If 42 days is bad, 90 must have been worse
James Forsyth 3:37pm
There will be no profiles in courage written about those people who were happy to be part of a government that was pushing aggressively for 90 days but--now that they are out of power—like to boast about their opposition to 42 days. Paul Waugh, whose blog is rapidly becoming an essential read, reports on how one of these cowardly converts found himself rejected by those he imagined would be his new friends:
A witness reports that as [Charles Clarke] appeared on the Commons terrace yesterday, Clarke was loudly denouncing the anti-terror proposals as one of the most badly drafted pieces of legislation by any Government. Unfortunately serial Labour rebel Lynne Jones couldn't bear it. She shot back that Clarke was the man who had pushed for not 42 days but 90 days when he was at the Home Office. What Alan Bennett would call "a bit of a to-do" ensued.
Previous
Diversity
June 11th, 2008 4:10pm Report this commentClarke is probably right on the technical point. Given the baragianing, deals and amendments that have gone into it, the 42 day provisions are probably even less workable than the original 90 day version. Michael Howard picked up one legal apparent unworkability in the House today; therec will be more to come.
jack reed
June 11th, 2008 4:38pm Report this commentI feel sorry for clarke having to do Blairs dirty work as he was easliy the best and most liberal of the labour home secretaries, he also was badly treated by blair when sacked as he only wanted labours best interests (to get labour a fourth term)Bob marshall andrews was right about the unlikely unity of the tories and the serious rebels in labour they have something in common, they both want labour to loose all the time
Back to top