Far too long...

I'm listening to yet another discussion on Tory David Davis' resignation in protest at the Government's policy on detention on 42 days without charge for terrorist suspects. As much as it pains me to say it, I think Davis has got it right on 42 days. Why? Well the legislation is wrong in principle, in practice and there are workable alternatives.

• The principle: it is a foundation of our civil liberties that the state simply should not be able to hold its citizens for no clear reason for 6 weeks.

• The practice: the legislation that was passed by the House of Commons isn't workable. Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke summarises the problems very well (though he is on the other side of this argument).

• The alternative: there are other ways of resolving the problems that 42 days was meant to address (most notably that the police may need more time to investigate complex terrorist plots) and these do not appear to have been properly considered. For example, couldn't legislation be passed to allow parliament to give the police permission to continue their inquiries after suspects have been charged. Clearly this would only be used in exceptional circumstances, i.e. a national emergency as defined by the civil contingency legislation. (And while this isn't directly related, isn't it time to allow intercept evidence in terrorist trials?)

Frankly I suspect that this whole issue was never about dealing with terrorism (why would a government pass unworkable legislation?) but about political positioning, making Brown look strong on terror while taking a 'principled' and popular stand. If this is right it is beyond cynical that any public servant would think it acceptable to trade basic civil liberties in for some political positioning, particularly in the country where habeus corpus was first codified and enforced.

But Brown should be aware that not only is using 42 days as a political ploy cynical, it could also be very foolish.

If you look at the front page of the Daily Mail on any given day, there is a strong probability that there will be a splash story about some 'big brother' public agency (a council, the NHS, etc.) 'spying' on the citizenry. The loss of privacy that these stories represent appears to have struck a cord with middle England, and has given Mail-land and the Guardianistas something to agree on.

The political consequences for Labour would be devastating if the Tories can link the 42 days issue with the general sense of a loss of privacy/freedom and turn it into a leading political issue. I don't think it is much of a stretch to imagine that happening.