Tomorrow is Parliament sits for the first time since the Crewe & Nantwich by election. During the afternoon Edward Timpson will take his seat. Later on in the day the Parliamentary Labour Party meets. Instead of facing the music himself, Gordon Brown is sending Jacqui Smith along to take the flak over 42 days.
He really is a man of courage, isn't he?
He will take cover behind an article he is writing for one of the broadsheets tomorrow. Having compehensively lost the argument on 42 days he should be coming out fighting. His only chance of victory is to take on his critics in the PLP now. If he leaves it until after the vote it may be too late. Staying in his bunker won't achieve anything.
38 comments:
On another subject, right now at the BBC, Robert Peston ("there is nothing wrong with Bradford and Bingley LONG TERM") is being played like a violin.
Shame on him and Brown envelopes all round - and indeed, everything.
I think this is Gordon's "Get out of Jail Free Card." 'I didna win the vote, so I regretfully feel that I should stand down and make way for some other poor fool to deal with the General Election and £24m party deficit. It was lovely knowing you. Look forward to my time at the EU trough and that splendid PM pension.'
ps Sorry about the accounts.
David H
As you so broadly hint at, the man's a cowardy custard. He is to Prime Ministership as William McGonagall is to poetry. He is the Chicken Licken of Prime Ministers, the Cowardly Lion ... And somehow, I don't think that even Jacqui Smith's cleavage will save her this time.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is it not Jacqui Smith that has been scheduled for this spot rather than Gordon Brown? We'll see what happens and what is reported, but it is not the norm for the PM to attend every PLP meeting or even any of them in some cases. And GB went to the last one.
Brown is an arrogant, odious and gutless individual for whom I have the utmost contempt and not the slightest shred of sympathy. He deserves everything he's getting, and I wish him the utmost humiliation, as I do his party, whose attitude in Goverment has reflected Brown's personality (co-incidence?). Oh, and as for Jacqui Smith, have we ever had a weaker Home Secretary? Actually, Brown and his whole Cabinet are an utter shambles. An embarrassment to us all.
I have no problem with the Police holding real terrorist suspects for 42 days ( perhaps with some input from the Judiciary ) but simply don't trust the authorities not to use this proposed legislation against ordinary citizens for minor offences.
They are simply not to be trusted as evidenced by the widespread abuse of RIPA powers by local authorities to persecute householders for " eco-crime" when we were repeatedly told that those powers would ONLY be used against terrorists and serious criminals.
How long before a homeowner is locked up for 6 weeks without charge while his local council gathers evidence about who put what in his green wheelie bin ?
I would liken Gordon Brown to an owl.
No..not wise, but the more light that's shone on him, the less he can see.
What is wrong with this man ?
"Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence" - did you hear the weird stuff about denying climate change being like child abuse, I missed most of it as I had to turn the radio off as my children were listening. ( I guess given the alcohol jack boot instructions for parents today I can expect government advice for when to allow your kids to listen to the Today prog shortly.)
I dont think we have ever had a PM so out of touch with the people.42 days is a police state and nothing more.
He should not even discuss it. He should have totaly rejected it. He is power mad.
It's not a question of 'achieving' - it's a question of surviving. If he aint there (yet again) he's not going to have to face up to his decisions. So he'll be bunkerised until afterwards, when he can come out and blame everyone else but himself.
This is Brown Standard Operational Procedure Number Three.
Meanwhile La Smith will be spit roasted yet again, this time by her own side rather than the opposition - the cops. I think she quite likes the physical effects, but it's very difficult to tell from the Botox overloaded features.
The problem with Brown is that he is typical of those that can never take advice.
He surrounds himself with people HE can influence and therefore cannot influence him.
His cabinet is made up of YES men and women. Not one of them is fit for the post they hold.
Brown is a misfit and Alistair Campbell's assessment appears to be deadly accurate! "Psychologically
challenged"
The worry we should have is that he is the Prime Minister and HIS finger is on our nuclear button.
DR. STRANGELOVE IS IN CHARGE!
@ Man in a Shed
As I understand it (from BBC 1 this morning) we're being told how much alcohol children should drink each week.
My problem is I can't actually make the little ratbags drink their Recommended Daily Allowance.
I usually end up having to drink it for them. Makes the drive to school in the trusty Landrover Defender rather more entertaining, though. All sorts of interesting new colours on the front bumpers.
The Police would want 42 years if they though they could get away with it .Anyone who had worked in a competitive environment knows what happens when you get more time. Instead of solving the problem you use it.
Having said that,I do not see this as a big issue for most people. VAT on fuel for heating
Thats where the right should attack .
I sense that Brown is now in a vicious circle/cycle: he knows he now has a reputation for weakness, so that leads him to insist that he is standing firm on issues, instead of compromising (Blair used to compromise all the time to buy off his many rebels); the rebels are standing firm (because (a) standing with Brown won't win them re-election and (b) it is they who are standing up for Labour values, not him); so, in the end, the inevitable happens and he caves in (he could easily have compromised (aka been in 'listening mode' earlier on, but the fear of appearing weak stops him doing this); and he then looks even weaker.
On climate change:
Even as we write the global warming mafia are re-writing the temperature record of the 20th century to suit their political goals.
Brown in the bunker - what an apt analogy. "But mein fuherer, the Tory tanks are only two blocks away and our Panzerfausts have been taken away by health-and-safety".
"I need a 'volunteer' to sacifice themselves at the meeting tonight - Smith will do."
Well, staying in the bunker might avoid some short-term humiliation but it hardly supports his supposed adherence to 'winning the argument' rather than avoiding it.
Dear Tories
Portillo was right. You may as well pack up now and troll off on your summer hols. You don't need to do anything to win the next election...
Am I the only person who remembers dire warnings that Brown would have to attend today's PLP meeting and put in a barnstorming performance to keep the troops onside?
Instead it looks as though Brooon is hiding behind Cleavage Smith - probably the poorest Home Sec in living memory - and letting her take the flack. What better way to ensure that 42 days is scuppered?
Either he has utter contempt for he MPs, or her is a coward. I suspect an unusual combination of the two.
Either way, Brooon is doomed.
Regards
A Jubilant LibDem
chris paul said...
"Correct me if I'm wrong but..."
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Chirs spouting the NuLab mantra of... Problem, what problem?
Of course, when Brooon turns up at the next PLP meeting, Chris will tell us that Gordon like nothing more than mingling with the common folk and does so at every opportunity.
Happy days
I've added 42 days the list of Labour failures even though it isn't on the statute book yet. Just the process of trying to get it through seems to meet the criteria.
Do drop by. The list is growing. All suggestions for Labour failures I may have missed are very welcome.
Max
http://theerrorlog.blogspot.com
Check out Gordon's article in Today's Times. The public crucifixion he's getting in the comments is most entertaining.
@ Paul Pinfield
Chris Paul doesn't seem to understand that it is actually not necessary to correct him if he's right.
Maybe he likes a bit of the old 'correction', though. I'll have to ask Miss Whiplash when she drops by after working with Mr Mosely this morning.
Gordy Broon's in the newly unreadable "Daily Murdoch". Yes, "The Times" has had yet another redesign this morning, in a perfect example of the application of Hutber's Law, which states that "improvement means deterioration". Why don't these bloody people stop tinkering with their newspapers, instead of continually messing about with the familiar? I'm not resistant to change, but a paper should only be tinkered with every 5 years or so, not every few months.
When my children were small, and I would push them round supermarkets in a trolley, we would play "Bloody Mr Sainsbury". As I lost my temper trying to find some transplanted product, they were trained to yell in the hearing of staff: "Daddeeee, has bloody Mr Sainsbury been moving things around again?"
The Guardian's unreadably 'left'. The Telegraph's unreadably 'right'. The Times is becoming a comic. The Independent now has only a tiny handful of quality writers. The Mail is ridiculous. I take the FT, but it's not enough on its own. Septic papers don't 'do' world news? Le Monde? Die Welt? FAZ?
Has anyone looked at the comments on GB's piece in the Times? Overwhelmingly hostile, to both the proposal and the man.
Why did he pick the number 42 out of the air? As a tribute to Douglas Adams?
Looks like we're in for a summer of discontent, as the unions exploit the weak.
The PM is gutsy guy. He lost an eye at 16 but still managed to get a double first. A few years ago he lost a child but still managed to carry on as a great chancellor. He is gutsy. Why do tories have to insult him for every petty thing he does. If he had gone he would have been told he was ovedrriding the home secratery if does not go he is some sort of coward for letting a woman ride into battle alone.
I think labour are right to do this 42 day law. The terrorists are getting more sophisticated and they want to kill thousands if not millions of people with complicated , well funed operations involving biological warfare, sabotage and suicide bombs. The government must take firm measures. During the Thacther era, the government secrelty executed IRA terrorists whithout trial using the security services.
So the real choice is firm laws or the government is forced to a fight a dirty war where it simply executues the terror people without trial. And there is far more of chance of innocent people dying then. The tories are playing politics with terror. They are sick. The labour party have responsibility to the UK to fight terror the tories want us to fight it with our hands behind or back.
Dirty European Socialist @11.39
being gutsy doesn't make you right. Gosh, that Genghis/Napoleon/Stalin/Hitler/Mao/Pol Pot/Saddam/Mobutu/Mugabe/Kim, he certainly knew what he wanted, eh. Yeah, he had some guts, that geezer. He wasn't going to be put off by some namby-pamby, footling, outmoded concepts like human rights, democracy, liberty or allowing his people to eat. No, he went after the big idea, innit, 'cos that's what's important, mate. Gotta focus on the big stuff, and if a few score/hundred/thousand/million people get trampled, well, it's all in a noble cause, innit.
So Albert M when Thatcher used the dirty war to execute IRA soilders without trial was that in line with this drivel about Magna Carta. As I have said the choice is simple Firm laws or the security services secrelty carrying out beyond the law executions on the terror people.
In which there is far more chance of innocent people being shot in these executions as happened often in the IRA era.
Where the Dirty war often by accident lead to innocent people being shot dead (not for 42 days) by security service snipers. Live in your fairy tale land where the security services never kill anyone. Because that is what will happen in reality.
If you really think 42 days detention compares to Hitler killing millions of people then you need a reality check. Look at the reality fact of Hitler. If only he had just locked people up for 42 days.
There is a good post on Brown's 42 days article at Spyblog
Dave H. said...
"Why did he pick the number 42 out of the air? As a tribute to Douglas Adams?"
A. 42 days = 6 weeks. A nice convenient number. Nothing to do with Douglas Adams.
B. 42 days is what the Police asked for.
Dirty European Socialist at 12.42
Er, and where did all that come from? Fairy tale land? I was merely making the point that simply being gutsy doesn't justify anything. Being gutsy doesn't make Gordy Broon right. Being absolutely, fur-lined, ocean-going certain that you're right doesn't make you 'right'.
Bush and Bliar insisted, separately and together, both before and after, that they thought they were doing the right thing by destroying Iraq. We have to take their claims at face-value, although it's hard to see how they could possibly believe them if they had a single analytical brain-cell between them.
Is there anyone who believes that their conviction and their guts have resulted in anything other than a societal, humanitarian and diplomatic catastrophe?
And, by the way, reverting to your original post, just what on earth do Gordy Broon's missing eye and dead child have to do with anything? Read Tom Bower's biography of the man for a 3D picture of the rascal. As another example, David Blunkett's full [as opposed to mere half-way] blindness and childhood adversity didn't and doesn't make him anything other than a deeply unpleasant, self-righteous, unprincipled and morally-flawed human being.
So what Bower writes those books about everyone You can paint anyone as evil if you want. I like the tory leader. but look it is in the public domain that he was in with a crowd who sold cannabis at school. He has been described as a smarmy slippery bully by some and as having terrible temper. Some paint him as a snob. I woild like to think he is not abully and that he went overboard on defending his company, and should apologise. You seem to want to paint any labour leader as the devil incarnate. Grow up.
I propose a compromise.
28 days.
Why are we even discussing this? You simply cannot detain someone without charge (not trial, charge) for six weeks. In which other Common Law jurisdiction does this apply? In Canada, it is twenty-four hours. Perhaps someone should put down an amendment to that effect. Or at least to the effect of Australia’s seven days.
Unless, of course, Canada and Australia, both with neoconservative governments, are not part of the West?
Meanwhile, Ann Widdecombe is to break the Tory Whip and support 42-day detention without charge (not trial, charge). Miss Widdecombe is wrong about this, as about hanging, the Iraq War, and, idiosyncratically, field sports. But she is no rabid capitalist, since no moral and social conservative (nor any orthodox Catholic) possibly can be.
And it is a shame that a social conservative backlash against Cameron should begin with support for what is really so very unconservative a measure. But it is nevertheless notable that such a backlash is starting at all. We may only hope that it rapidly finds rather better causes around which to organise.
Widdecombe is right to put country before party. She is a woman of honour, with an independent mind. Please tories do not hate her for that. Admire her for that. I respect labour MPs who dissagree with my party leader. So you should respect tory mp's who dissagree with the so called "party line".
I am fed up with the drivel people spout out about this being an attack on civil liberties. All this is simply an increase in the number of days to 42.
The fact is under the tories Thacther sent out the MI5, MI6 and SAS to execute without trial IRA soildiers often the IRA were unarmed. Innocent people were often killed, by accident, in these missions which can only really be referred to as death squads. What did that have to do with Magna Carta.
In my view the choice is tough laws or we send out the security services to exectue suspects who we feel have been too clever in avoiding the law.
It is strong laws that will ensure the law is used rather than beyond the laws means which are far more likely to lead the geunine misscarriages of justice. Having strong laws ensures we do not have the security services having to get really or even worse playing silly games.
Why are the likes of Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme not saying anything about Gordon's 42 days detention proposal? It could be because Antonia Bance, the self-styled deputy director of Oxfam's UK region, is a staunch Brown stalwart. She told John Harris (as quoted in The Guardian on 31st May):"I genuinely mean that. Gordon's my guy." She goes on to say: "We're the progressive option. We're the 'Labour party'. We're going to end child poverty by 2020, so let's go out there and tell the country why we're going to do it, how we're going to do it, how it's going to make a difference ... Let's end some pensioner poverty as well ... That's what it's all about. That's why the Labour party was founded. So let's stop being so bloody timid." Antonia bemoans her new Cabinet status in the city council and how much hard work it involves. No doubt this is being subsidised by Oxfam, where Councillor Antonia Bance continues to work "full-time".
David Lindsay said...
"You simply cannot detain someone without charge (not trial, charge) for six weeks. In which other Common Law jurisdiction does this apply? In Canada, it is twenty-four hours."
You are wrong about Canada. Suspects who are foreign nationals can be held FOR YEARS without charge.
In many other countries the solution is to use a holding charge, usually some trivial or vaguely-defined offence, which enables the police to detain the suspect for as long as they need to.
In Italy, even a holding charge doesn't seem to be necessary. In the Meredith Kercher murder case the magistrate has decreed that the three suspects can be detained for up to 12 months whilst the police carry out their investigations.
Anonymous said...
"Why are the likes of Oxfam's UK Poverty Programme not saying anything about Gordon's 42 days detention proposal? "
Because it is outside Oxfam's remit?
Dirty Euro said
"All this is simply an increase in the number of days to 42. "
Not so very long ago the limit was 3 days.
Dirty Euro also said
"The fact is under the tories Thacther sent out the MI5, MI6 and SAS to execute without trial IRA soildiers"
Good.
12:09 AM That does not make sense. You say getting rid of a 42 day law must be done to preotect liberties but it is OK to execute the people you do not want to lock up for 42 days. So execution without trial is OK but locking people up for 42 days without one is a terrible blow to civil liberties. Eh! How do you work that one out then.
Post a Comment