Politics

Peers reject the notion that it’s fine to lock people up for six weeks without even telling them why and how does the Home Secretary respond? Well, yet again, by impugning the motives of those opposed to granting the state these extraordinary powers: “I deeply regret that some have been prepared to ignore the terrorist threat, for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision.” And so the Labour party adopts the bullying thuggery that characterises much of the modern Republican party’s approach to security issues. Power corrupts, of course and Jacqui Smith should be ashamed of herself. Curiously, those ignoring the terrorist threat included not one but two former

The issue of whether the state can lock-you up indefinitely  for up to 42 days without even the courtesy of telling you why is back. Happily, the House of Lords seems certain to reject the government’s plans, sending them back to the Commons where, again hopefully, they will finally die. Here’s Labour MP Tom Harris, however, explaining that if you opposed giving the state these powers you’re a “civil liberties” (feel the sneer with which he writes these words!) nutcase and if there’s another terrorist attack on Britain, it will be your fault… It’s no secret that, along with the great, wise majority of our nation, I support a radical

Gordon Brown’s critics are confused. For months they have been accusing him of dithering, of timidity, of being unable to make the bold moves that are needed if his government is to get a grip on the unfolding problems in the financial sector and, now, in the economy as a whole. Now that he has shown more than a bit of both decisiveness and courage by bringing Peter Mandelson back from what most fair-minded people recognise is a credible stint as European trade commissioner, the critics have shifted gears. Mandelson is not the man to help craft policies with which to fight the emerging economic crisis because… well, because he

Sarah Palin on Barack Obama and Bill Ayers today: This pattern raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment.  It raises serious questions about his truthfulness.  But there is no question about his ambition. Ambition explains launching your political career in the living room of an unrepentant terrorist. Indeed. Because you too would start your decades-long conspiracy to steal the Presidency in the home of an “unrepentent terrorist”. That’s a sensible ambition! Who could possibly fail to see that? Doesn’t Obama’s association – no more than that – with Ayers undermine the “he’s a secret terrorist-sympathiser” narrative? Or have we, I suppose, now reached the point where the GOP skips the

Frank Sinatra cuts an ad for Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and they don’t even ask him to sing? And what’s with the Mafia Don setting? Strange.