The public back Labour on 42 days but think the Tories are tougher on terrorism

Tiberius

James, with diesel at £1.50 per litre at the pumps, the inflation rate of fresh meat approaching Zimbabwean proportions (if you can get it), and, for some, the prospects of losing your home becoming too close for comfort, I really don't think a recurrence of another expenses issue, which is a feature common to all parties, and which took place 10 years ago, is going to influence people's voting intentions. It's marginal effect will be very small.

For me, the above polling on terrorism shows the extent to which Labour has lost any credibility with the electorate, and stiffened the elasticity of likely change to an almost petrified state.

TGF UKIP

To the Joe Bloggs in the street, 42 days etc belongs to the minutiae of politics and passes straight over his head. It's simply a matter for politicians and the posh media to chatter on about. Indeed, he is just as likely to believe it's Tory policy as Labour. After all the Tories he's grown up with have always been tough on crime and immigration and that accounts for the apparent dichotomy.

Indeed, poor old Joe Bloggs probably still believes the Tories are against political correcness and in favour of slashing spending and taxes - which is probably why he's saying he will vote for them.

Frank Pulley

The majority of the public is susceptible to scare stories, it has been since earliest recorded history and probably before. Which is why witches, warlocks, priests, seers, prophets, proselytisers, Kings, Emperors, politicians and other ponces of infinite permutations, have always used bogey men and gods to create fear, then offer salvation if you follow their rules and rituals and keep them in funds to live well and build religions, great edifices, ideologies and armies to ward off attack, evil spirits and eternal damnation.

The arbitrary ‘42 day incarceration without trial’ would not have stopped any of the incidents that have occurred so far in this so-called 'War on Terror', neither would it necessarily stop any future attacks. What would have stopped all of them would have been better intelligence, better policing, better border controls and immigration controls and prompt intervention, interdiction and charging; in other words much more efficient and urgent enforcement of the laws that already exist. The attack on the Magna Carta is much more profoundly dangerous to our future than any threat from outside attack if it were enacted and then used*. Emergency measures exist already that could be employed in the case of an uncovered dire threat. I just don’t believe this bullshit. And I speak as one who is fully aware of the dangers of Islamism in it’s many guises and manifest madness.

This government, that is led by a Prime Minister who is scared to face the electorate and appears to display many of the symptoms of Asperger’s Syndrome, has appointed a puppet Home Secretary, whose primary job it is to make the him appear to be a macho leader and this vote is designed to make the Tories look weak if they vote against it. It is also designed to show that Brown is prepared to take on his own bolshie back-benchers or cabinet dissenters.

Today, Andrew Marr rather reluctantly attacked Jacquie Smith with a blown dry wet lettuce, much as I would expect from the Beeb, who are desperately trying to divert attention from Brown’s plight. I would have expected better from Adam Boulton this morning when he placed McDumpty on the spit-roast, then let him off without even turning on the gas. The final indignity was when he allowed McDumpty to end with a cryptic Partheon shot that he was ‘prepared to go along with Matthew d’Ancona’s analysis’ of John Major’s opinion of the 42 day proposal. I note that Mr d’Ancona’s appraisal has not yet reached this forum, perhaps we would benefit from it, I guess that it would gain about the same approval rating hereupon as his last report on the subject did, if McDumpty approves of it.

The government cannot lose on this strategy. If the vote goes against it can accuse the Tories of being soft on terrorism, if it wins, then it has exploited public fear and may gain votes. *And the most delicious irony is that never in a million years would they be allowed to use it even if it does go through. It is as I have stated ad nauseum a cynical political ploy and this Magazine should be shouting that from every column and forum. Why is our (I speak as a long-standing subscriber) Editor in thrall of this latest 'unfit for purpose' Home Office and its stupid incumbents? Are you and McDumpt drinking buddies, Matthew?

Augustus

Frank, classic Pulley! With you all the way.

jsfl

Hmmmmmm Pro 42 days 65% against 30%.

There was a Liberty / Yougov poll back in March that indicated that 70% supported retaining 28 days with interview after charge and only 13% who supported the 42 day option.

Conclusion - I don't think that opinion swings quite that radically. I think this suggests it depends on how the questions were written.

Consequently, I don't think we have a clear picture of what the public think on this issue.

That said, I think the final conclusion is right I don't think winning the 42 day vote will do Labour any good at all and potentially, should it go wrong, (and there is considerable risk it will) the problems will be laid squarely at the door of 10 Downing Street

Tiberius

Frank; I too am puzzled by Matt's take on 42 days, but this is a position he has held consistently since the proposal was in its 90 day form. He writes of it again in today's ST.

Maybe he will contribute here, and I hope I don't misrepresent him when I say that he didn't believe Blair's 90 day proposal was designed to portray the Tories as soft on terrorism. I remember that weekend's news very clearly - Boris had brought the Spectator out on the side of the "no to 90 days" argument, and David Cameron had written in the ST that Blair was playing politics. Matt disagreed in that same issue with the proposition ("not in my name"), and his position seems unchanged.

There are so many more effective measures available, that even if 42 days were not a ploy to corral the Tories, it should still be opposed on liberty grounds.

David

You, with the rest of the Spectator staff, always go on about how it's such a bastion of liberty. In this 180th anniversary year, the support you appear to give the 42 day detention plan is a shameful betrayal of this magazine's legacy.

John

David Davis said, on the politics show this morning:

'Labour whips are ringing rebel back bencher MP's and saying vote against 42 days on Wednesday and you will get David Milliband on Thursday'

TRULY DESPERATE!

Tim

John @ 4:47pm

Extraordinary!

cuffleyburgers

Frank Pulley

You say here much more elegantly than I, what I have been thinking saying and having-my-say in the DT, Times etc for months.

Cracking stuff.