After coming perilously close to a humiliating Commons defeat over his abolition of the 10p tax rate, Gordon Brown is in no hurry to stage another showdown with his increasingly mutinous Labour MPs.

So, the next big Commons clash with Labour rebels, over plans to detain terrorist suspects for up to 42 days, is now scheduled for June. Not May, as had previously been expected.

"The 42-day vote is likely to be in June, because of the Whitsun recess," a senior member of the Government told me within hours of the Prime Minister's 10p U-turn and Frank Field abandoning his tax rebellion.

Because of the Whitsun recess? Well, up to a point, I suppose. This week the Counter Terrorism Bill is at its Public Bill Committee stage and the full line-by-line debate in committee starts next week.

It all takes time, I know. But this Bill's passage through the Commons has been sluggish, to say the least.

I wonder why?

Could it have something to do with the fact that a leaked list from the Government Whips Office revealed that more than 50 Labour MPs are poised to rebel, with another 44 undecided?

Or the DPP, Sir Ken Macdonald, telling the Public Bill Committee this week: "For our part as prosecutors, we don't perceive any need for the period of 28 days to be increased.

"Our experience has been that we have managed comfortably within 28 days. We have therefore not asked for an increase in 28 days."

Or the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, telling the same committee: "The case has not been made out for that extension and I can't possibly support it.

"It is also counter-productive because it sends a message to particularly the Muslim communities that we are down on them."

Besides going to the brink with his tax rebels this week, the PM suffered a rebellion by 22 Labour MPs in the Commons on Tuesday on a move to speed up restoring the link between pensions and average earnings.

Labour MPs are getting a taste for rebellion.

That, I'm sure, is the real reason why Gordon Brown is giving himself another month to chew over the controversial 42-day detention proposal.

Comments

[Victor, NW Kent 28 Apr 2008 09:28:04]

News is being leaked out as a floating theory that perhaps they only spend 28 days locked up and then go home with an electronic cuff for another 14 days.

That is compromise elevated to the dignity of high farce.

[Bruce Hulmes 25 Apr 2008 16:32:53]

Now whats the problem with 42 days under Labour nobody wants to break out their all breaking IN.

[Bruce Hulmes 24 Apr 2008 20:47:24]

Adrien Lancashire.
Very true perhaps they are planing a crack down on wheelie bin lid offenders and will need 42 days to get the evidence from the tip.
Or the over 65s crown green bowlers it took seven police officers to evict them and their zimmers.

Nothing to do with terrorism because some more arrived in the country today!!just like they will tomorrow and the day after, the government have their benefit books waiting.

[carol-ann liverpool 24 Apr 2008 18:42:37]

Adrian

The thing that puzzles me, though, is what on earth has the government to gain in pursuing this, if so many are not convinced?

[Adrian, Lancashire 24 Apr 2008 15:40:31]

If the govt think there is a serious issue and we need 42 days as a matter of urgency to protect the public then WHY is this not happening in parliament until June? If it was urgent it could be rushed through. It is not for serveral reasons. It is not needed and Gordon will lose the vote. This is labour playing politics with the security of the nation

[Chris, Baildon 24 Apr 2008 14:35:29]

Seems to be some agreement on here - people are against 42 days, unless someone can give good reasons why.

One example of why people distrust the politicians is when they give false reasons for needing this.

I have heard Jacqui Smith say that we need this because of the amount of data on computers and the time needed to decrypt them. However it is already an offence not to give the police the key to the encryption tool used.

Therefore if someone is not willing to give the key, they can be arrested on that - no need for 42 days in that case.

[Madnurse 24 Apr 2008 14:27:30]

Carol-Ann:

Yes I agree with what you say. I too feel that I have not been very well informed by anyone on this matter.

I do worry about the length of time proposed by the government, especially given that most other countries have much shorter detention without charge terms.

I think that the proposed term could lead to an abuse of power at some stage, I altered my position when I saw the gentleman bundled out of the Labour conference for shouting rubbish, and have not really changed my mind since.

If a case could be put for the increase in time, then I would be happy to accept the argument and back the proposal but, at the moment it just seems to be one of many attempts by Nanny to extend the power and influence of the state over it's citizens, and with that, I feel uncomfortable.

[carol-ann liverpool 24 Apr 2008 13:59:00]

Madnurse

The only thing I have to go off is a TV interview I saw with a senior police/secrity officer who, when the 42 days was first muted, outlined the difficulties police had in terrorism cases collecting the evidence. He said that it takes an enormous amount of time to go through the hard drives of computers for example.
Now, my own feeling at the times was, 'well, why not employ another computer boff or two and a group of young computer wizards to speed things up'

I also thought that it is the duty of a Home Secretary to listen and look carefully at what the security services need to do their job properly.

I have never seen that particular 'police/security' person since he did that interview.

If the security services are asking for this then we need to see, in writing, what the argument is.

Some are arguing that we can use various other laws and devices to detain terrorists and keep them on remand while tsecrity services gather the appropriate information so as to make sure they don't get out to carry out terrorist aacts.
But, I have not heard anyone since that police officer made the argument about the length of time to assess computer disks, who has expanded the argument further tand thus presented a clear argument in favour or 42 days.

I think the interview I saw was BEFORE Jacqui Smith became Home Sec.
Hopefully, we will hear more via the debates.

Like others I do not know enough to know whether we would be at risk or not without this legislation.
But my general feeling is that, so far, no-one has given an account that compels me to believe it is necessary.
I am willing to change that view if someone can convince me.

[Madnurse 24 Apr 2008 12:16:57]

The one good thing that may come out of the current government's difficulties, is that, the government may now think twice before putting through other pieces of legislation that go against the traditional values of the traditional Labour Party.

It seems to me, as an outsider, that Mr Blair and now Mr Brown believed that they could do what they liked as their "sheep" would always follow and do what the leader told them to do.

Was the ten pence rebellion the start of a new era in the Labour Party?
Are the Labour MPs that have sat back and allowed the Champagne Socialists to do what they wanted without challenge, now starting to feel uncomfortable about the direction their party has taken the country?
Is this the first challenge to Mr Brown's authority and now the rebels have tasted a victory, will they become adicted to that taste and challenge more of the controversial legislation that Mr Blair and Mr Brown have put forward?

I have not yet heard a convincing argument for the forty two day extension, but like Peter in Fife, I don't know enough about it to make an informed judgement and I feel the issue has been fudged by many for party political reasons. I would like to see a piece on Sky that actually puts both sides of the argument so that I can make an informed choice.

At the moment, my heart tells me that we cannot trust the state with such power without some serious safeguards in place.

[Peter, Fife 24 Apr 2008 11:51:48]

I am fully well aware of how encompassing my statement is, grouping as it does all of those who object to this legislation, including those who I categorise as “...practiced protestors...”; I do however wish you would take more time to read what I actually post not that which you choose to misinterpret for reasons of your own.

“...I personally do not have enough information to avow either way although I must admit to having my opinion influenced by the opinions of the police and the security services...”

[Victor, NW Kent 24 Apr 2008 11:26:06]

Peter, Fife

OK you have convinced me - Sir Ken MacDonald is definitely not a Tory sympathiser.

I suppose that the past Attorney-General isn't either, that is Lord Goldsmith. Another who can see no real sense in the 42 day Bill is Lord Falconer who I think is a Labour peer.

Then we have the Labour Minister Admiral West, who changed his mind on the topic within one hour.

Another who doubts the use of it is Keith Vaz as also Stella Rimington, late head of MI5 plus all of the LibDem MPs. And, of course, the Conservatives and about 70-odd Labour MPs.

So, you are tarring a lot of quite different people with the same brush. Actually you are not opposed to it because it is an aim of your Beloved Leader, not because it has merit.

You might also remember that Jacqui Smith is adding a formidable new 300 police to the anti-terrortism unit so why worry?

[carol-ann liverpool 24 Apr 2008 10:54:14]

MO Said:

You're fantasising if you think "the 10p tax thing has been spiked".

A girl can dream, can't she?

Bernard said:

I think you need to see your Doctor.. and quickly ;)

I have and she said I'm incurable.....or was that incorrigible? :-))

[Peter, Fife 24 Apr 2008 10:30:02]

I just hope that someone somewhere is keeping a record of all of those who claim that legislation to detain a suspect without charge for greater than 28 days is unnecessary; I personally do not have enough information to avow either way although I must admit to having my opinion influenced by the opinions of the police and the security services.

What we seem to have today are practised protestors who seem only too willing to align themselves with any campaign when being pro or anti a proposal is apparently merely following a pack instinct, i.e. complaining about the removal of the 10p tax band when they have no interest or commitment to removing individuals within our own lands from poverty.

Who was it who argued against the minimum wage, working tax credits and council benefits, etc, etc?

In response to the DPP’s Sir Ken Macdonald, who told the Public Bill Committee “For our part as prosecutors, we don't perceive any need for the period of 28 days to be increased”; we also managed without increased security on the tube prior to 7/7.

Times are changing and threats are increasing; we should equally not lose sight of where Sir Ken MacDonald’s loyalties may lie; when it was announced In August 2003 that Sir Ken MacDonald would become the DPP that the appointment was immediately denounced by an opposition spokesmen as “rampant cronyism” and a “provocative appointment” due to Macdonald's business relationship with Cherie Booth.

The Conservative’s Shadow Deputy Prime Minister David Davis said the appointment of someone who worked with the prime minister's wife was "astonishing" (Tuesday, 5 August, 2003).

[Dave, Wirral 24 Apr 2008 10:06:26]

CA

"I am beginning to have fantasies of Gordon wearing a Superman outfit"

Really, because I always picture him as the rear end of the donkey in a nativity play.

You know, aimlessley following behind the leader with his head down wishing that it was him who was the leader, but never being allowed to, as the director knows he would be no good at it.

Then one day the leader quits and the director is forced to put gordon as the main man in front because he is familiar with the role, then bang, curtains go up and the lights come on, but Gordon freezes. People try to prompt him but it is no good, he doesn't know what to do and has fluffed his lines. The others try to get on with the play but can't because Gordon keeps messing up his timing and direction.

The audience start to leave the play as they have had enough, but 'the show must go on' mustn't it, until everybody has left and it is just Gordon stood on the stage, looking around, wondering why there is nobody left, believing that it must be everybody elses fault as his performance was brilliant.

[Mo, Reading 24 Apr 2008 09:57:08]

Carol-Ann,
You're fantasising if you think "the 10p tax thing has been spiked". Don't you listen to the news?

[JC, Deep South 24 Apr 2008 09:55:12]

Well put Merv - no wonder Brown walked into the party leader job unopposed, his colleagues obviously knew he was a man who could be dictated to, bossed about, and made to perform like a puppet... the backbenchers are calling all the shots, whilst Brown takes all the flak.

Cameron was right - he does indeed cut a pathetic figure.

The increased detention period is something that Brown claims is of the utmost importance to the country - we're told that our police MUST have the right to detain suspects for up to 42 days because of the increased terrorism threat... yet Brown keeps delaying the debate because he doesn't have the backbone to put his argument to the vote.

Surely, by his own logic, any delay means he is putting the county at greater risk...?

[alan mcpartland 24 Apr 2008 09:52:40]

I see Lord Goldsmith says there is no case for an extension of the 28 days period. I'm quite sure however that on "reflection" he might change his mind overnight on this and make a very good case for the 42 days. He is after all a very "reflective" gentleman.

[Victor, NW Kent 24 Apr 2008 09:52:26]

Brown need not worry about the 42 day Bill. Those sitting on the yellow benches are not really rebelling. It is all a staged play to show Brown as the great conquering hero at the end.

[John, Glos 24 Apr 2008 09:50:51]

Th U turn doesn't help anyone earning btween £11,000 and £18,000 at all.

Anyone in this band ....(below the average for the country) will not nbenefit from an increase in the minimum wage unless he ups it by £2.50 an hour.

Why is nobody picking this up?

[Bernard from Horsham 24 Apr 2008 09:38:40]

Carol ann said..

"I am beginning to have fantasies of Gordon wearing a Superman outfit under that bank manager's suit and deja vu tie!
I find that strangely appealing :-)"

I think you need to see your Doctor.. and quickly ;)

[Northernhousewife 24 Apr 2008 08:42:59]

The taste for rebellion? It will not have helped that the Tax Con Budget has now beenn followed by the Tax Climbdown Con.

It was all unravelling as early as last night when Yvette Cooper's answers led a rebellious MP saying he wished Frank Field had not pulled his amendment so quickly.

Deceiving your own MPs? Not good.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 24 Apr 2008 08:32:49]

Jon,
I'm sure Brown will exhibit his leadership qualities over the 42 day issue, and eventually do exactly what the rebels want!
There is no doubt that he leads from the front, as with everybody pushing him from behind, he doesn't have a choice!

[carol-ann liverpool 24 Apr 2008 03:10:57]

Jon,

No rest for the wicked, eh, Jon? I mean you rather than Gordon, lol.

Now that the 10p tax thing has been spiked, you need to get some more juicy morsels.

Why not have a bash at Giddy: one of those that accuse GB of never answering a straight quesiton when he has been asked a straight question, twice, on SKY, this week and has failed to answer them both.

I am beginning to have fantasies of Gordon wearing a Superman outfit under that bank manager's suit and deja vu tie!
I find that strangely appealing :-)

[Khalid 23 Apr 2008 23:59:03]

If the case hasn't been made or met for an extension of time by those carrying out the role, then why on earth is [Zucherro] playing politics. Does'nt make [Senza Una Donna] does it? But just imagine if the police got their pay backdated, then they can all claim that's one case solved and carry on per usual with all the funds saved otherwise to be used for litigation purposes.