It should come as no surprise that, in an effort to push its plans to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days, the home office has started citing the number of terrorist plots in Britain. Playing to the gallery in the News of the World this Sunday, Jacqui Smith said: “There are 2,000 individuals [the intelligence services] are monitoring. There are 200 networks. There are 30 active plots. We can’t wait for an attack to succeed and then rush in new powers. We’ve got to stay ahead.”

The first problem with this approach is the way successive home secretaries have cynically exploited such figures to push through controversial legislation on terrorism. After all, this is at least the fourth anti-terrorism bill since 2001, and each has been controversial in the way our government has tried to extend its powers. Shadow home secretary David Davis articulated it best when he responded yesterday by saying: “It is a sign of desperation that the home secretary is citing as ‘new’ evidence details given in a speech by the head of MI5 five months ago.”

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest current powers aren’t enough. Everyone from former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, head of MI5 Jonathan Evans and head of the Crown Prosecution Service Ken MacDonald are not convinced additional powers will help or are necessary.

The latest round of media interviews suggest those in favour of 42 days and those opposed are playing a game of bluff to give the impression they are on solid ground. All this makes it difficult to assess its chances of success.

Speaking on the Today programme this morning Tony McNulty was confident most MPs, “once people understand…the temporary nature then people do buy it.” But the government has already had many opportunities to convince people of its “temporary” nature and failed. Last week during the pro-Tibetan protests, journalists reported that several people were threatened with anti-terrorism legislation. We should be acutely aware that there is huge potential for this legislation to be abused, and the fallout will make Britain more susceptible to terrorism, not less. But as the Guardian reports today, the cabinet is split on support for the plans.

In the end, the vote will most likely come down to an issue of political positioning than accurately assessing whether this is needed. Jacqui Smith’s team has already pointed out that a defeat for the Prime Minister would further destroy Labour morale and make victory at the next General Election more difficult.

With embarassment looming at the Local Elections and the possiblity of Ken Livingstone losing in London to further compound Labour’s troubles, MPs may re-think rebelling on this legislation purely to save their own electoral skin. We should hope for the sake of our democracy they don’t.