"6. Security and freedom must go hand in hand.
In fighting crime and terrorism, we will be hard-nosed defenders of freedom and security. We will ensure strong defence and the effective enforcement of laws that balance liberty and safety - instead of ineffective authoritarianism which puts both freedom and security at risk."
This is all very well again but Conservatives do need to give more emphasis to the security concerns of the British people. Labour think they are on to a winner in this whole area. Again and again every poll shows that the British people want homeland security taken seriously and they support most of Labour's security measures. Conservatives can't just oppose Labour's "ineffective authoritarianism" - our home office team must actively propose our own security measures.
Conservatives can't just oppose Labour's "ineffective authoritarianism" - our home office team must actively propose our own security measures.
Sure but when the id card, for example, collapses into a multi billion dollar unmanagable heap, we need to be positioned to benefit from it.
Posted by: Serf | March 01, 2006 at 16:08
I think 'hard-nosed' is a dreadful word. It makes me think of David Davis' profile.
Posted by: johnC | March 01, 2006 at 16:21
"I think 'hard-nosed' is a dreadful word. It makes me think of David Davis' profile."
Good. The British public want to know that a 'tough guy' is in charge of home affairs.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | March 01, 2006 at 16:27
They have Editor.They want 'phone tap evidence to be admissable in court which is something the police are very keen on too.Even Ming supports this so I cannot understand why the Gov't disagrees and is allowed to get away with calling us 'weak on terror'.
Posted by: malcolm | March 01, 2006 at 16:28
Malcolm - agreed but we need to be singing more things like this from the rooftops.
Posted by: Editor | March 01, 2006 at 16:57
Yes, but we don't want to get into a "toughness" bidding war...we want to think smart on security.
Posted by: Edward | March 01, 2006 at 17:12
I think we do have to sort it out. Folk are truly p----d off with some really nasty people wandering the streets, when they were actually handed down an appropriate sentence. We may need to spend money on some sort of corrective establishment or four, as we do not appear to have the capacity at present. The widows and widowers and parents of the dead at the hands of these people would agree, I'm pretty sure. Perhaps even some sort of secure educational establishment with the appropriate rehab in place. Not a trip to the Med. Its a hard call, as the looney left will be jumping up and down, and wringing their hands. We should tell them, there are some quite nasty rich kids out there as well. Its not all down to poverty.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | March 01, 2006 at 17:12
This means that the Tories are now to the Left of Labour on national security issues.
And on the biggest national security: the threat of Islam within the realm the Tories are utterly silent other than that I've heard DC say that "Islam is a religion of peace".
Posted by: Rebel | March 01, 2006 at 21:33
I doubt Cameron can go on Newsnight and declare that Islam is a religion of evil.
I guess on this one Cameron wants to be balanced...tough on security but keeping freedoms and rights. Im not entirely sure how he plans on balancing liberty and security as an increase in security would have to infringe on liberties to one level or another.
Posted by: James Maskell | March 01, 2006 at 22:55
"Im not entirely sure how he plans on balancing liberty and security as an increase in security would have to infringe on liberties to one level or another."
I think the way to do it currently (let's assume for a moment we were in power tomorrow) is to enforce the laws we currently have.
We have laws against incitement to violence already. We don't need a law glorifying terrorism. ID cards are not going to help matters at all. Blair has the legislation already he's just not doing anything with it. If DC amde this commitment to the laws we currently have being enforced and seen to be enforced then the public would feel safer.
Posted by: Paul Bavill | March 02, 2006 at 09:43
Could you help me. Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. Help me! There is an urgent need for sites: watching me. I found only this - geico mascot. Geico, although collision's gecko would be exposed unexpectedly to bodine remaining on saloon 170, he would try off pips hornaday and jack sprague to boycott the common specific true article premium for the 2008 luck. Geico, ago, widely a professional crib for me to get the insurance they started this cancer with to backfire or issue. Thank :confused: Pauline from Estonia.
Posted by: Pauline | March 01, 2010 at 18:39