Liberty sacrificed to politics

The prime minister wants to throw away the rights of the British people for a boost in the polls. It's sad to see him reduced to this

All comments (73)

• 
• • Diane Abbott
  • guardian.co.uk,
  • Wednesday June 11, 2008
  • Article history

Over a year ago, quite unprompted, Gordon Brown decided to re-open the question of how long innocent people can be detained without being charged.

Britain already had the longest period of detention without charge in the English speaking world, indeed, in any comparable democracy. Nothing substantive has changed since parliament last debated the issue. The police were not asking for this. (Although some senior policemen, who were mindful of their career prospects, have been "persuaded" to come out in support.) The prosecuting authorities see no need for this. And Ken MacDonald, the director of public prosecutions, has said this publicly. Not a single Labour law officer past or present is prepared to defend the proposal. At first Brown did not suggest a figure. This is a clue that this was not objective evidence-based decision, but rather a wholly speculative political judgment. Finally he hit on the figure of 42 days.

Since then speculation has raged as to why he re-opened this issue. Some people say that he simply wanted to prove that he could do something that Tony Blair could not. (Blair was defeated on 90 days) Others argue that he was upset by an article in the Sun last year that accused him of being "soft" on terror and that this set him rampaging down this path. What is clear is that his burning motivation is to respond to opinion polls and focus groups, as opposed to dealing with facts. He also seeks to gain a tactical advantage over the Tory party by putting them in the "wrong place" on terror.

For a long time Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, and junior ministers sought to argue the case on its merits. But eventually it became clear that the case had no merits, that nobody (except for the most gullible) were taken in by Brown's "concessions" and that he was going to lose the vote in parliament.

At that point the government machinery went into overdrive. At first senior ministers were sent to pressure backbenchers they happened to be friendly with. And the usual array of threats and inducements were rolled out.

Then hapless backbenchers found the prime minister himself on the phone, by turns pleading and insistent. One colleague said to me that the prime minister rang him five times last weekend and he just refused to take the calls because he knew he just could not give him the reply he wanted. He added thoughtfully: "It comes to something when you won't take a prime ministers calls".

One long-time friend and supporter of the prime minister came off the phone from him in tears, because he seemed so lost and out of touch with reality. Backbenchers, who Brown has never spoken to before, found themselves ushered into his presence twice in 48 hours. The level of inducements also went up. Every rebel backbencher with a favourite cause found the prime minister suddenly willing to take action; but only after they voted the right way today.

Good honest colleagues, who know that what the prime minister is doing is wrong, have found the pressure too much to bear and have caved in. Less scrupulous colleagues have decided that a display of unctuous loyalty at this time is the way to secure a job in the coming reshuffle.

Government whips know better than to bribe or bully me and I have been spared the arm-twisting. But my view on this issue has never varied. I came into politics in the 1980s in the era of the Brixton riots when young black men were the "enemy within" in much the same way young Muslim men are today.

The issue of how the state engages with marginalised communities whom the general public fear is at the heart of my politics.

To throw away rights the British people have had since Magna Carta and push the Muslim community further into fear and marginalisation, just in order to gain Gordon Brown a few weeks advantage in the opinion polls would be utterly wrong. I am sad it has come to this for Gordon Brown. But I will be voting against the government tonight.