This isn’t about whether or not the Tories are the ‘one’s for our civil liberties’ any more or less than Labour may or may not be.

This is about understanding the power dynamics of this situation against the background of an opposition party that has a serious expectation of forming the next government of this country.

Just think back to what Blair and New Labour did between 1994 and 1997 to sweep to power.

1. They smeared the hell out of the Tory government with a stream of sleaze allegations and made them out to be tired, out of ideas and a bunch of unprincipled and incompetent bastards.

2. He kept the policy content to a minimum and stuck wherever possible to pitching the electorate a bunch of deliberately vague but pleasant sounding platitudes about how the world would all be a much more wonderful place when he was PM, and

3. He found a signature issue – PR and electoral reform – which he used to suck the Lib Dems inside the tent to construct a ‘coalition’ to get the Tories.

Wind forward to 2008 and we already had the sleaze, character assassination and general incompetence stuff in spades.

We’ve got the detail-lite policy agenda and the platitudinous sound-bites about a broken society and how the Tories will usher in a new golden age and god knows what else.

And now we’ve got signature issue – civil liberties – to suck the Lib Dems and a few other into the tent into an anti-government coalition.

Yes. Brown is very much the architect of his own problems here because he’s falling for this as much as anyone at the moment but that doesn’t mean that the power play here is any different to that which Blair, Mandelson and Campbell set up and executed in order to shoot down Major.

I’m not excusing Labour’s record on civil liberties, merely noting something that should be fairly obvious here.

If public opinion continues to run, in two years time, the way its running now – as evidenced by the Economist’s poll will an incoming Tory government?

a) Tell the public and the Daily Mail, Sun and Express that they’ve had it wrong all along, that the world isn’t really anything like what people have thought it was like for the last few years and that CCTV is a terrible thing, etc. or

b) Will it go with the flow and the Daily Mail’s headlines and start enacting all the things that it current reckons are absolutely terrible simply to ensure that it stays popular and on top of the polls.

New Labour lacks any substantive ideological base, which is why it can be easily pushed into excesses on civil liberties and law and order.

Cameron’s brand of ‘liberal conservatism’ is similarly lacking a clear ideological platform and is many respects a reversion to the pragmatism of pre-Thatcherite but the conservatism but the Tories do still have ideological platforms out on the right of the party in its relatively small libertarian wing and its larger Thatcherite wing, the latter being much more at home with the kind of authoritarian stance on civil liberties that has been characteristic of New Labour.

Unlike Blair, who never had to face a serious challenge from the ideological ‘old Labour’ wing of the party, which was pretty comprehensively discredited by the 1983 election, Cameron has no such luxury simply because Thatcher was never discredited by going down to defeat in a general election and as we’ve seen on the few occasions that he’s tried to go up against them, as happened on grammar schools, he lacks the strength to face them down in the manner that Blair faced down the Labour left.

Now, with those dynamics kicking around this situation can anyone really be confident that taking anything other than independent line at the moment isn’t paving the way for a whole heap of trouble further down the line?

Excellent comment, truly excellent. Too few seem to be able to grasp the historical context at work here…

I’m with Rachel and others on this, the time is ripe for pressing the issue of civil liberties and what it means to want to keep them, and that the best way of doing that is the way it is being done now…we can then keep the issue rolling and progressing in a positive way.

That’s my view too. Has David Davies invited you to share a platform with him?

Have a good break.

Where in this have I suggested backing Labour?

So far…

I’ve correctly called Labour’s decision not to stand and explained pretty why their standing against Davis was a none starter from the outset.

I’ve tried remind people of some of the many political realities in this situation, which has meant dealing with a fair amount of realpolitik.

Written two articles highlighting ongoing civil liberties related issues that barely get a mention, especially the bail issue which the press broadly support, and

Argued throughout that in order to see any gains out of this that won’t rapidly be co-opted by the Conservative Party, we actually need to push beyond the limited stance that Davis is taking and set out a clear agenda.

I have to say that Nigel Farage had the right idea on QT when he pulled Davis on 28 days – we need more of that.

In essence, the message to Davis needs to be ‘if want our support you need to go further than the limited package of issues that you’ve put on the table so far’, so the need is to engage Davis in debate as much, if not more than anyone else.

It is more than likely there will be a Tory Govt. Either way, whatever Govt. is in power, it would be good to have them in power realising the public are fed up with the Blair/Brown/New labour project of eroding civil liberties.

By getting involved in the public debate, and backing DD on a civil liberties awareness-raising exercise, it becomes harder for the next Govt to say ‘nobody cares ‘about civil liberties and the public just want to have all measures taken to protect them’ and continue down this path.

A grass-roots cross party big public debate has started and DD has got it into the news – nine days now it’s been running in the media – and whatever you think of him, nobody has done that before and it is because of who is is: an (ex) Shadow Home Sec front-bencher senior politician. I don’t; see what there is to lose in the long term.

re. second post> Ta. Yep, could have been anyone on the tube, that’s the whole point. Like millions of others, I have a blog where I go on about things that are significant to me. Anyone can start a blog and write about things they care about, (including anyone else who was on the tube on 7/7). This debate should not be about 7/7 anyway, but if it is going to be raised I will pipe up and point out that not everyone who was there backs the Sun’s point of view. It’s my way of trying to knock out the ‘soft on terrorism/think of the ‘victims’ thing that I think is being used to emotionally blackmail people into a hardline position and get the debate back where it should be which is non-emotive and clear-headed. Dunno if it makes much difference but it’s one small thing I can do so I’m doing it.

I am now off on holiday so drunken ham-fisted postings will cease til next week, you’ll probably be glad to hear.

It’s not the case that Chakrabarti is not entitled to find allies where she can.

However, what organisations like Liberty also have to be mindful of, having gone to great lengths to cultivate an image of political independence, is how those alliances may appear from the outside in certain circumstances.

It’s the sexual innuendo that’s potentially damaging here is the implication that there may be a lack of political impartiality beyond a mere alliance on a single issue that is.

While issues may sometimes transcend party politics, politicans rarely, if ever do.

What I wrote above is not the point.

Sorry about that.

I have your book ‘Out of the Tunnel’ on my library shelf.

And you, yes you, explained to me how the tin foil hat brigade were a lot of idiots. I’d like to thank you for that. It saved me from making myself a bigger fool than I already am.

But you are under no compulsion to be something you are not.

You are under no obligation whatsoever to share your suffering with us. Whether you make it public or keep it private is up to you.

It could have been someone else on the tube that day. Fact, it was you. And frankly you have suffered a great deal. Through sceptics and idiots. It is frankly disgraceful.

Rachel North, I respect you. I think you are a strong person and I think you were half pissed when you wrote what you did…

Though the HTML excuse is good.

I think you are having as much trouble with HTML here as I have.

If I can attempt to dig out your main point, if I may:

We might be helping them to stop, look, and see how civil liberties excites and unites many people across the spectrum, by running with this, one-off event of a shadow home sec chucking it in for 42 days. ( Shadow. Home.Sec. Chucking .It .In. 42 days. I mean, one off-or what?)

That frankly is why I prefer your comments to those of others. You are an optimist, and so am I. If you and I have a Shadow Home Secretary willing to throw his name into this ring, then what do we have got to lose?

Take care.

TRYING AGAIN. IPlease – sorry – gnore comment above, I hit send too soon.

We may not be electing a Tory government,

which is winning the next election.

Others – other voters – almost certainly ARE going to elect a Tory Govt. I see the wind blowing, I’m sad, but I accept it. I’m thinking next Govt now. But whoever wins, I would like them to win having realised the public really care about civil liberties and won’t accept this crap anymore.

But that doesn’t mean’ t say that, if we’re not up for it, we might be making a contribution…. to them nailing their next big cause ,which could be civil liberties,

( imagine – hug a hoodie, hug a husky – now, hug a liberty could be the next big thing)

I would like to be part of a movement that makes politicos stop, look, and see how civil liberties excites and unites many people across the spectrum, by running with this, one-off event of a shadow home sec chucking it in for 42 days. ( Shadow. Home.Sec. Chucking .It .In. 42 days. I mean, one off-or what?)

Or, we could sit back and watch the Tories and the Labour decide the authoritarian future thing is what the public want. They monitor the blogs, the vote, the column inches, see it die out, and rub their hands with glee.

I have always admired your analysis, particularily when you have dug the dirt on a subject. What you do is pretty well unique in UK blogging.

You can see the ‘but’ coming, though, can’t you?

With due respect, it is absolutely no answer to even hint that Shami Chakrabarti is not entitled to find allies where she can. Equality of opportunity should be offered by Liberty to each and every political party. If the Tories, or more exactly, an ex Tory, yes he’s a Tory, oh no he’s not supports a Libertarian stance, why should she reject it?

Now that wouldn’t make sense.

I happen to think this issue transcends sectarian politics. You, quite frankly do not. It’s a DNA thing isn’t it?

[Sunny - I know you have a lot on your mind, but a Preview function would be a joy to behold. I am writing HTML blind, almost definitely badly]

In that case, surely a private citizen challenging a cabinet minister with them is an example of when they work as they should?

I agree with that. So given that we think Labour (or Lib dems) should be striving to make society less authoritarian, how ill backing Labour over this DD thing break this cycle. It won’t. Now, I’m increasingly unconvinced by David Davis’s stance, but isn’t the chance that he might inspire people to rally on a more libertarian platform lead to a rush to the opposite side – where Labour feels it has votes to win on becoming less authoritarian?

We all want to break this cycle. Which is why many like Rachel North want to help David Davis. If you have an alternative plan – let’s hear it.

I might be more inclined to feel the same way about Davis’s stand if he was being directly supported by Cameron, but he clearly isn’t.

Not only that, one can also argue that by pushing David Davis, we could open up a schism within the Tory party, whereby its new libertarian minded recruits find with the old Conservative, authoritarian roots. Why else is ConservativeHome so worried about all this?

We may not be electing a Tory government, but that doesn’t mean to say that, if we’re not careful, we might not be making a contribution to their main cause, which is winning the next election

To be honest, the Brown govt has done a much better job of nixing its own electoral chances that the Tories have ever done of promoting them. so really, your ire should be directed at their people who keep coming up with some illiberal, idiotic minded policies, and now character assassination.

Its like Flying Rodent said quite pertinently on here last week – we are the reason why the Labour party is in the position its in.

And lastly:
Quite why an exercise in working the odds and trying to understand the dynamics automatically has to be considered partisan is anyone’s guess but I’m just calling it as I see it and nothing more.

Ok, but basically this is an extension of the vicious circle you talked about above. Now, you an either register your annoyance and say you want to break out of this circle – and the ministers who do this should pay – or you can say ‘I’m just describing the realpolitik’ and then say that Shami Chakrabarti should think carefully about who her friends are.

OK. I see the point you are making. If you are right – and I’m still having a left brain / right brain moment on that – then absolutely nothing can be done, ever, about anything. On a slightly more optimistic note, the facts are that the media will see this as a David (hah!) -v- Goliath story and will clear out time and space to let it run and run. There ought to be opportunities to inject a bit of reality in there.

Unless David Davies has been watching, “Churchill – The Wilderness Years”, or some such, I fail to see the careful political calculations, at least on his part.

You missing my point, which is not that Liberty or anyone associated with them have done anything wrong but rather that their credibility as an organisation is very much founded on the being – and more importantly on being seen to be – operating independently of any individual political party.

All I am suggesting, and I think quite reasonably at that, is that is that the Tories obvious and very public courting of an association with Chakrabarti over a period of months may be starting to raise concerns that public perceptions of Liberty as a non-partisan organisation may become compromised, particular if the focus of public attention shifts too far towards personalities and away from the work of the organisation.

This isn’t that difficult a scenario to figure out.

You’ve got a Tory Party that doing everything it can to get shot of a reputation for being the nasty party and the natural home of the hang ‘em and flog ‘em brigade who, in addition, get a gift horse lobbed their way by a Labour government that obsessed with not being outflanked on the right by the Tories on law and order and security issues.

So, if you’re Cameron you recast your part as champions of civil liberties more or less in the safe and secure knowledge that Labour are now so far out to the right that you keep your own native ‘Laura Norder’ headbangers pretty sweet and still come out looking a bit more liberal than the other lot, and to sweeten the deal you do a bit of very visible cosying up to Liberty.

If you’re the Labour Party and you’re unwilling to shift on your commitment to staying out to the right but worried about the Tories getting good press out of hanging around Liberty’s coat tails then as you’re limited in the attacks you can throw at the Tories, your next best option is to try to compromise Liberty’s reputation by dropping hints that they’re getting a bit too cosy with the right and staring to show signs of turning blue.

It ain’t subtle, but if people get to thinking that Liberty are starting to take sides on the terms of a political party rather than one their own terms then it’ll hurt because for many of its supporters it actually matters that they take a non-partisan stance.

Quite why an exercise in working the odds and trying to understand the dynamics automatically has to be considered partisan is anyone’s guess but I’m just calling it as I see it and nothing more.

Momentum, that’s what…

Six months down the line, when Davis is firmly back in the Tory fold and parked right behind Cameron at PMQs while he tries to lay in Brown on the government’s record on civil liberties, how many people will remember that the Tory’s commitment to 28 days was a forced move pushed onto him by Davis.

This isn’t some serial Labour rebel, like Bob Marshall-Andrews, facing off against Brown this is a senior Tory whose spent the last few years shadowing one of the Great Offices of State not to mention Lord Ashcroft’s chosen man during the last Tory leadership contest.

If Davis succeeds in nothing else, he’s do everything he can to ensure that, having got over the hump of resigning his seat, his own party will benefit from any welts he can raise on Brown during this campaign.

We may not be electing a Tory government, but that doesn’t mean to say that, if we’re not careful, we might not be making a contribution to their main cause, which is winning the next election.

There an unwritten rule of election campaigns that all party’s follow, but for the occasional aberration like Margaret Hodge’s comments about the BNP, and that’s that you never talk up an opponent for fear of lending them even the credence of treating them as credible opponent – that’s not just a bit of political superstition but a practice forged by experience of quickly things can change if an opponent gains even the slightest bit of momentum.

Look how quickly Obama went from ‘who?’ to front-runner during the recent primaries – that what political momentum can do and that’s why politicians will avoid giving any of it to their opponents if at all possible.

“Exactly what, now that’s the question.”

Yes, it is. And I don’t think you can keep begging it without setting up some kind of case for what it is that Liberty has done wrong.

The fact that Shami is lauded by some Tories, and some Lib Dems, and some Labour types (notably Diane Abbott) proves nothing at all about Liberty’s overall position. And the fact that her personal style has had such an impact on the reputation of Liberty since 2001 hardly indicates that the problem is getting too close to the Tories. Lots of MPs use Liberty’s arguments in debates because they’re pretty tightly argued from a legal perspective and are directed at flaws in Bills line-by-line.

Now, when the official Tory line is more favourable to civil liberties on a particular issue (42 days) than the official Labour line, the fact that Tories quote or praise Liberty more than Labour MPs (if that’s even statistically the case) hardly means that Liberty has gone too right-wing.

Again, I’m not sure what it is that you want from a pressure group working in Parliament – for Shami never to talk to Tory MPs? For her not to attend meetings of the Conservative Civil Liberties Group, because other Tories may believe in flogging? For her not to coordinate tactics with the Shadow Home Secretary in a Party officially opposed to damaging proposals? For her to block the calls of senior politicians with influence over what enters the statute books?

By the by, since the decision on 42 days was always going to come down to backbench Labour MPs (since the Tories declared fairly early against it), I think you’ll find that Shami and Liberty generally spent a lot more time pressuring and meeting with Labour MPs than with any other party. Not to mention that Shami personally saw Gordon several times before the proposals were finalised in an attempt to talk him away from macho posturing.

What more is it that you want?

The reason this by-election will do nothing to increase the public’s understanding of the issue is because, as these debates continue to demonstrate, within the prevailing political culture the issues inevitably end up taking second place to the personalities.

It’s easier to pick a fight over Andy Burnham’s comments in Progress than it is to tackle the question of how best to strike a balance between positive and negative liberties or between security and liberty or just about anything else on the civil liberties agenda that can’t be summarised in a Daily Mail headline.

There’s the irony of the situation – David Davis sat there on Question Time, last night, as said that his decision to resign was, at least in part, down to a desire to explore the civil liberties issue in detail, which he couldn’t do because the media plays everything out in sound-bites.

What does he think the media are going to do over the next few weeks if not report his campaign as a collection of disjointed sound-bites, in which case the campaign become entirely self-defeating.

For instance, your article today – ‘Please sign this blank contract’- is just the sort of issue that we should push. We should not allow any party to present us with something as ill fleshed out as these proposals are.

Exactly – but now look how many comments that article gets, or how many the previous one on the changes to bail – which actually sets a much more serious precedent on habeas corpus than 42 days as even if you’re banged up under detention without charge you can still apply for a writ of habeas corpus and challenge the police to demonstrate to a court that their investigation is going somewhere – got compared to articles about whether the New Statesman has fallen out with Brown and may or may not runs its own candidate.

It’s not just that particular individuals, parties or third-party organisations are compromised in this situation it that the system itself is compromised and its not just this one debate its across a whole stream of them.

And to take Sunny’s point head-on, I’m certainly not annoyed with Liberty for not standing shoulder to shoulder with Gordon Brown, in fact I’m pretty sure that any hint of them standing shoulder to shoulder with New Labour disappeared off into the Sunset at least by the time of the Iraq War if not somewhat before then.

I find it a little absurd that Chakrabarti would respond to Burnham’s comments by making threats of litigation when a sharp retort of the ‘how dare you’ variety would be no less effective a put down, if not a more effective put down for it lacking the appearance of overweening self-importance that threatening to lawyer up actually creates.

That’s something of tactical miscalculation as I see it, not to mention something of a sign of discomfort which does make me think that either she, or others within Liberty, may be beginning to get a bit uncomfortable with something.

Exactly what, now that’s the question.

Nothing concrete I’m sure but I do wonder whether, coming on top of the Tories having made a big thing of talking her up over the last year or so to the point that she’s turning up fairly high on the list of people who’re ostensibly influential with the Tories, whether the cumulative effect of all the good press she’s had has started to raise questions about both whether her personality and public profile is beginning to overshadow the work of the organisation and equally whether this is create a public perception of her that’s starting to compromise Liberty in terms of the appearance of being independent and politically non-aligned.

For a civil liberties organisation its actually much easier to operate notionally on the left because we have two ostensibly socially left-wing parties, Labour and the Lib Dems so its not that difficult to be see to be charting a bit of course between them and on occasions where both Liberty’s interests coincide with those of both parties the fact they’re agreeing with both precludes them being seen to be favouring a particular party.

Working with the Tories, who not only occupy the political right but effectively are the political right so far as many people are concerned is a much more awkward proposition simply because its that much more difficult to avoid being seen to be aligning yourself with party interests.

Its also, I think, just a little questionable whether she would have responded in quite same manner had the situation been one in which it was a Tory who surfaced publicly with the innuendo that Burnham dropped into his piece in Progress.

As counterattacks go this one works because it keys directly into the left’s preconceptions of itself – play the same tactic against a right-winger and pretty much you’re guaranteed is 500 comments at Guido’s on the general theme of whinging about political correctness and ‘does anyone know if she’s lesbian?’

Nothing in any of this, so far, is based on anything but the most careful political calculations, and its that people need to have in mind here or you may find you’ve signed up inadvertently to something you really weren’t expecting.

Well, if Davis bombs, they’ll have carte blanche to be as illiberal as they fancy when they form the next government. I’d suggest *part* of his motive is trying to bind the Tories to repealing 42 days.

As Rachel has said before, the professional politicos *are watching* this. So, while the scope of a site like this to influence policy is limited, don’t think Cameron and his government-in-waiting aren’t looking on to see how this ‘we’re liberal, honest’ brand of Conservatism flies with wonks and the electorate. Much like the Blairites, they don’t have any real principles of their own: they’ll happily dress themselves in whatever looks to be working.

This is no reason not to give Labour a good kicking when it is deserved, and to applaud the man who is doing it. The bigger Davis wins, and the more serious attention his campaign gets, the better.

As it is you seem to be doing your darnedest to confirm what I said in my previous comment (4).

I might be more inclined to feel the same way about Davis’s stand if he was being directly supported by Cameron, but he clearly isn’t. Again, I also think that the 28 days issue is also a misnomer: as much as we’d like the current detention limit to be well below that, there simply isn’t the support there from almost anyone for that to happen, so we’ll have to put up with it. Also, as Diane Abbot pointed out, many voted for 28 because they believed that it would put a lid on the whole issue at least until after the next general election. Because of Labour’s manoeuvring, that hasn’t happened. In these specific circumstances, I think Davis still deserves support, and it’s still going to be the best chance we’re going to have of anything approaching a genuine debate on civil liberties. That he’s so managed to get Labour running scared, with Gordon Brown giving a piss-poor speech clearly aimed at him without even mentioning his name, refusing to put up a candidate to even make the argument to the electorate on 42 days, and then cabinet ministers making unsubtle and passive aggressive comments shows that they him, and defenestrating him because of his other views will do nothing to help our cause in the long run.

The solution is clear. Six weeks detention for hobgoblins.