Tony Blair’s anti-terror measures are due to go back before MPs, after peers again voted to amend the bill.
Lords insisted that a time limit or “sunset clause” should be added to the bill, which allows control orders to be imposed on terror suspects.
The Lords also demanded a higher burden of proof before the orders could be imposed, and said a group of senior politicians should review the new law.
The Economist, last week, explained the farce of having both parties in the Commons supporting a law that rational people by-and-large do not want, in terms of (to paraphrase) :-
What would happen if a Madrid-style bombing attack took place shortly before the Election? Irrespective of what the media was saying about liberties beforehand, after an explosion whichever party was deemed to be being “soft on terrorism” would be bound to lose the election, hence why they are seeking to outdo each other in being hard on terror, lest a bomb go off…
…which is a comforting thought, not least since Mr Blair assures us that he is well-advised by the Security Services.
Following that line of thought, I wonder whether their “We Will Not Change It” intransigence signifies that New Labour are now secretly hoping a bomb goes off, so that they can blame the lack of being tough-on-terrorism upon the recently legitimised, non-hereditary yet surprising and still annoyingly off-message House of Lords.
Wouldn’t that help the dominance of the Commons?