Trevor Smith (York, House of Lords): Yesterday's Lords' debate on the Counter-Terrorism Bill was a traditional set-piece parliamentary occasion. The House was packed to capacity. In the last decade or so only the debates on Clause 28, the abolition of fox hunting and the Lisbon Treaty had the same flavour.   It was particularly interesting to observe the fissures in the various sectors of the Chamber. The biggest split was among the Labour Lords. Ranged on one side were the securicrats in the form of Foulkes Of Cumnock, Harris of Haringey and Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, with the liberal wing being represented by Baroness Malllieu and Lords Falconer and Morris of Aberavon. Former police chiefs were also divided between Lords Dear and Condon voting against 42 days and Lord Imbert who supported the proposal, though the former security service heads voted against it. Ex judges and former Lord Chancellors and Attorneys General voted against and only two Labour QCs ( Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Wedderburn) voted with the government. Lord Tebbit was the lone Tory dissident who voted for 42 days. Apart from the minister, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, the military top brass who turned out voted against the government. The one bishop in attendance, Southwark, voted against. Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Among those joining the roll of shame of 118 peers who voted for 42 days are: Adonis, Campbell-Savours, Clinton-Davis, Darzi, Gould, Hollis, Kinnock, Lipsey, Malloch-Brown, Mandelson, Radice, Rooker, Soley, Triesman, Wedderburn, Whitty. You can find the full list of the disgraced here. I was very disappointed to see that Lord Melvin Bragg abstained. So much for the great intellectual of broadcasting!

Tom Griffin (London, OK): After a tellingly one-sided debate, the House of Lords has this evening voted against the extension of detention without charge, by an overwhelming margin of 309 votes to 118. What remains to be seen now is whether the plans will return to the Commons, as Ministers have publicly maintained, or quietly dropped as much of the media seems to have been briefed. Update: The 42 days provision is being shelved. Amnesty's Patrick Corrigan reacts: Disgraceful speech from the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith this evening, as she dropped proposals for 42 days detention without charge, yet announced a new piece of counter-terrorism legislation to contain similar proposals in response to the rout her government had earlier suffered at the hands of the Lords. As she revealed the outline of the Counter-terrorism 'temporary provisions' Bill, she accused those who opposed 42 days detention of underestimating the terrorist threat and of taking Britain's security lightly. Opposition spokespersons were having none of it in a well-attended and stormy Commons. The SNP's Pete Wishart rightly described her performance as an act of "petulant defiance".

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): On the eve of the crucial vote in the House of Lords on the issue, Liberty has published a collection of pieces by forty two of Britain's literary figures attacking the extension of pre-charge detention in terrorism cases to 42 days. They have set up a nifty little website dedicated to the collection as part of their Charge or Release campaign: www.42writers.com. It features the name of a different author in each of the forty two calendar days, illustrating quite graphically the sheer length of time the Government wants to imprison people for. It joins Amnesty's new campaign and petition against 42 Days you can sign up to here. I spent an enjoyable half hour clicking through each of the calendar days, reading some powerful contributions from Philip Pullman, Monica Ali, Ian Rankin, Hari Kunzru and other literary big-hitters. What the authors do a great job of conveying (far better than any lawyer or political commentator could hope to) is the sheer length of time we're talking about and the intense personal trauma visited upon the innocent. I won't say much more than that because I hope people will check the site out for themselves. But I do want to quote in full the following poem by Ali Smith. By focusing on the simple passage of time, it asks the reader to empathise with the plight of an innocent detainee - a useful thought experiment perhaps for any of their lordships not quite convinced of the injustice of what is being proposed: Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, OK): Over at Comment is Free, OurKingdom founder Anthony Barnett reflects on the lessons of the 42 day debacle: There is an authoritarian cancer in the British system that has metastasised. From the Treasury-inspired "transformational government", to local council CCTV, to the interception modernisation programme that proposes to "live tap" all electronic communication, to ID cards – you name it, it seems, and they will be onto it – an official will is at work to police, control, arrest and expel. It regards restraints, from the Human Rights Act to parliamentary scrutiny as "old thinking". And it is turbo-charged by the huge funding opportunities that "new thinking" permits. However, I also think that even if we do not have a healthy body politic, we do have a healthy public attitude which can purge the cancer and cure the patient. 

Tom Griffin (London, OK):With the Counter Terrorism Bill due to resume its passage though Parliament this week, Amnesty has launched a new petition against the provision to extend detention without charge to 42 days. The petition will be presented to Parliament if the legislation returns to the Commons, with individual MPs also being presented with signatures from their own constituents. Such opposition may yet help to force a Government U-turn in the wake of the Lords defeat predicted by today's Times: Gordon Brown is preparing for a humiliating climbdown over his proposal to hold terrorist suspects for 42 days after being told that it will be defeated in the House of Lords. Ministers admit privately that there is not “a cat in Hell’s chance” of the legislation, which returns to the Lords this week, being passed into law. The Government has decided against using the Parliament Act to force the measure through after peers reject it, The Times has learnt. That decision will effectively confine the controversial proposal — which the Prime Minister fought tooth and nail to get through a Commons vote in June — to the legislative dustbin.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In a key intervention in the 42 days debate last month, the former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller stated: "arguments can be made to justify any time of detention, just as in other countries, although mercifully not here, they can be made to justify any method of interrogation." That remark elided key questions about how far the security services are complicit in interrogation practices overseas, questions which were raised anew in a High Court judgement on Thursday. Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): There is a moving piece on Comment is Free today written by Hicham Yezza, the University of Nottingham employee arrested and held under the Terrorism Act for having an al-Quaida manual on his PC that had been downloaded from a US government website by his friend, Rizwaan Sabir, for use in postgraduate research. Yezza describes in powerful terms the fear and anguish he felt held in solitary confinement for days on end not knowing why. It's essential reading for those who would dismiss detention without charge as a minor inconvenience, nothing that a bit of compensation won't solve. Yezza's entire life has been devastated. Perhaps the worst part of the experience for Yezza was the feeling that his whole existence was now under question: Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, OK): In order to get the the Counter-terrorism Bill through the Commons in June, the Government promised a parliamentary vote if it was necessary to extend the detention of terror suspects temporarily for up to 42 days. That proposal has been systematically taken apart today in a report from the House of Lords Constitution Committee which warns that Parliament is 'institutionally ill-equipped' for the role which is being thrust upon it. Read the rest of this post...

 Rosemary Bechler (London, openDemocracy): responds to Anthony Barnett's coverage of the campaign against 42 days: Thanks for the cogent reading of this important moment in the decline of the Westminster hall of mirrors. Doesn’t one need to include in a third episode in this drama? – the refusal of the two main political parties challenged in this bye-election to participate in debating the issues. For all the commenting and blogging, as in the case of the Iraq war and an ever-lengthening list of crucial decisions for the UK, we still have not been told why 42 days is deemed to be necessary to our national interest. All the talk simply obscures this ominous silence.  Read the rest of this post...

David (Cambridge, Britology Watch): There has been much discussion recently – including on Britology Watch – about whether English nationalism can be reconciled with progressive politics; and whether progressives need to espouse the nationalist cause, associate it with left-of-centre values, and thereby prevent it from falling into the hands of the far right.  Read the rest of this post...

Lyndon Radnedge, OK: Despite early bluster from Kelvin McKenzie and some calls from Davis supporters for an interesting candidate, no one has taken up the challenge to debate the 42-day issue in by-election form. Labour refused to stand and the Lib Dems claimed solidarity with David Davis’ cause.   Read the rest of this post...

Beth Forrester (Unlock Democracy): On Saturday 5th July 2008, a team of four from Unlock Democracy, travelled to Cottingham in East Yorkshire. We were to have a stall at Cottingham Day, an annual fun day in this historic Yorkshire village, to educate people about civil liberties, encourage people to value their rights and discuss the issue of extending pre-charge detention to 42 days (although our activities were of course prompted by the decision by David Davis to resign and initiate this by-election, Unlock Democracy does not support any candidate). The day did not go entirely to plan but then the best experiences rarely do. All our activities in this campaign, including our wraparound adverts for both the East Riding Advertiser and the West Hull Advertiser, were funded by individuals who had donated money specifically. We were also helped by useful advice provided by a number of helpful local contacts including Alan Williams who had told us about the fayre.  With Alan’s help, four Liberal Democrat members, a local councillor and the local MEP Diana Wallis all came down to support us. This was great turnout and we were grateful for the support. On arriving in Cottingham we found that this support was unfortunately not universal and were told, despite repeated phone and email contact the previous week to the contrary, that we did not have a stall booked. Eventually, we were placed next to the police safety bus, which provided a good balance in the discussion about civil liberties versus the need to be protected from crime. Our other challenge was the weather: the continual heavy rain and strong winds threatened to blow away not only our stall, but also the whole fayre at times.  We were well prepared for this, with waterproofs, plastic sheeting and umbrellas, allowing us to keep campaigning and even provide some shelter to rain and wind beaten fayre-goers. To further improve our activity we distributed flyers and sweets amongst the public and engage them in discussion whilst visiting other areas of the fayre. This was an effective strategy, with people explaining why they were or were not voting and how they felt about civil liberties.  Read the rest of this post...

Stuart Weir (Cambridge, Democratic Audit): Gordon Brown is on shakier ground than he thinks on 42 days pre-charge detention for people suspected of terrorist offences. On the eve of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, a new ICM poll conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust shows most people (60%) think terrorist suspects should be held without charge for no more than the current limit - 4 weeks, or 28 days.  Read the rest of this post...

Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): Will Northern Ireland's (non-DUP) Lords help restore Northern Ireland's Westminster reputation when the Government's counter-terrorism Bill comes to the upper house tomorrow? When the government won the vote at the Bill's first reading in the Commons by just nine votes, the chamber rang with jeers and furious cries of 'shame' directed at the DUP MPs who had just voted with Brown after an eleventh hour private meeting with the PM.  Read the rest of this post...

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): The House of Lords begins debating the Counterterrorism Bill on Tuesday, the day after the third anniversary of the 7/7 bomb attacks in London. In a briefing on the legislation released today, Human Rights Watch argues that detaining terrorism suspects for up to six weeks without charge violates the fundamental right to liberty and risks undermining counterterrorism efforts.  Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): Courtesy of Benedict Brogan's blog is the following exchange of letters between Gordon Brown and David Davis. Davis had written to the PM, as well as Cabinet Ministers, last week to challenge them to a debate on 42 days and the state of freedom in Britain. Davis even suggested Labour MPs have been gagged by Brown to stop them engaging in the debate. Here is Brown's reply: Dear David As you know, Prime Ministers are available once a week at Question Time to debate all the issues of the day, and I was disappointed that you chose to step down as a Member of Parliament in advance of Question Time on Wednesday, 11 June rather than coming to the House to debate with me the issues around the use of CCTV and DNA evidence, and the measures we have taken to protect our national security. Nevertheless, the leader of your party has the opportunity each week to ask six questions on those issues that caused you to leave his Shadow Cabinet. He has had two such opportunities to date, but he has yet to ask any such question. He has two further opportunities to raise these issues before the 'by-election' on July 10th, and I am sure that if he shares your strong feelings about them, he will not duck those opportunities. Gordon Brown  Read the rest of this post...

Michael Calderbank (ERS): Alexandra Runswick commends David Davis for forcing a by-election for his Haltemprice and Howden seat and thereby raising a pertinent question about our concern for civil liberties, "regardless of whether this was the best way to do it". Whilst I share the widespread dissension from the government's insistence on 42 days, I don't think we can simply skate over the dubious democratic legitimacy of this artificially contrived by-election. Maybe Davis has indeed been successful in posing the question of "how much do you value your rights and freedoms", but it's far from clear that that's the only question being asked, and - more worryingly still - it is extremely unclear how this particular by-election is in a position to answer it conclusively. Whether the by-election is seen as a narrowly defined plebiscite on the question of 42 days, or on the wider philosophical question of our basic liberties, these are surely issues of concern to the nation as a whole. It is far from clear why a few thousand voters in a relatively affluent part of the rural East Riding of Yorkshire should get to arbitrate on our collective behalf. And were Davis to be re-elected with an increased majority, as seems likely, would the good burghers of this constituency feel assured that their liberties would be championed by an MP who supports the death penalty and attacks trade union rights? Would a resounding victory over Miss Great Britain and the Monster Raving Loony party really signify a historic expression of liberal resistance to an increasingly authoritarian state? Read the rest of this post...

The Green party campaign against David Davis has been launched by their candidate Shaun Oakes and strikes a dreadful note of holier than thou. They could hardly do more to turn people off politics if they tried. This is what its male spokesperson Derek Wall announced: "This by-election was supposed to be about civil liberties." Note the word “supposed”. It’s a classic, negative, snide attack implying Davis is a hypocrite. Wall continues:  Read the rest of this post...

Rupert Read (Norwich, The Green Party): The powers that be at Our Kingdom are welcoming the way Davis has called this highly-unusual byelection. I can understand that; I can understand the desire to applaud and welcome what he has done and what he is making possible. I said as much myself, in my earlier post on this on OK. But I think what we also need to be very clear about is that no way is David Davis any kind of poster boy for civil liberties. Much of what he believes in and much of his record is extremely antithetical to what many on OK take for granted. I fear that this fact has not fully emerged in most of what has been written on OK about this byelection campaign. Read the rest of this post...

Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): In resigning his seat and forcing a by-election, that's the question David Davis has been asking us over the past week. Regardless of whether this was the best way to do it, it is a pertinent question and one which needs to be answered. Unlock Democracy, and Charter 88 before it, have spent 20 years campaigning for democracy, rights and freedoms. We have been appalled, not just by Gordon Brown's plans to extend the amount of time individuals can be detained by the state without charge to 42 days, but at the way he intends to do it. This policy was not mentioned in Labour's manifesto. In the face of a backbench rebellion, the government only got this legislation through the House of Commons by the slimmest of margins. Now they could bypass the House of Lords completely through use of the Parliament Act. No country that prides itself on being a democracy should be able to abolish fundamental human rights without cross-party consensus. No responsible government should seek to do so in the first place. So we agree with David Davis that the time has come to draw a line in the sand. Fundamental to that is to make the case for a Bill of Rights and, ultimately, a written constitution to limit the powers of the state. The by-election in Haltemprice and Howden is a battle we cannot afford to not get involved in. As a non-aligned organisation, Unlock Democracy will not endorse Davis or indeed any candidate, but we do intend to take the fight for rights and freedoms to the streets of Hull and the East Ridings. We need your help to do this. Over the past few days we have been working out a campaign strategy. We intend to: Distribute a newspaper to every household in the constituency; Hold a public meeting; A street stall in every town. To pull this off in the timescale we have, we need £5,000. If everyone receiving this blog today made just a small contribution, we could raise this money with ease. For this reason I am asking you to make a contribution of £20 today. Of course, if you can afford £100 or £1,000, we aren't going to stop you! If you value your rights and freedoms and want to take a stand, please do make a donation.  Read the rest of this post...

This is an article written by Roger Gale, Conservative MP for North Thanet, in support of Davis Davis and his campaign. Roger Gale (Parliament): On Monday evening the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, unveiled the light sculpture, "Breathing", at the BBC`s New Broadcasting House in Langham Place, London and the BBC`s Foreign Editor, John Simpson, read a specially commissioned poem written by James Fenton.* It was a moving experience. The monument, designed by the Spanish sculptor Jaume Plensa, stands in the memory of those journalists and their teams of assistants of all nations who have given their lives in the cause of telling to the world truths that others would prefer to have left untold. Since January of 2007 there have been two hundred and three such fatalities, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but around the world. The most recent, who died on the 7th and 8th of this month respectively, were working for the BBC. Freedom of speech runs in tandem with those other liberties defined in statute and by custom in the United Kingdom since Magna Carta and more recently since the enacting of Habeas Corpus. The rights to say what we think, to go freely about our lawful business without interference from the State and not to be imprisoned without charge and fair trial are absolutely fundamental to our democratic way of life. Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): In the first post on his campaign blog David Davis expands on the arguments he made on last night's Question Time (blogged earlier by Anthony), expaining why he supports 28 days but not 42 days detention without charge. Some have labelled his position inconsistent but - whether you agree with him or not - I think Davis sets out a pretty straightforward case on his blog. On the basis of evidence he has looked at with the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service he says he "can support 28 days pre-charge detention - as a necessary evil - but not a day more. Once we have introduced intercept evidence and post-charge questioning, and developed the use of plea-bargaining, it may be possible to reduce the limit below 28 days, without any risk to our security." Read the post in full here.    Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Three things struck me about last night's Question Time where David Davis was the main panellist. The BBC despise him and what he has done. I am not saying that a memo went out, but a corporate view was formed, instantly and deeply, that he needs to be banished to the outreaches of purgatory. I first sensed this munching a sandwich and listening to the World At One, when Martha Kearney asked a BBC researcher whether the opinion polls showing 65 - 69 per cent support for 42 Days might be as a result of asking the wrong, or at least a loaded, question. No, said the voice of the Corporation's research department, public opinion is overwhelmingly on side of 42 days - and, he implied, unshakably so. The BBC now seems to feel it has a vested interest in keeping it this way. Its fundamental charter that justifies its license fee is its duty to inform, educate and entertain. It does the first and the third all right. But does it educate? What if DD manages to take the issue of principle behind 42 days - that people should not be subject to arbitrary detention - to the public and in so doing moves public support of 42 days from 69 to, say, 49 per cent? He can only achieve this by education - by a three-week teach-in and genuine debate of the issues. If he can do that, won't it show up a lamentable feebleness of the Corporation and its failure to fulfil its mandate? Read the rest of this post...

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): So it is Sundown for Rupert's boy! True to his bullying nature, Murdoch's man fled at the first whiff of grapeshot. Today, in a cloying, cowardly columnin the SUN he throws in the gloves: "The truth is that I would have been a cr*p MP. I would have said what I thought and, for the next two years to the General Election, I would have been apologising to all and sundry."  Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): If we're going to support David Davis, then one thing we shouldn't let him do is frame the freedom debate in partisan terms. Labour's current attempts to secure legislation allowing for 42 days detention without charge should be seen in the context of a two decades long erosion of civil liberties began under Thatcher (a point made by Michael Peel in the FT today). It was the Tories who got the ball rolling by exending pre-charge detention to a week (justified or not) and it was they who in 1994 banned the right to silence and gave police more powers to stop protests and raves. The debate to be had is not about the policies of any one government, or indeed any one party. It is a debate about how and why our political system has allowed the state to secure ever-more powers for itself without proper debate - and what can be done about it.  Read the rest of this post...

Fair Deal (Belfast, Slugger O’Toole): In the battle for 42 days and courting DUP votes, Gordon Brown chalked up a success (of sorts) with the DUP playing the reluctant bride to the very end but what were the motivations? Read the rest of this post...

Guy Aitchison (London, OK): A quick scan of the blogosphere and MSM today and it’s clear the political/media class are sticking with the same line on the Davis campaign (website launched today). They continue to describe it as a “stunt" and a “farce” and a distraction from the real business of politics. The overwhelmingly positive response from the public in the form of comments, blogs, emails and now opinion polls is dismissed as childish admiration for a politician prepared to break the rules of the Westminster village. This, essentially, is the line taken today by Steve Richards and Michael White (who has been pooh-poohing the whole thing from the start). What’s missing from all this coverage of course are the important issues Davis set out to raise: the assault on freedom and the failures of our parliamentary democracy. That this is the real debate to be had is at once recognised by the public. A post by Peter Hoskin of the Speccie provides a nice illustration. Hoskin basically agrees with the 'Westminster Village' wing of the argument” outlined by Richards: “Given the general public support for 42 day detention, it seems likely that many people are more approving of Davis' methods than his message. But, should he win, Davis wants to claim that the opposite is true. Frankly, I'm not sure how he'll manage to convince on that front.” Read the rest of this post...

This letter from John Major appeared in yesterday's Sunday Times:   Mathew d'Ancona quotes me as believing "a siege society once in place, will be difficult to dismantle". The quote is correct, but not the context. I did not refer solely to the 42 days pre-charge detention, but also to the establishment of a compulsory ID card system, a national DNA Database, and powers given to the police to permit them to bug homes and cars without the sanction of a High Court judge. The 42 day extension (if it becomes law) may be easily reversible, but does Mr d'Ancona really believe that is true of ID cards and the DNA database. I do not. I doubt, too, that the new powers given to the police will readily be surrendered. No single part of the package exceeds the internment of the 1970s, but the collective impact - since much of it is intended to be permanent - most certainly does. Fortunately, a more balanced judgement was to be found in your leading article "A stronger case is needed for the denial of liberty".   Right on John! Hat-tip Glyn Davies.  Read the rest of this post...