Why did Gordon gamble?

9:22am Thursday 12th June 2008

GORDON BROWN will believe he has finally turned the corner after the horror of the past few months after winning the 42-day vote - but his relief may be shortlived. The Prime Minister will surely pay a heavy price for getting his terror Bill through the Commons only with the support of Democratic Unionist MPs, who apparently wrangled a tasty £200m from him.

Mr Brown's inability to win the vote on Labour votes alone will bolster peers in the House of Lords, who are determined to fight the 42-day clause tooth and nail. They could hold up the Bill for a year.

And it shows the Government has not failed so miserably to make the argument for new anti-terror laws since.......well, since Tony Blair lost on 90- day detention.

The strongest evidence for that claim is the way the so-called "concessions" granted one week ago unravelled so quickly under close examination.

■ MPs were promised the 42-day power will be invoked only in a true emergency - but the new threshold of a "grave exceptional threat" is so low it could mean almost anything.

■ MPs will debate a case within one week of 42- day detention coming into force (instead of 30 days) - but the risk of prejudicing a future trial means they will still be unable to see the evidence.

■ A judge will have a stronger role in approving any 42-day detention - but there will be no evidence to test, otherwise there would be a prosecution.

EVEN more damaging are the widespread warnings that potential terrorists will be hardened by the fury triggered when friends and relatives are locked up for six weeks without charge.

But the rights and wrongs of the argument were a sideshow by the time MPs voted. By then, it was a clash over what remains of the Prime Minister's battered authority. So why did he gamble?

The Prime Minister will deny it to the end, but the suspicion remains that he was determined to appear as tough on terror as Mr Blair.

One insider suggested Mr Brown feared his predecessor would use his experience of fighting terrorism to stay in No 10 - prompting the then-Chancellor to hastily re-think his policies.

The 42 figure itself was plucked from thin air - perhaps from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, where it was the meaning of life, the universe and everything.

The truth is that, because there are already laws to allow an extension beyond 28 days in a true emergency, last night's vote will make little real difference.

By yesterday, Mr Brown was reduced to arguing that 42 days was popular in the opinion polls - yet another direct echo of the former PM, when he promised to be so different.

SOME say it is an impossible task, but I think I have found the prize Charlie among the ranks of government ministers.

Step forward Tom Harris - the rail minister - who said this: "If Labour had come into power in 1997 and the railways had still been nationalised, then I think we would have privatised them."

Forget the eye-watering ticket prices, the £800m leeched out every year in private profit, the scandal of Railtrack - Labour now says it would have done the same.

Are the likes of Mr Harris actually trying to lose the next election?

Editor's Choice