“In a major policy shift, he said he could support changes if they did not impede police and security services.”

That sounds a bit conditional to me.

There needs to be some proper commitment to sorting out the problems we are told prevent the use of communications intercepts in terrorist cases. Just locking up suspects for ages so that other evidence can be found is simply wrong if there is an existing alternative.

2

Two cheers for the New Generation, which by the way, it sounds like a rather cheesy 70′s dance troupe

The proof of the pudding is of course in the eating. Let’s hope it is only the first step in rolling back the whole nauseating New Labour project.

[deleted]

@ kiki short shaft

I don’t know what you’re selling, but fuck off.

@OP

This is good news. Labour’s attack on human rights was both scary and embarrassing by the end. It’s the reason I didn’t vote for them.

@4 you voted for the Lib Dems? lol, how embarrassing

@ 5

Not really. They didn’t exactly explain what they were going to do in their manifesto. It was that or vote for the pro-surveillance, pro-torture party in my neighbourhood. Who would you have backed?

Mr Balls told the Sunday Telegraph Labour’s reputation had suffered from its attempts in government to raise detention times to 90 and then 42 days.

Yep. So they’ll change their minds not because it is right but because it is politically expedient.

Lovely.

Um, since when has arguing that the government should be able to hold people without charge for two weeks been “accepting the importance of civil liberties” rather than “getting to appear liberal whilst supporting a deeply illiberal state of affairs”?

Newer Labour – “Still authoritarian shitheels, but at least we’re apologetic about it.”

Of course he doesn’t think it’s a good idea now that the jackboot’s on the other foot.

But let the comrades back in and within five minutes they’ll get back to trying to turn England into East Germany.

It’s in their ideological DNA.

@5

And supporting the warmongering control freaks is . . . ?