sniffer dogs in mosques? These are the kind of questions the Tories should ask — rather than playing a short-term game of “me too” with the likes of Shami Chakrabarti at Liberty."

George W Bush, Tony Blair and Dean Godson are 9/11 people - awake to the dangers of today's world.  The Tories are in danger of being 10th September people - unaware of the seriousness of the threats we now face and living by the old rules where the risks of undiluted liberty had little downside.  Labour enjoys a large lead on homeland security issues.  If, as is likely, Britain is terrorised again in coming months and years that advantage (should it go unchallenged) will help to establish Labour as the natural party of government.

Comments

[Editor]

Agreed on China. Charles Powell's kow-towing performance on Today this morning was sickening.

[Editor]

Returning to the main thrust of this thread....

Good to see Ann Widdecombe siding with Labour on the terror laws.

A good number of Tory MPs want us to be more open to the advice of the police and security services.

Public opinion (YouGov/ Populus) is clearly on Blair's side on this.

[Selsdon Man]

I support our frontbench team's principled stance against the united forces of authoritariansm.

[Shaun]

"Public opinion (YouGov/ Populus) is clearly on Blair's side on this."

I am not all sure why majority opinion should justify changes in the legal system. Britain is not a populist democracy. We are a liberal democracy where human rights and civil liberties should be protected even if the majority feels it is right to violate them. I support the Conservative Party's stance against such police state measures. Remember what happened after the Guilford and Birmingham bombings! If the majority of people bays for blood, we should not indulge them.

[Shaun]

"people bays for blood"
Oops! My concordes went a bit haywire there.

[Editor]

Shaun: you're right - public opinion shouldn't dictate our laws but politicians often ignore it at their electoral peril.

[Editor]

Shaun: you're right - public opinion shouldn't dictate our laws but politicians often ignore it at their electoral peril.

[Selsdon Man]

"A good number of Tory MPs want us to be more open to the advice of the police and security services."

Apart from Widdy, WHO? Let's name and shame them!

[Alex W]

Is there any real evidence that this will help the fight against terrorism? Being "tough" on terror is vacuous populist grandstanding if it doesn't actually help win the war on terror: we should not automatically assume that being "tough" is the same as being effective. Indeed, the major historical precedent - Irish internment - seems to demonstrate that such draconian measures merely further alienate an already dissatisfied minority grouping, potentially aggravating community splits and fuelling radicalism.

I find the argument that the police want more powers to be the most specious of all. Come every Budget, each and every spending department will demand more money whilst the poor taxpayer will want some of his hard-earned cash back. Ask any agency whether it wants/needs more powers, and it will answer "yes". No organisation will shy away from an opportunity to expand itself and its jurisdiction. Blair needs to show why this is a good policy on the evidence rather than simply saying "the cops want it".

[malcolm]

Being fairly authoritarian myself and generally a supporter of the police I would normally back them if they asked for extra power but not this time.
Michael Ancram gave a wonderful speech on 'Any Questions' a few weeks ago on his expriences as a minister in N.I. which led him to believe that powers such as this would be both counterproductive and wrong.
Equally I have lost a lot of faith in Ian Blair.The police 'cover up'in the shooting of the Brazilian man was an absolute disgrace and his pleas for this bill to be passed are not well argued.
Most importantly however is the fact that of all those terrorist suspects who have so far been held for 14 days (the current maximum) NOT ONE has been charged with anything!
Blair typically is now playing party politics with this issue and it seems as if the majority of Labour backbenchers (the most supine in British history according to Roy Hattersley) will support him not because he is right but for narrow party political advantage.
I sincerely hope that Anne Widdecombe,Bill Cash and other Conservatives are not so stupid as to do Tony Blairs dirty work themselves

[Derek]

I support the Conservative policy on this. In my opinion it ought to be possible to bring a charge against these suspects within the 14 days. If they are being arrested for genuine reasons, then why not put the evidence before a court and charge them? If not then we need to have more offences to charge them with. I do not wish to be soft on terrorism, but I believe in justice, and locking people up without charge goes against our justice system.

[Richard Allen]

"A good number of Tory MPs want us to be more open to the advice of the police and security services."

After this week I will find it very difficult to trust the British police ever again. The unprecedented involvement of the police in the political process that we have seen this week has been disgraceful and deeply disturbing. There are countries were the police and security services get the exact powers they want. Thank God Britain isn't one of them.

[Richard Allen]

"Apart from Widdy, WHO? Let's name and shame them!"

During yesterdays votes 3 conservative MP's voted against party line (not all in the same vote) with another 5 abstaining.

On the first vote (the proposal for 90 days) Sir Peter Tapsall voted with the government while Tony Baldry, Eric Forth, Michael Mates, Nicholas Soames, Sir John Stanley and Anne Widdecombe all abstained.

On the second vote (the 28 day amendment) Michael Mates and Sir John Stanley voted with the government while Tony Baldry, Bill Cash, Eric Forth, Nicholas Soames, Sir Peter Tapsall and Anne Widdecombe all abstained.

Obviously Mates, Stanley and Tapsall had objections to the party line and both Widdicombe and Cash had expressed their concerns. In the case of Baldry, Forth and Soames I am unaware if they were unhappy with the party line or if they were simply absent.

[Innocent Abroad]

I wonder if Dean would care to share any of wisdom about Conrad Black with us? My great hope is that a Delaware court will ask him back home so that he can share it with them.