Gordon Brown is no Margaret Thatcher

I'm writing my Telegraph column, watching the Dalai Lama give evidence in Parliament to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. What an inspirational man. What a pity it is that our Prime Minister doesn't see fit to invite him to Downing Street. Mr Brown likes to compare himself to Margaret Thatcher and calls himself a conviction politician. Does her seriously think she would have met him anywhere else than Number Ten?

Dizzy Goes Mainstream

Eleven days ago I asked a question about Phil Hendren, aka Dizzy Thinks. I said "Why hasn't a newspaper signed him up yet?" Less than a fortnight later, Phil makes his debut in The Times comment section tomorrow with an excellent piece on the government's latest big brother plans. Dear oh dear, another blogger signed up by the MSM. Will it ever end?

Dale's Tours: Crewe & Nantwich

This is the first episode of DALE'S TOURS, my new weekly slot for TELEGRAPH TV, in which I go round the country talking to Tory activists, councillors and candidates. It's part of the RIGHT ON programme. This week I talked to Donald Potter, chairman of Crewe & Nantwich Conservatives.



While in Crewe I also talked to people in the Market Place about Labour's scurrilous campaign. The reactions explain why the Tories ought to win.


And for good measure, I also had a chat with Eric Pickles, who is characteristically blunt. (I'm the one on the left).

Jacqui Smith Reaps What She Sowed

Delicious. It's hard to imagine Jacqui Smith had endured a more uncomfortable hour in her political career. Watch her squirm.

Eric Pickles Unleashed

There's a really good interview on Tory Radio with Eric Pickles talking about the Crewe & Nantwich by election. Quotes include:-

"We need switchers from the Labour party. We're getting some, but the question is are there enough."

"It would be a very significant win for us. We are by no means predicting we are going to take this seat".

"We've gone about it by not following Labours tactics of personal attacks. Not following Labours tactics of straightforward racist pandering."

"The problem Labours got is they've got a PM who can tell you the price of a barrel of oil, but cant tell you the price of a litre of petrol at the pumps."

On Labour campaign materials
"I haven't seen anything quite so blatant and unpleasant or as threatening since early Chinese communist posters or posters during the Bolshevik revolution."

"In fairness to these good folks there's no dog whistle abut this. It's abusive nasty in your face racism of the most despicable kind."

The Unembarrassable LibDem Peers Embarrass Nick Clegg

Last night in the House of Lords, Liberal Democrat peers ABSTAINED on the very subject that Nick Clegg ordered his people to storm out of the Commons on! UKIP had put down an amendment to the Lisbon Treaty legislation calling for an In/Out referendum.

Whether this shows the weakness of Clegg in trying to hold to what he said, for all its fatuity, was a key party policy, i.e. an In-Out referendum, or the ludicrous nature of the Liberal Democrat party, I'll let you judge - but you might want to look at col.1438-9 of Lords Hansard yesterday to see the pathetic explanation of the "unembarrassable" Liberal Deputy Leader in the Lords for not supporting Clegg's policy.

The laughable fiasco of Liberal Democrat policy continues to unfold in the Lords - the tragedy is that Clegg, who sacked Commons Front benchers who did not abstain on the referendum vote, now looks on course to buckle weakly, and let his peers in the Lords do what David Heath was sacked for - buck the party line to abstain on a vote on the referendum Treaty. Surely Lord Wallace of Saltaire should now be given his P45?

If he lets that happen, then there is one person, in addition to Blair and Brown, who will be personally responsible for denying the British people the referendum all parties promised, it will - unless he whips his peers into line - be Nick Clegg.

UKIP: Going Nowhere in Crewe?

This picture rather sums up the UKIP campaign in Crewe & Nantwich, from what I'm told.

Oops

As you may see, I have buggered up the code for my normal design, so have had to revert to the old design until the proper template can be restored. That won't happen until this evening, I'm afraid. All my fault. I copied some video embed code into the wrong place. Who's a stupid old Hector, then?

Adrian Yalland's Crewe & Nantwich Report

Adrian Yalland is a regular commenter on the blog and he has sent in this report from Crewe & Nantwich.

After a long drive from Hampshire, I arrived late this afternoon, I headed for Edward Timpson’s campaign HQ, in an industrial unit near the railway station.

The place was heaving - and I suspect that a controversial free vote in Westminster might have explained the rather large number of MPs floating around. Tobias Elwood was busy making A frame posters, Michael Fabricant (and his famous blonde locks) darted from room to room, and the dashing Adam Afriyie turned heads all over the place – to name a few. However, they did all seem to leave at the same time, so they might well have been heading back to Westminster by train to get the 10pm vote.

Upon my arrival, I was registered by a fierce and efficient looking women, and then immediately put to task - given a map, a handful of leaflets – and duly dispatched to a fairly new housing estate near the Nantwich part of the constituency. I went with three others, including two members of the national convention – one of whom has been putting in 18 hour days since the campaign began. Where would the party be without the dedication of people like him?

This is without doubt the best organized campaign I have ever seen. The organization seems to be water tight, and the level of motivation and commitment is just palpable. There are some very switched-on people running this campaign.

Outside, on the streets, what struck me was not the impressive number of ‘Vote Timpson’ posters (of which there are well over 1,000 displayed in windows all over Crewe), but the lack of any posters from either of the other two parties. Obviously, in the rural the rural areas you expect to see Conservative posters (and you do – lots of them), and in the more urban, terraced houses of central Crewe, you expect to see lots of Labour or Liberal Democrat posters. Except you don’t! Even having Frank Field in the constituency today (doubtless doing penance) doesn’t seem to have made any difference – I counted less than five ‘Vote Dunwoody – she’s one of us’ posters! I counted just two Lib Dem posters – it is as if they are ‘The Invisibles’! It makes you wonder if the other two parties are merely going through the motions, knowing they have lost the game.

Of course, I don’t think Labour are going through the motions - they are actually fighting tooth and claw to hang onto this seat – knowing that to lose it would be a desperate crushing blow to Gordon Brown. So much so that every cabinet minister has been ordered to visit the constituency between now and Thursday! I am reliably informed that even senior district councilors are under pressure to get up here and ‘do something’! But, on the streets, Labour seem to be having little effect. Wandering around sporting my rosette, I got a satisfying number of ‘thumbs up’ and friendly toots from passing motorists – and not just in the nice areas either. All over the constituency, there seems to be a feeling that it is time to ‘send Gordon Brown a message’, and I suspect that this is reflected in the very low profile that Mrs. Dunwoody enjoys.

The reason for the failure of Labour in this rock-solid Labour seat? Well, there is also a strong suspicion that, on top of the worsening economy and general distrust of Gordon Brown, Labour’s incredibly negative and seedy campaign is turning off people who might otherwise be persuaded to vote for them. On the streets, people are stating that they see through Labour’s tactics, and the attempt to paint Dunwoody as a ‘local’ candidate is simply not taking root. They know she is not local, they know she lives in Wales, and they know she is much wealthier then the average Crew resident – and they seem to resent Labour trying to pull the wool over their eyes. They seem to resent the patronizing and hectoring tone of the Labour Party’s campaign. As dislike the fact that the only reason they are being given for voting Labour is because Dunwoody is ‘one of us (which they know she isn’t), and that the Tory is a toff (and they see through that too). As a response, they seem to be more receptive to the Conservative campaign, which is positive, and has resisted the temptation to stoop to the gutter. There seems to be a grudging respect from the population because of it. If Labour don’t get their core pledges out on Thursday, there will be blood in the carpet for sure!

According to journalists who spoke to us today, so worried are Labour about the backlash from losing Crewe, that they are now briefing that if the Tories win by anything less than 3,000 votes, then it is a ‘disaster for Cameron’! If the Tories win by just one vote, and that was transferred into a general election, that would mean a Parliamentary Majority of over 130 seats for David Cameron. Only the Labour party can see a 130 seat Tory majority as ‘a disaster for the Conservatives’! No wonder people say they are out of touch! They are not even on the same planet.

The other news is that police arrested two men late last night, and have charged them with criminal damage. They were reported to the police for removing ‘Vote Timpson’ posters, and when challenged, stated they were part of Timpson’s campaign, and had been instructed by him to remove the posters because they were placed illegally on public land. Sadly, they were not on public land – but were in fact on land belonging to a relative of the Association chairman! Oooops!

The Fall-Out From the Abortion Debate

I don't mind admitting to being astounded at the size of the majorities against a reduction in the abortion term limit last night. I think even those who favoured the status quo were equally surprised. Suspicions remain that there was an unofficial Labour whipping operation, but even if there was, the votes for 20 weeks just weren't there. I haven't looked at the division lists yet, but I suspect a decent number of 2005 intake MPs on the Tory side may have voted for 24 weeks. It certainly didn't help when the Tory frontbench sent confusing signals by tabling a 22 week amendment either.

Has this issue been permanently put to bed? No. And nor should it be. It deserves periodic debate and review and I fully expect it to be revisited after a change of government. I'm not sure the outcome will be any different, though, as I suspect the 2010 intake of Tory MPs will have more so-called 'progressive' views than their predecessors.

In some ways, the only winner to emerge from last night was Parliament as an institution. It was a good debate full of powerful speeches. And because of that it got reported in full by the media. Government business managers should learn a lesson from that. The way to revive imterest in parliamentary debates is to have more free voutes and more set piece debates on issues people really care about.

Politicians & Their Cars

Does anyone know any politicians (national or local) who are car nuts, or drive unusual cars? If so, please email me privately using the CONTACT link below the blog banner. I'm helping with a feature on the driving habits of politicians.

Tonight the Carlton Must Do Its Duty

Louise Bagshawe has stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest on Centre Right by castigating the Carlton Club for its policy of not allowing women to be full members. She is, of course, totally right. The Carlton is, of course, good enough to allow women into the place, for which I am sure the ladies are very grateful indeed. Some argue that as a private club they should have whatever policy they like. On the face of it, this is an attractive argument. It is also simplistic. But imagine if they had a policy of not allowing jews to be full members - or gays, or, Asians. There would be a public outcry, and rightly so. As Louise argues.

The Carlton Club's raison d'etre is Conservatism, not masculinity. I trust it will take this new chance to put the situation right.

And tonight's the night. Apparently there will be a vote of the members, and hopefully this time they will get the necessary two thirds majority.

Fink 'n' Dale: Seconds Out Round Four

Danny Finkelstein has responded to my response. Here we go for round four. I shall limit myself to reponding to this comment...

I spoke of putting spending on a new path. And this leads Iain to explode:

Put state spending on a new path? Do me a favour. Translated, that ought to mean 'cut public spending'.

Again, I am afraid that won't do. Iain is normally admirably precise, but not here. No Government is going to cut public spending. And, Iain, you aren't actually in favour of them doing so. Trust me.

No, Danny, trust me, I really am in favour of cutting public spending - not necessarily slashing, but cutting. It may not be in fashion to say this but it's not something I feel any hesitation in proclaiming. The main function of government is to decide what it wants to do and how it is going to pay for it - i.e. how much tax to raise and how much to borrow.

The trouble with too many modern day politicians (and commentators) is that they look at government as it is, not how they think it should be. It has become so bloated and thirsty for taxpayers' money that it seems almost impossible to reverse the trend of public spending growth. There are, of course, areas where Conservatives would indeed continue the growth of spending, but equally, there are areas where that savings can be made - either through efficiency savings or outright abolition of wasteful government programmes. In a budget of £617 billion no one could possibly assert that that there are no savings to be made or priorities to be altered.

The political situation is different now. People know that spending, borrowing, debt and taxation are all either out of control or at the limits of public acceptability. This is what David Cameron was pointing out in his speech yesterday. He was right to acknowledge the fact and should now do so over and over again.

What he needs to do now is commission a new James Report and examine every piece of government expenditure for efficiency savings and to determine whether it is actually necessary in the first place.

Do You Really Want to Make Gordon Cry?

The first song played by BBC Radio Stoke in the hour long Gordon Brown phone-in (still going on) was 'Do you really want to hurt to hurt me, do you really want to make me cry...' by Culture Club.

An amusing coincidence or a deliberate invitiation to voters ahead of polling day on Thursday? Or perhaps a message from Brown to Alan Milburn...

UPDATE: They also played: The Animals - Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
The Beautiful South - Everybody's Talkin' (at me, I don't hear a word they're saying)

Definitely some kind of message there...

Is Alan Milburn Thinking the Unthinkable?

When Mike Smithson posts a political rumour, I sit up and take notice. This may sound odd, but Mike is not a man to take a punt without having reason to believe a rumour has some truth in it. This morning he has written THIS piece suggesting that Alan Milburn will mount a leadership challenge to Gordn Brown in the aftermath of the Crewe & Nantwich by-election.

Would he be credible? To those of us outside the Parliamentary Labour Party, perhaps not, but there are many many Labour MPs who face losing their seats and may just be tempted to think the unthinkable if the Crewe result is as bad as the latest poll suggests (a 13 point Tory lead).

Milburn's detractors will point to the fact that he resigned from the Cabinet once, at least in part because he couldn't hack the pressure. He has been out of the frontline for so long that he might also be considered to be a little out of touch.

The other thing Labour MPs will be thinking about is this: Will the British public stomach two successive Prime Ministers who have taken office without the inconvenience of an election?

The Difference Between Finkonomics and Daleonomics

Danny Finkelstein disputes my interpretation of David Cameron's speech today. Read his full piece HERE. What sparked him off was my assertion that "He [Cameron] doesn't actually abandon George Osborne's pledge to match Labour spending for two years, but he might just as well have done." Danny begs to differ.

Well, no. He doesn't remotely do that. Quite apart from anything else this pledge was produced for an early election that didn't happen and has been rendered irrelevant by the fact that there won't be a Tory Government during the period in question.

Er, come again? The pledge was made way in advance of last year's phantom election and so far as I know was meant to relate to the first two years of a Conservative government whenever it is elected. If Danny is saying that pledge is now irrelevant, I say hear hear. Towards the end of his piece Danny argues...

Now, the purpose of reform and reducing demand for government services is not tax reduction - that is a (welcome and necessary) by product. The purpose is to change the relationship between citizens and the state, to build a stronger society and to improve the quality of things like health and education.

An interesting, if flawed assertion, straight out of the Social Democratic Hymnbook. The purpose of reform and reducing the demand for government services is to shrink the state, make it more efficient and cut the amount of money the State takes off its citizens. It is the stronger society and improved quality of public services which are the by-product. These may seem like semantic differences, but they are important. Danny continues...

It is important that, while the need to put state spending on a new path is not forgotten, the desire for swift tax cuts does not distort the entire programme or the way it is explained. Tax reductions are not the only thing, in fact not even the most important thing, a Tory Government will wish to achieve.

Put state spending on a new path? Do me a favour. Translated, that ought to mean 'cut public spending'. David Cameron says public spending has reached the limits of acceptibility and he is right. No one is saying that tax cuts should 'distort the entire programme', least of all me. Any tax custs must be affordable and funded and they will only be achieved through increased growth, reduced spending and reduced borrowing. Even my Grade E 'A' Level economics tells me that.

Of course tax cuts are not the only thing a Tory government wishes to achieve, but if a Tory government cannot achieve a lower level of taxation after a five year term, then one has to ask what it is there for? If we wanted to continue with high public spending, high borrowing and high taxes we'd vote Labour. Over to you, Mr F.

When is a Free Vote Not a Free Vote?

As we know, Gordon Brown conceded that free votes would be granted on some of the sensitive issues – hybrid embryos, saviour siblings and the role of the father in IVF treatment – contained in the Human Embryo & Fertilisation Bill.

With all votes in the House of Commons, both sides to any division provide two tellers to count MPs as they go through the Lobbies. Normally, these roles are performed by whips but not on free votes. However, on this ‘free vote’ this evening on amendments to the Bill on hybrid embryos, the tellers for the ‘Noes’ were Labour whips and a Labour whip was in the No Lobby advising on the timing of the future votes. In contrast, the tellers for the ‘Ayes’ were backbench MPs.

If it was a genuine free vote, why were Government whips acting as tellers? Some Labour MPs did, of course, support the amendments but the role of the Labour whips made it clear which way Labour MPs were expected to vote. Has Gordon Brown changed his mind again? OK, you can argue that it was Government legislation so why shouldn't whips be involved, but it does go against the grain of a genuine free vote. And furthermore...

A Conservative MP of my acquaintance has just told me that a Labour whip has just shown him the Labour whipping for tomorrow. They have been put on a Three Line Whip to attend - a Three Line free vote!

It means those who would have abstained will be herded through the 24 lobby to save Brown's face and keep the status quo. That's how scared they are of the 20 week option winning.

UPDATE 00.42: Labour Minister (and excellent blogger) Tom Harris has just posted this in the comments...

Iain, I'm sorry but you're wrong. Government whips were involved because it was government business. I decided to abstain on saviour siblings tonight. Not one whip approached me in advance to ask my intention or to strong arm me. Similarly, although I have publicly stated I will support moves to lower the abortion time limit, I have received absolutely no pressure from any whip to do otherwise. I'm afraid that on this occasion there is no evidence at all to sustain a conspiracy theory that there is control freakery at work. Quite the opposite, I can assure you.

UPDATE: 9.06: Nadine Dorries hits back...

Nice try Tom! We both know that two thirds of Labour MPs never vote on this issue. A three line whip to 'attend' the chamber means that the same two thirds will wander in, ask the whips which way to go and be sent into the 24 week lobby. This is about Gordon Brown looking at potential wipe out in Crewe and Nantwich making sure he isn't humiliated twice in one week.

He stuck his neck out for 24, why? He didn't need to, why do it? Having done so, if MPs don't vote for 24 it will demonstrate that he has no leadership. I hope that the two thirds who don't normally vote will have the moral courage to do the right thing today.

Mr Speaker Launches New Court Bid in EU Case

Press release just received from Stuart Wheeler...

This evening Stuart Wheeler has been notified that the Speaker intends to intervene in the case in which he has been granted a judicial review over the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty. The Attorney General will represent the Speaker.
Mr Wheeler responds 'I am surprised that the Speaker wishes to intervene. At no stage have I sought in any way to impinge on Parliamentary privilege.
"My case is based solely on the Government's refusal to hold a referendum on the EU Treaty."

Er, on what grounds has The Speaker intervened?!!!

How Would You Cast Your Vote on the Embryology Bill?

Today and tomorrow the House of Commons is considering the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill. The controversy surrounding the 20 week abortion issue has tended to obscure debate on the other important clauses of the bill - notably sibling saviours and human-animal hybrid embryos. All three issues are, to me, of equal importance. This isn't going to be a long post on the whys and wherefores - you can get that elsewhere, but I think anyone who writes on a public platform should say how they would vote on these issues if they had the chance.

On human-animal hybrid embryos I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I would vote against them. The whole concept fills me with a slight sense of horror. I always thought the concept of 'saviour siblings' must be something which involved a mutual support pact involving Wendy and Douglas Alexander, but it appears not. I have slightly more sympathy and understanding of this, but there is something about it which makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I accept that medical advances have brought untold joy to parents who might otherwise never have conceived, and further medical advances have saved untold hundreds of thousands of lives. And yet, I can't reconcile and inner belief I have that tampering with natural human science in this way is wrong. I don't have religious beliefs, but there's still part of me which agrees with religious teachings on this issue.

The 20/24 week abortion debate has illustrated all that is wrong with political debate in this country. Pro-Choice supporters have railed against the 20 weekers, accusing them of being totally anti-abortion, which in some cases may be right, but certainly not all. And some of the 20 weekers have failed to recognise that there are actually arguments on the other side which need addressing.

What I do not understand is that the Conservative front bench has now put down an amendment on 22 weeks, for reasons no one has quite been able to explain. Frankly, it's a fudge. Either you believe in the status quo, or you think the limit should be much lower. This amendment smacks too much of the lowest common denominator.

I unreservedly back 20 weeks and I make no bones about the fact that I would like to see it lower than that. Virtually every other European country has a limit of between 12 and 14 weeks. Their abortion rates are much lower, so is the level of sexual activity among under age teenagers. It is a proven fact that foetuses can survive at 20 weeks - not all, but some do. If you live in an area with a hospital with superb neo-natal facilities the survival rates are obviously much higher than if you live in a catchment area without one.

It's on occasions like this that Parliament should come into its own. Although I have reasonably unchangeable views on the abortion limit, I would genuinely like to have listened to the full debate on the other two areas before finally making up my mind. I suspect many MPs are doing just that.

Sky Host Online Crewe & Nantwich Debate

Earlier today, Sky News Online hosted a debate between the main Crewe & Nantwich By-Election Candidates. The following extracts have been taken from the full transcript of the debate and are not necessarily in chronological order. (I have not edited this - Sky has). The full posting of the debate can be found HERE.

Fighting talk

9:30 [Comment From Stephen]
Tamsin, how exactly is Edward a 'con man' as your website states? Does he have a criminal record?
9:31 Tamsin Dunwoody - Hi Stephen, he ran on the 10p issue being the only issue in the campaign. Actually it is all about the local people and local issues. Cameron refused to say he would reverse the 10p change.

9:13 Edward Timpson - Mark - We have offered a number of things to help first time buyers, including reducing stamp duty for first time buyers and shared equity schemes. The problem with Labour's top down approach is local people have a disincentive for new housing because they are built without the necessary infrastructure, roads, hospitals and services.
9:14 Tamsin Dunwoody - Hi Edward. Are you actually writing this or one of your spin doctors...sounds like it LOL

Tamsin Dunwoody answering candidacy question

9:18 [Comment From Tim]
Tamsin - if your surname was not Dunwoody would you be Labour's candidate?
9:19 Tamsin Dunwoody - Hi Tim, I was selected on ability, experience and my fundamental political beliefs.

On the ‘Toff’ issue

9:19 Martin Stanford -
and for Edward - wot do you make of the "Toff" label?
Questions we have extracted from the Boulton & Co blog...
9:21 Edward Timpson - I have spoken to people across the whole of Crewe and Nantwich over many months and not once has it been raised as an issue. Local people are not interested in cheap attacks on class. What they want to know is how we are going to reduce crime, imporve local services and bring down the cost of living.

9:34 [Comment From Nick]
Tamsin, On the Politics Show yesterday Harriet Harman was clearly uncomfortable with the negative tone of the Labour campaign in Crewe & Nantwich. Do you support the "toff" attack angle or has it been thrust upon you by Labour high command?
9:39 Tamsin Dunwoody - Hi Nick, this is a by-election campaign and I do believe it is vital that voters know what they are getting. I am a single parent of five kids fighting to get a job. I have no family fortune to fall back on. The Tories have criticised Labour candidates in other by-elections. Its your choice. You know what you are getting with me.


On the environment/future energy supply

9:23 [Comment From john]
tamsin + edward what are your positions regarding our future energy supply and not just your party policy where should our future lie PRECISE PLEASE
9:25 Tamsin Dunwoody - Hi John. easier planning laws to allow householders to install renewable energy, get away from oil/gas dependancy, help those in fuel poverty (£1.2bn invested so far) keep working with business to reduce consumption, stop manufacturers making stuff that stays on standby all the time.
9:25 Edward Timpson - John - What we need is sustainable energy policy which is not over reliant on one form. it has to be a combnation of wind, oil coal, nuclear, solar. Additionally we need to be conscious about reducing our carbon footprint and to move sensibly towards Kyoto targets
9:25 Elizabeth Shenton - John - securing future energy supplies is a hugely important issue facing this country. With the abundance of offshore expertise in the North Sea oil industry, combined with its endless supply of wind - I don't see why we can't combine these two factors to make the world's largest offshore windfarm.

On going against their own parties if they thought it was for the greater good

9:26 [Comment From Rich T]
if needs be, would you be prepared to go against your respetive party lines if you felt it could be for a greater good
9:27 Tamsin Dunwoody - Hi Rich. Yes.
9:28 Edward Timpson - Rich T - I reserve the right to vote against my Party if it was in the best interests of my constituents or my country to do so
9:28 Elizabeth Shenton - Hello Rich. I have always advocated that I will be a strong independent voice for the people of Crewe and Nantwich, fighting for the issues that effect them. But that doesn’t mean I have to be a rebel – there is a world of difference between a rebel and a strong independent voice.

On 42 day detention issue

9:28 Martin Stanford -
and for all the candidates - a question that has come up a lot before today...

How will you vote on 42 days detention?
9:29 Edward Timpson - I will vote against 42 days. The Government has not made the case for this. We have proposed the introduction of intercept evidence into trials and detention post charge.
9:29 Elizabeth Shenton - In answer to how I'd vote on 42 days detention, I'd vote strongly against it. The Liberal Democrats have always been consistent on this. Not a single terrorist prosecution in this country has required someone being questioned for longer than the current 28 days - it's that simple.
9:30 Tamsin Dunwoody - The balance between human rights and national security is an important one. The current proposal is only intended to be used in the case of multiple terrorist incidents and cannot be invoked without parliament and the judiciarys approval. It is also not renewable. However, my concern would always be for the people of Crewe and Nantwichs safety.
9:32 [Comment From Craig]
Tamsin, at 9:30, you didn't actually state whether you would be voting for or against the 42 days detention?
9:34 Tamsin Dunwoody -
I would support it with the five safeguards built into it and that it is not renewable. Parliament has the ability to vote against any rare usage of this and it prevents the country having to be put into a State of Emergency which the Civil Contingencies Act would currently do.

Make of all that what you will! Congratulations to Sky for hosting this. Their online presence really is becoming excellent.