28 days: Can a Labour revolt work?


by Sunny Hundal    
December 10, 2007 at 10:22 am

Jacqui Smith’s campaign may yet hit some hurdles if this works:

The former health secretary Frank Dobson is rallying opposition among Labour MPs for a full-scale revolt against Gordon Brown’s proposal to allow suspected terrorists to be detained without charge for up to 42 days. [hat tip: Leon]

Frank Dobson is leading 49 Labour MPs in revolt; can anyone get us their names? There are still people in the party with a conscience, at least. Even the head of MI5, Jonathan Evans, doesn’t see the need to extend past 28 days. The home secretary can’t get anyone to support her plans and yet she soldiers on. Why is this Labour government hell-bent on generating ill-will with its supporters? Friday’s Indy was spot-on when it called this an “unhealthy obsession with counting the days“.

The Facebook group we launched on Friday has grown to over 1,300 1,400 over the weekend. Use that or this blog to throw out ideas, links or other ways to contribute to this campaign. And if you haven’t already, please sign the Amnesty International petition on the Downing st website and spread the word. Blogger Liam has made some blog buttons which you can see / use from here. If you have more ideas for buttons or raising awareness of this campaign, get in touch or leave a message underneath.

· About the author: Sunny Hundal is editor of Liberal Conspiracy. He works full time as a journalist, commentator, blogger, activist and general layabout. He was voted Guardian blogger of the year in 2006. Also at: Pickled Politics, Comment is free, / sunnyh*at*liberalconspiracy*dot*org

· Other posts by Sunny Hundal

· About this article: This post is part of a campaign on LC

Print it   |   Trackback link   |   Track comments   |   send to del.icio.us   |   to Facebook
Filed under: Blog , Campaigns , Civil liberties , Detention (28 days)


7 Comments in response   ||   Add your own



at 11:52 am on December 10, 2007
- direct link -  
1.  comment by
     Dave Cole

I think I’m right in saying that, assuming every non-Labour person in the Commons votes against the proposal, 34 Labour rebels are required to stop the bill. I’m guessing that the 24 members of the Campaign Group will vote against; that needs another ten rebels.

Identifying them should be relatively straightforward, so I think the issue is less how people vote as much as getting people to turn out to vote. Someone like George Galloway, who rarely votes, might actually be important in this.

xD.

at 1:14 pm on December 10, 2007
- direct link -  
2.  comment by
     Unity

Dave’s spot on - the Campaign Group will vote against en bloc leaving us to find the rest by cross-referencing the rebel votes on the earlier 90 day proposal.

at 1:47 pm on December 10, 2007
- direct link -  
3.  comment by
     Dave Cole

Are we sure that everyone else will both turn up and vote against? While I’m sure that the Tories and Lib Dems will, does the same apply to the SDLP, UU, DUP etc?

The non Campaign Group people who voted against the 90 day proposal are:
Richard Burden; Jim Cousins; Frank Dobson; Gwyneth Dunwoody; Mark Fisher; Roger Godsiff; John Grogan; Doug Henderson; Kate Hoey; Glenda Jackson; Sian James; Sadiq Khan; Peter Kilfoyle; Mark Lazarowicz; Tony Lloyd; Andy Love; Chris McCafferty; Michael Meacher; Julie Morgan; George Mudie; Chris Mullin; Gordon Prentice; Nick Raynsford; Clare Short; Peter Soulsby; Emily Thornberry; and David Winnick

Off the top of my head, Sadiq Khan is now a Whip. Interestingly, some members of the Campaign Group didn’t vote either way (David Anderson, Frank Cook, Bill Etherington, David Hamilton and Austin Mitchell).

at 2:55 pm on December 10, 2007
- direct link -  
4.  comment by
     Leon

Perhaps emailing Frank Dobson’s office, introducing the campaign, saying LC would like like to raise awareness and needs the names of the potential ‘rebels’ to highlight, campaign to etc?

at 5:00 pm on December 10, 2007
- direct link -  
5.  comment by
     Margin4 Error

Hostility on this matter is a weak position for winning the argument.

comments like “There are still people in the party with a conscience, at least” suggests a belief that those voting for 42 days will do so for purely sinister reasons, rather than thinking it is what is right for the country.

That will turn rebels off from voting against their colleagues.

And that’s a big problem.

In Blair’s last days rebelion was safe. It would simply speed the move to a different Labour government. Under Brown at present rebellion is dangerous. It could speed the move to a Cameron led Tory government.

And these rebels are unlikely to see other Labour MPs as evil-doers. They are after all the same Labour MPs set to vote for a massive hike in wind energy.

So to make this case to the rebels the argument must be that the status quo is in Labour’s interest.

To do that we must stress that this issue will hurt Labour’s popularity and electoral chances. Not that labour are evil and they are saints for rebelling.

after all - they won’t see delivering power to the blues as saintly.

at 5:29 pm on December 10, 2007
- direct link -  
6.  comment by
     Sunny Hundal

Good idea Leon. I’m also going to email Liberty and see if we can get something from them…

at 9:18 am on December 14, 2007
- direct link -  
7.  comment by
     zohra

From today’s e-politix bulletin:
Parliament’s joint human rights committee publishes a report into the government’s counter-terrorism proposals, calling on ministers to withdraw plans for 42 days detention without trial. Chairman Andrew Dismore MP said: “All of the evidence we and many others have gathered points one way. There is no national consensus for extending pre-charge detention beyond 28 days. There is still no evidence that more than 28 days is likely to be necessary.”

HTML version of report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/23/2302.htm

PDF: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/23/23.pdf

Post a comment using the form below

  • We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
  • We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
  • Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.
  • Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.
  • Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy.

HERE AND THERE
Featured blogs

Boris - the gaffopedia


David Lammy MP -

Can we follow Obama's lead?


Lynne Featherstone MP -

What about the dads?



Recently popular
Palin, abortion and the gender agenda
(331 replies)

The 'Gordon Brown is insane' meme
(164 replies)

A-Z of right-wing online commenting
(117 replies)

Lesbian mothers and 'traditional' families
(112 replies)

We should have open primaries for elections
(108 replies)

Latest comments
» Pickled Politics » Online Activism in the UK posted on The struggle within New Labour

» douglas clark posted on After Pinochet, Töben should be pretty safe

» tim f posted on After Pinochet, Töben should be pretty safe

» Nick posted on 2010: The Wrong Target?

» Nick posted on 2010: The Wrong Target?

» chris strange posted on After Pinochet, Töben should be pretty safe

» Nick posted on Sir Ian Blair sacking: since when did Paul Dacre decide senior police appointments?

» douglas clark posted on After Pinochet, Töben should be pretty safe

» Newmnia posted on After Pinochet, Töben should be pretty safe

» thomas posted on Sir Ian Blair sacking: since when did Paul Dacre decide senior police appointments?

» sally posted on After Pinochet, Töben should be pretty safe

» sally posted on Sir Ian Blair sacking: since when did Paul Dacre decide senior police appointments?

» BenSix posted on Sir Ian Blair sacking: since when did Paul Dacre decide senior police appointments?

» Sir Ian posted on Sir Ian Blair sacking: since when did Paul Dacre decide senior police appointments?

» ukliberty posted on Sir Ian Blair sacking: since when did Paul Dacre decide senior police appointments?

  Last 50 // Comments feed