New Labour's Crusade for Truth and Justice

In the UK, the government's majority in the commons was slashed from 161 to 14 in a rebellion on the new Terrorism Bill.

"In a significant climbdown to the angry cross-party coalition of MPs who were vociferously refusing to grant ministers powers to detain suspects without judicial approval, [the Home Secretary, Charles] Clarke announced that judges will, after all, decide such cases in his new prevention of terrorism bill - not himself, as the bill currently proposes"

But while the climbdown took the headlines it seems to me that a couple of extremely important details didn't get anything like the coverage they deserved. Firstly, the Prime Minister rather appears to be clinging on to that old habit of exaggerating, or lying, as a scare tactic to ram his policies through Parliament.

"The prime minister [in an interview earlier that day] said the police and intelligence services were saying: "You have got to give us powers in between mere surveillance of these people - there are several hundred of them in this country who we believe are engaged in plotting or trying to commit terrorist acts - and being able, being sure enough of the proof, to prosecute them beyond reasonable doubt."

But later on the report says that:

“Privately anti-terrorist and intelligence officials have estimated that there is a hardcore of up to 40 potential Islamist terrorists prepared to plant a bomb or cause an explosion."

So is it "several hundred" or "up to 40"? What intelligence have officials passed to the Prime Minister? Is it what they say or what he says? If the Guardian’s sources are the same as those informing the government, and what they say is true, then Blair appears to be telling some very serious lies. Just how serious can be seen by taking this in the context of the other aspect of the story that hasn't had enough airtime, in my view.

"Charles Clarke was attacked from all sides for agreeing to amend the prevention of terrorism bill, but only when it reaches the House of Lords......Politicians were left in the bizarre position of debating and voting on legislation in the full knowledge that, whatever today's outcome, it would not exist in that form anyway................MPs also pointed out they had no way of knowing whether the Lords would accept the amendments............"What we are being asked to do is scandalous," said Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general. "You only need to look at the 260 amendments tabled to realise there is no possibility of doing justice to what must be one of the most important pieces of legislation this house has considered since the second world war.""

So one of the most important laws in 60 years is railroaded past our elected representatives in a few short hours with the Prime Minister apparently spreading fear with inflammatory lies to justify the measure. And this in an attempt to transfer powers from independent judges to politicians.

Comments on New Labour's profound contempt for democracy are hardly required. Again the same old questions arise: is this what people voted for in 1997? What would have been Labour’s reaction if Thatcher or Major tried something like this? The betrayal runs deep. Guardian sketchwriter Simon Hoggart summed it up best:

"There was a vote. Surely we thought, Labour MPs would stir from their obsequious torpor and demand that the house devote more time to the notion that ministers - yes, government ministers - could deprive a citizen of his liberty. Of course not. Are you mad? Where have you been these last eight years? The timetable motion was passed by 278 votes to 185."