The news this morning was of new concessions on 42 days. Is £3k a day enough to make you happy to be detained without charge?

If I knew they’d let me out at the end, then I’d willingly take a year of that and buy a nice house. [and yes, I know that's not the point]

It does put a whole new spin on the idea of immigrant benefit cheats I guess

Surprise surprise, the Government has been dishonest again: Up against the buffers: Fact and fiction about the existing 28 day pre-charge detention limit

Not sure what Scribo Ergo Sum are doing but the debate is on now.

I’m watching, Smith is really doing little to convince anyone that might be floating, the Tories have definitely put up good points. I’m particularly impressed they’re asking why it is Parliament should have the power, and commenting on the observations of prosecutors that the 42 day situation would actually mean it is very hard to prosecute someone held under them.

Oh Man, Keith Vaz should go on Sunny’s shit list based on this performance, failing to answer a perfectly reasonable answer from his own Labour MPs

Keith Vaz is nearly number 1 on my shit list anyway.

Dari Taylor is talking a load of rubbish. One thing that particularly stood out is that she doesn’t understand the difference between a material witness and a suspect; but, more importantly, she claimed no-one innocent had been held for over 14 days… why is she allowed to speak?

She did more to hurt the legislation than aid it, that’s for sure, complete muppet.

Gordon Marsden might as well be saying “GOD DAMNIT give me power, I want power, I want people to look up at me and say ‘thank you Gordon Marden, you saved the planet, please have my virgin (16+) daughter as a token of our thanks’!”

I didn’t catch who said it but I hadn’t considered the reverse argument of MPs having their say, that of people in the muslim community putting pressure on their MP to let someone go when they aren’t necessarily innocent.

Gordon Marsden said he wondered why Parliamentarians complain that they feel left out, but then refuse to vote for legislation that involves them… umm, maybe because they feel legislators shouldn’t be involved in judicial functions?

Another MP who doesn’t get it – I’d have more respect if they got it but disagreed.

Dianne Abbott is killing the argument for the legislation.

Scribo Ergo Sum didn’t realise he had an afternoon exam today, hence only just got back…

BBC:”1658 BST: A source tells the BBC that DUP leader Peter Robinson and a number of his MPs have just left a meeting with the prime minister. There are nine DUP MPs in Westminster and their votes could prove crucial, if sufficient Labour MPs rebel against the government’s proposal to extend pre-charge detention.”

Mark Durkan was quite impressive and passionate.

He was rather good. Unfortunately, this Labour one is fairly ineloquent…

If coming out against it in appropriately strong terms.

Jacqui Smith has been caught out again.

Jacqui has a voice now there are actually some real supporters in the room. Way to go trying to divert the debate though

I do wonder why amendments are still left down to shouting. It worries me that constitutional changes are made by those with louder voices…

And the government has win. Gah…

It’s only when it isn’t obvious who has won that the MPs vote formally, as they are doing now.

The BBC reports that the Government has won.

Ayes 315
Nos 306

Tight though, this’ll never get through Lords.

Don’t bet on it. Government has emphasised this all so much they might roll out the Parliament Act, possibly…

Do you really think they’d risk pushing the Parliament Act on this? I can’t see that going down well, though I guess they can always buy off more MPs

I can perhaps see them do it. They’d claim that they won the debate in the Commons, however marginally; that they have the support of the majority of the public (that poll showing 80% in favour, they’d cite) and that consequently it would be undemocratic for the Lords to oppose it. And then role out the act.

Although, I suppose it might work in their favour for the Lords to block this. Then they’d be able to drop a policy which they probably know won’t work, and will be able to blame the Lords for it…

So, maybe?

That would mean the Labour Governments under Blair and Brown would have used the Parliament Act as many times in the last eleven years as it was used in the preceding 80-odd years.

Not sure that it meets the criteria though.

I suspect Brown wouldn’t care whether they’ve used the Parliament Act more frequently than ever before; they’ve legislated far more than any other government too. And, of course, planned to lock people up without trial than ever before…

The government wins directly on the back of the 9 DUP votes. Even with all the concessions it made it still couldn’t win on the back of its own majority.

Doug, I am sure you are right.

I guess the only small thing I can take from this is that it’s been mangled so much that the police are unlikely to want to get embroiled in it too often, especially if they bare the brunt of any “compensation” costs. Someone in the chamber made a good point though, they don’t think compensation will ever be given