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.

Comments

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper / delusional conservative]

Oh dear, let's not get into a Northern Ireland 1969 situation. Playing hardball with terrorism is not a particularly good idea. Let's get our soldiers out of Muslim countries first.

It would be far better to come up with some sensible policies over the summer than to moan on about Brown, who is actually doing some good stuff at the moment. Build credibility and keep your powder dry.

[HF]

A summer using our most effective shadow cab minister David Davis is a good idea.

BTW Anyone heard anything from Nick Herbert our shadow minister for justice recently?

[Jessica Salter]

Security, yes! David Davis gave a strong and lucid speech at a recent Association dinner which went down very well - it would be very good to hear him speaking to the nation in the same way, loud and clear. But immigration is THE the biggest concern on the doorstep and DD was right in saying that it is so closely tied in with EU issues and we all know how difficult that one is to discuss - but there has to be a way. Principled discussion is the only way forward. I become quite concerned when DC lists 'the things which conern voters most...' without mentioning immigration first, and security second.

[Patriot]

Jessica - exactly. How can we claim to be appealing to the middle ground when we don't have a firm offering on immigration - and that doesn't mean simply expressing concern or empathising - we have to have policies - we need to be detailing, very crisply and clearly, what we will do about taking control of immigration in a way which addresses middle ground concerns.

[EML]

Hmm, it would really be very demeaning to British politics if we had a race to see which party could get to 90 days detention without trial first. There are surely less blunt and more effective ways of combating terrorism.

[TomTom]

Panorama makes Slough look a bit of a frontier town....must be money in these shanty-town sheds that are being built...

[William Norton]

Tom Tom: Panorama makes Slough look a bit of a frontier town....must be money in these shanty-town sheds that are being built...

I believe there's easy money for shed builders at the moment.

There's gold in them thar, er, back gardens.

[David Belchamber]

Surely Middle England is deeply concerned about safety in towns (whether from terrorism, muggings, knife and gun crime) quality of life (the real impact of inflation, rising mortgage repayments, increasing financial difficulties for their children)?
Has Patrick Mercer been replaced, is there no link between c 2.5M economic migrants coming here over the last 5 years and the need for c3M new houses, have the tories got detailed plans to relieve the police of the bulk of the paperwork that is keeping them off the streets?
As for extra detention powers, as long as terrorist suspects are brought before a judge - perhaps in a closed court, if necessary - is there any problem about extending the period? Suspected terrorist or not, the person still has the right to a fair trial and decent treatment. Let the judiciary, not the politicians, see that these rights are upheld.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Jessica I agree with you as well, particularly when you commented on David Davis tying immigration in with EU issues.

[Tapestry]

If Cameron opens up on the EU in main media, he will be shouted down as xenophobe, trad tory little englander etc.

The Party should communicate on the EU and the referendum by door to door leaflet and avoid the main media.

[Mrs Campbell]

It is not the judiciary which sets the policy on security of the nation as a whole as against liberty of the individual citizen who needs protection not just against the criminal who may do him or her injury but against the employee of the state who may do so - often with far greater impunity. All the judge can do is to apply the policy justly and fairly so far as is possible. It is for the politician to ensure that the purpose of the policy is a proper purpose and that the policy is itself just, fair and effective in achieving that purpose. We don't elect our judiciary and they are not accountable to us save through our elected representatives whom we elect to try to make good policy

A secret judgment effectively to intern or not to intern without clear political guidance in the form of legislation is to require more from the judiciary than either they can bear or than we have any right to ask them to bear on our behalf. After all, they only know what the executive in the form of the security services and the police put in evidence and have no means to find out more. At least politicians can and ought to be able to achieve more. This is for Parliament and they must get stuck in to the extremely difficult issues. There is something to be said for asking that the votes on any more terrorist legislation unwhipped. This is a seriously cross-party issue and fundamental to the kind of country that we are beoming. How I agree with the comment that this is not a race to be the toughest. This isn't a virtual reality game

[Jake]

Its time for hardball against Brown on English floods ( not British ones )

and the lack of funding thereof

and why there is no specific forum for the discussion of English affairs generally

( other than the British parliament which has made it patently plain it couldn't dare less about England )

[Jake]

Its time for hardball against Brown on English floods ( not British ones )

and the lack of funding thereof

and why there is no specific forum for the discussion of English affairs generally

( other than the British parliament which has made it patently plain it couldn't dare less about England )

[Curly]

The great worry, of course, is that Brown may call a snap autumn election, I think he could raise the finance in the current climate of poll popularity. If the Shadow Cabinet doesn't get off it's collective backside and put up a fight, we'll end up looking bigger tits than Ming's lot!

[Chris]

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.
Talk about a loaded question! I'd give a positive response to that enquiry and I was sceptical about the 28 day compromise.

Had the question been "Do you support extending the amount of time police can hold a suspect without charge?" you'd probably get very different answers.

[George Hinton]

I do think we need to be careful here.
It is being suggested that the continental investigating magistrate be introduced, to deal with the problems relating to charges of terrorism and our legal system. Surely this is Corpus Juris by the back door. And you can guarantee that this government and police will abuse the system, adopting a vindictive attitude towards dissentients everywhere.
The YouGov/Telegraph poll was very cleverly worded and didn't allow people to fully explore the options available, thus forcing people to opt for the draconian option.
I would rather that our existing legal system was tweaked to allow the police to continue questioning a suspect after charges were brought without the necessity of having a (bent/crooked/interfering)lawyer around.

[mark]

The question being posed by the Tory party to Brown & co re detention should be can they define terrorism and who exactly would be included in the proposed time limits. They would very quickly find out along with the public that there is no satisfactory definition of a terrorist as Walter Wolfgang found out when he heckled jack straw at the 2005 Labour Party conference.

[Dismayed]

The Tory MPs are right to oppose these proposals. I no longer trust the police or the judiciary to protect our civil liberties. We are in a police state and need to reclaim our lost liberty.

[EML]

Good point, Chris at 11.07. Brown will get numerous Ministers and so-called independent people to pop up over the next couple of months, occasionally talking up the benefits of locking people up for months on end without trial. The public will be turned, and we'll look soft and crap on security and terrorism.

We need those excellent proposals reported earlier to be praised by our agents and pushed forward as alternatives.

[TomTom]

If Cameron opens up on the EU in main media, he will be shouted down as xenophobe, trad tory little englander etc.

Well that would counterbalance his current image as a tree-hugger.....and will his amazing communication skills he should be able to turn the media to his side just as Brown has

[Andrew Lilico]

What we should be doing is arguing for our own approach to securities matters, showing why the overall impact - in terms of promoting ordered liberty and tolerance - will be better under our proposals than under Labour's. We don't need (and should not try) to copy Labour on security issues - on which Cameron is far superior and much more in tune with Conservative thinking than is Brown - but we do need to argue our own positive case, rather than just to be seen to be opposing what Labour suggests.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Had the question been "Do you support extending the amount of time police can hold a suspect without charge?" you'd probably get very different answers.

Posted by: Chris | July 27, 2007 at 11:07

In your loaded question you missed out the word "terrorist" which was in the original question in the poll. I don't suppose the majority would be in favour of extending the amount of time a suspect could be held if the offence was shoplifting, but we are talking about those that wish to murder large numbers of innocents and have mudered thousands already. The Tories oppose extending the time limits at their peril (and yours).

[John Leonard]

Dontmakemelaugh:

Did internment stop the IRA bombings?
Has Gitmo detention worked?

More internment of terrorist suspects might be a populist move.

However, it will not stop the attacks.

It will act as a recruiting poster for terrorism.

It will possibly create martyrs for their cause.

It will further destroy the reputation of this Government and this country.

It will take away yet more of our liberty.

What happens when people are relased without charge after effectively serving a six month sentence?

All, so the police can have more time to do things they could do another way (questioning after charge) or perhaps through competent planning.

Well that's really smart thinking but typical of our Labour Government!

What is utterly strange about this is if the Government invoke the Civil Contingencies Act they can hold people up to 58 days anyway. So what is the point of this legislation?

If the police need the time so desperately why don't the Government use the legislation already available?

If the people were asked if they want a policy that risks all I have suggested for so little gain do you think they might give a different answer?

You can say my post is loaded but it is also reality. Something that the Labour Government lost touch with many years ago.

[TomTom]

What is utterly strange about this is if the Government invoke the Civil Contingencies Act they can hold people up to 58 days anyway. So what is the point of this legislation?

It is for national emergency not for picking up a few deranged fanatics. It is the nuclear option - read the legislation.

If you really want the Government to have power to seize your home, take over the BBC, jail anyone without Habeas Corpus - it does seem like a sledgehammer and nut problem.

The Civil Contingencies Act is like DORA in both world wars - a power no government should willingly use in peacetime

[Mrs Campbell]

To repeat a previous post. So how (policy guidelines) and when (before you bring them in) do you decide that they are "dangerous fanatics" and who are "you" to do the deciding anyway? Conservatives should think about the problems of implementation before deciding on policy - New Labour doesn't and never has

[Peter Baker]

We should campaign under the slogan "Lock 'Em Up And Throw Away The Key".

[John F]

I agree with those who say the BBC poll question is loaded and here is another possible factor in why 74% voted for extra police powers and that is rascism.
At this time the terrorism is coming from Islamists so people who are voting yes are probably doing this in the belief that the extra powers will only affect Islamists eg. British born Pakistanis.
What they fail to realise (and why I totally oppose detention without trial) is that such powers can be applied to us all, black, white, christian, islamist, etc. etc.
Take the current prevention of terrorism legislation and the examples of the white woman in Dundee arrested and kept in custody for many hours for simply walking her dog along a canal towpath, or the antiarms protestors arrested for demonstrating outside an arms fair and did you see the Newsnight documentary about the guy making a film about Gordon Brown and how he was hounded by the police using.. yes the prevention of terrorism act.
Personally I have been picked up by the police in the street,, mistaken identity as I looked like a suspected thief, I was freed after a couple of hours, nevertheless it was scary. Now imagine you are picked up, kept in detention for 90 days with no access to lawyers and no idea why your their except on the say so of a person or persons in the police. That is the stuff of nightmares and the kind of thing you would find in dictatorships not democrasies.
So yes David Davies and the Tories are right to uphold civil liberties, no matter the provocation from terrorist orginisations to do otherwise.
Personally I,d rather risk being blown up in a free country than have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder, or hear the knock on the door at midnight in case a policeman (probably on the word of an informer) thinks I should be locked up without trial because I may look like a terrorist.
This is Great Britain, the spiritual home of freedom, civil liberties and decency, not old commy East Germany or Nazi Germany or Communist China or Cuba and long may it continue to be protected from the extravagances of totalitarian New Labour.
Its a freedom our forefathers fought and died for and yes I,m quite prepared to fight for it again.

[Richard Tyndall]

ACtually TomTom, whilst the CCA should be for only national emergencies, in fact the new revised act allows a declaration of an emergency and the introduction of the procedures undr the CCA on a very local basis if the government wants to.

It is one of the huge provblems with the CCA that the givernment can introduce it for fairly minor problems (disruption of food supply or money supply or an outbreak such as foot and mouth) on a local basis and whilst it is in force they have the right to lock people up without trial and remove all their basic rights of association and speech.

[TomTom]

It would be interesting on a local basis to see how quickly it came to The High Court....which is why i should expect it to be used nationally together with RIPA to stop any challenge........remember Chris Mullin's televised drama A Very British Coup ?

[Jason Smith]

Ok here's why I'm not voting cameron...

I pay nearly £700 a month in tax and NI.
Not even counting council tax or VAT or fuel duty.

I have to pay for my dentist and my wifes medicine. eventually we will have to pay for our rubbish collections too. Most of the time we just scrape by but if there's an emergency or the car breaks down we have to go cap in hand to our parents for a loan. We're both in our 30's.

What really £$@^$^*'s us off is the knowledge that potheads on incapacity benefit for "depression" are getting £120 a fortnight, council tax exemption and housing benefit.

We keep reading that we need polish immigrants to come and do menial jobs. We pay for the social impact of that and yet we have plenty of slobs on the dole capable of doing it. A bit of manual labour wouldnt do em any harm.

I keep seeing ministers saying "not me guv" when asked to do something because it's no longer a westminster issue. It's all been signed away.

I have council inspectors threatening to pull the roof off my new extension unless I put greener insulation in at my cost and I have to pay them to inspect it.

Meanwhile our town looks like downtown Islamabad and the home office doesn't know who's coming in or out.

Universities are crap, no-one respects degrees anymore because of grade inflation and half the people I interview are barely literate.

My brother in law is in Iraq right now riding about in cheap and nasty trucks with no protection.

My local council is being forced by central government (probably the EU) to install congestion charging. Like I sit in traffic every morning for sh*ts and giggles.

Meanwhile, I cannot afford a private pension, dont even know if there will be a state pension and chances are I will be forced to sell my house to pay for care when I'm old and the person in the bed next to me will never have saved a dime..

I have no choice in healthcare but the mediocrity on offer and chances are I'll need heart surgery when I see how much my mortgage goes up after the end of the fixed rate.

Now tell me camoroonies... What's in it for me if I vote for sham cam?

A free windmill on my house? sure knowledge that the kids in Rwanda are getting a new school while the one at the end of my street has teachers buying specialist equipment for disabled kids out of their own pocket?

Will he tell the EU they can keep their "freedom of movement"?
Will he get our fishing grounds back?

Will I get a tax cut and will the shirkers be forced into work?

Will my council have the power to overturn recycling and building regs set by brussels?

I dunno... Lets ask Ms Toynbee shall we?

No. There is incentive for me to even vote, let alone vote for a shallow man who has never had to worry about money or healthcare or pensions or a collapsing state education system. I could go on.

Cameron is a w@nker and he must go now.

I'd rather vote BNP. Your job is to get tories voting, not leftist voters voting tory.

You have deserted us and you make me sick. There are millions like me you are ignoring.

[Jason Smith]

"If Cameron opens up on the EU in main media, he will be shouted down as xenophobe, trad tory little englander etc."

But your average sun reader (who decides elections) will agree with him.
Not standing up for brits because of what the media will say is why people are rejecting him.

were fed up with political correctness and he is the embodiment of it.

People say that if this was true then the ukip and bnp would be doing better but everyone knows theyre not going to win so they dont bother. they just want a conservative party with a clear difference from the social democratic consensus.

Real trad tory. The last four elections no leader has wanted to be seen as the nasty party and thats why no-one voted for them. We have a problem caused by touchy feely socialism and we want and need a good old set of nasty tories to clean up the mess.

You aint gonna win the popularity contest because your not socialists so dont even try. Just be tories and gain peoples respect because they will beleive they are getting what they vote for.

I want to see some tough talking from a man I can beleive in. Cameron talking tough just makes him look like a wet.
He looks like his mum still brest feeds him

get a grip and start acting like proper tories. It worked fgor maggie because she was unapologetic. It can and will work now.

Its the media thats moved to the centre left and they think they speak for us. they dont. speak to us not jeremy paxman and john humphreys.

[voreas06]

the question went something like are you in favour of detaining terrorists suspects for as long as the police need to complete their enquries as long as there are judicial safeguards. It is extremely difficult to say no if that is the only argument put forward. However we must get across that this will make us less safe as it will enforce a sense of injustice on impressionable muslim youths and make them more likely to become extreme. Look at the effect of Guantanamo, and of internment. We have sensible policies that really will make us more safe and we need to put that across rather than becoming populist.

One area that we have been concerned about talking about is Immigration. WE MUST. If labour say we are racist we say they are just using a soundbite to ignore the concerns of the British people. No longer should we be quiet about unlimited immigration. Labour have either been engaged in a deliberate policy of opening the floodgates to anybody and then wonder why we have foreign extremists in this country. Or they have been trying to keep the numbers down and have failed spectacularily. I believe the former, either way we need to get stuck in to Labour on this and EVERY SINGLE TIME they use a soundbite say something like that phrase is just a typically underhand way to kill debate but things have gone too far to let verbal trickery stop us from addressing the concerns of the british people.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Now imagine you are picked up, kept in detention for 90 days with no access to lawyers and no idea why your their except on the say so of a person or persons in the police. That is the stuff of nightmares and the kind of thing you would find in dictatorships not democrasies.
So yes David Davies and the Tories are right to uphold civil liberties, no matter the provocation from terrorist orginisations to do otherwise.
Personally I,d rather risk being blown up in a free country than have to spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder, or hear the knock on the door at midnight in case a policeman (probably on the word of an informer) thinks I should be locked up without trial because I may look like a terrorist.
This is Great Britain, the spiritual home of freedom, civil liberties and decency, not old commy East Germany or Nazi Germany or Communist China or Cuba and long may it continue to be protected from the extravagances of totalitarian New Labour.
Its a freedom our forefathers fought and died for and yes I,m quite prepared to fight for it again".

Being rather emotional aren't we. Don't let the facts get in the way. During the last war we had internment. Ever heard of Pace? (Police and Criminal Evidence Bill 1984, I believe) Police cannot question a suspect unless he is reminded of his right to have a solicitor present. Interviews are recorded audio and videod. Suspects have to be produced in court at set intervals whereby police must prove the need for furher detention.

As someone who has been a regular soldier I have been on active service and prepared to die for my country and, unlike David Davis I am not in favour of fighting with one hand tied behind my back. Face facts: the Tories are appealing for the Lib/Dim vote and oppose because it is proposed by Labour.
The Tories are fighting a losing battle on this one.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"Did internment stop the IRA bombings?
Has Gitmo detention worked"?

Well, it certaintly stopped those interned from blowing anyone else up whilst they were interned. You might as well ask what is the point in putting criminals in prison because some will carry on their life style upon release.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"What is utterly strange about this is if the Government invoke the Civil Contingencies Act they can hold people up to 58 days anyway. So what is the point of this legislation."

If you say that the Government have the power to detain for 58 days and, under the proposed legislation, Brown is talking about 56 days what is your problem?
I have not read the Act, I would imagine it does not cover the situation envisaged by police.

I repeat again, if the Government already has the power to detain for 58 days what is your problem? I have heard that the Tories favour 28 days?

However, should you rail against 90 days if needs be then I believe you are wrong. In the long run it is better for society and in the interests of Muslims themselves that a possible suspect fanatical murderer be detained until proven innocent than be released prematurely before investigations can be completed

[Richard Tyndall]

Actually no Dontmakemelaugh.

What internment and Gitmo did and are doing is turned otherwise law abiding people into active supporters or even participants in the armed struggles. Internment in Northern Ireland was a political and military disaster as has Gitmo been.

The police themselves admit there has not been a single instance to date where 28 days has been insufficient to complete investigations and decide on whether or not to prosecute.

This is unnecessary and dictatorial.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Yesterday’s Times

July 27, 2007
Lawyers sap our will to combat terrorism
We lack the toughness of our European neighbours
Michael Burleigh

An extract from Melanie Phillips Diary of yesterday the 27th by Michael Burleigh. Read it all in the Times

"While we agonise about 28 or 56 days custody, it is not uncommon for terrorist suspects in France to be held in preventive detention for four or five years before their case goes to court. The use of intelligence intercept evidence in courts is being debated here, but the Italian security services have long made transcripts of this material available, so revealing the lying cynicism with which, for example, Milan-based Arab jihadis regard European asylum laws. And then there is the internet, one of the key means of radicalising Muslims. Wolfgang Schäuble, the German Interior Minister, wheelchair-bound since a 1990 assassination attempt, has argued recently in favour of hacking into the computers of Islamist radicals. We can’t even manage to shut down jihadi websites or to prohibit subversive organisations, such as Hizb ut-Tahir, from operating on university campuses where the dons think they are dealing with the usual middle-class radicals".

The police may not (for reasons we know not) quote examples for extending time limits, nevertheless they have their reasons for such a request. It is all very well for D/Davis to argue from his works bunker in Westmister his version of the Marquis of Queensbury Rules for fighting terrorists, but let me assure you that if ever the police do quote such a case as being responsible for terrorist murder I will not cease to complain about it and to remind how stupid the Tories are and were.