Brown is Wrong Every Which Way on 42 Days
Brown is wrong on 42 days, any way you look at it. Let’s start with the basics. It is an exceptional act for the state to deprive someone of their liberty. That is why there has always been a limit on how long the state can hold someone before telling them what they are charged with. In the US it is just a day. We are now on 28 days, the country nearest to us, Australia, is 12 days. In this context 42 days loks well out of step.
The second point - the Government used up all its credibility on the 90 days vote. Labour MPs were told to tell Tory MPs they would have “blood on their hands” if they voted against. Disgracefully, Kitty Ussher said this to me on Radio 4. Well, it has not happened, and now 42 days looks like an arbitrary new figure simply so the Government can show it has extended the limit, come what may. There is no evidence the extension is needed.
The third point - the safeguards proposed by the Government are barmy. Why one earth should PArliament approve each case where 42 days is asked for? Whatever happened to separating the legislature from the judiciary? What kind of logisitical operation is required to get parliamentary approval? Would it be all MPs, or just a small committee? What would Parliament bring to the process that a High Court Judge would not? Parliamentary approval is simply an unworkable gimmick that makes me oppose the proposals even more.
canvas said on June 2nd, 2008 at 7:32 pm:
Is Labour listening?
Votedave said on June 8th, 2008 at 8:56 pm:
Have they ever?
Tizzy said on June 9th, 2008 at 10:26 pm:
Let’s face it, this is a test of Gordon’s leadership. If he can’t get enough votes, he’ll have to go. If it gets to the Lords they will kick it out to touch.
I doubt the Tories want him to go as much as the rest of the public. I wonder if DC will tell some of his MPs how to vote…