Terrorism

David Cameron’s statement on Libya today reflected his growing frustration at the pace at which the wheels of diplomacy are moving on this issue. In his statement, Cameron warned that ‘time is of essence’ and that Gaddafi staying in power, something Cameron had previously called ‘unthinkable’, would send a ‘dreadful signal’. Time, really, is of the essence. If we don’t see movement in the next few days, it seems almost inevitable that Gaddafi will crush the revolt. One of the things that Cameron stressed is that Gaddafi continuing in power would be more than a moral and humanitarian disaster. As he warned, ‘a pariah state on Europe’s southern border’ would

The morning after the day before, it seems that some of the murk around Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s release has lifted. In particular, one thing is explicit that wasn’t before: that the policy of the Brown government was to “do all it could” to facilitate the convicted Lockerbie bomber’s transfer to Libya. We might have surmised the same from David Miliband’s statements at the time. But now, at least, we know for sure. Naturally, this is tricky news for Labour, and especially for the Ghosts of 2008 whose names are splashed across the papers today: Brown himself, Jack Straw, Des Browne, etc. And yet Gus O’Donnell’s report has also absolved them of

“State multiculturalism has failed.” Angela Merkel put voice to that sentiment last October. Now it David Cameron’s turn to do the same. In a speech in Munich today, the Prime Minister has taken a rhetorical torch to Islamic extremism. “Frankly,” he says, “we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism.” It is, at the very least, a significant political moment. What Cameron is doing here – as explained by Charles Moore and Paul Goodman – is publicly signing up to a philosophy of the world. It is a philosophy that rejects the idea that extremism should simply be contained. Instead,

Mark Littlewood is Director General of the Institute of Economic Affairs and contributed an article to the recent collection Big Brother Watch: The state of civil liberties in Britain. He summarises his argument here. It’s not fanciful to argue that the formation of a Liberal-Conservative coalition government last May was helped by the fact that Lib Dem and Tory parliamentarians had worked closely together in the previous Parliament to thwart or temper some of the Labour administration’s more aggressive assaults on civil liberties. The two parties – then in opposition, now in government – seemed to find common ground in defending the rights of the individual against the increasingly shrill

It is fashionable to ridicule David Miliband’s search for a post-political career. But in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph the former Foreign Secretary showed that – for all his mistakes in office – his intellect, and judgement on a number of key issues, including how to bring the Afghanistan War to an end, was, and remains, razor-sharp: “Afghanistan’s battles are not just between the Afghan and foreign forces and the Taliban insurgency, but between (and within) Afghanistan’s often warring tribes. When Nato trains the Afghan National Army, it’s good – but not if you are a Pashtun who sees the predominantly Tajik army as the enemy.” The South Shields MP goes on

Coalition is a tricky business, full of compromise and connivance. Emblazoned across the front page of the Sunday Times (£) is the news that Control Orders are to be scrapped. A victory for Nick Clegg, we are told, won to nurture wounded Liberal Democrats and preserve the coalition. The Liberal Democrat 2010 manifesto maintained that Control Orders would be abolished and many senior Liberal Democrats have been volubly opposed to Lord Carlisle’s report into Control Orders, which was understood to propose their retention. Certainly, Nick Clegg needs an outright victory on policy. The Oldham East by-election draws near, whilst the tuition fees debacle remains clear in the memory, harsh austerity