Labour party

Peers reject the notion that it's fine to lock people up for six weeks without even telling them why and how does the Home Secretary respond? Well, yet again, by impugning the motives of those opposed to granting the state these extraordinary powers: "I deeply regret that some have been prepared to ignore the terrorist threat, for fear of taking a tough but necessary decision." And so the Labour party adopts the bullying thuggery that characterises much of the modern Republican party's approach to security issues. Power corrupts, of course and Jacqui Smith should be ashamed of herself. Curiously, those ignoring the terrorist threat included not one but two former heads of MI5, the domestic security service, who, now appointed to the House of Lords, voted against the government.

The issue of whether the state can lock-you up indefinitely  for up to 42 days without even the courtesy of telling you why is back. Happily, the House of Lords seems certain to reject the government's plans, sending them back to the Commons where, again hopefully, they will finally die. Here's Labour MP Tom Harris, however, explaining that if you opposed giving the state these powers you're a "civil liberties" (feel the sneer with which he writes these words!) nutcase and if there's another terrorist attack on Britain, it will be your fault... It’s no secret that, along with the great, wise majority of our nation, I support a radical extension of the length of time the police can detain terrorist suspects without trial.

As expected, David Cameron's speech has been well received. In the Telegraph, Iain Martin says this was the moment Cameron "came out as a Conservative".  Indeed so. But amidst the sobriety and the resolution, there were moments of populist blue meat too. The BBC's mini-focus group particularly loved this passage: For Labour there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance. You cannot run our country like this.

Jackie Ashley argues that Gordon Brown deserves the extra time she thinks he bought with his speech yesterday, even though she concedes it won't be nearly enough to save him in the long run. But I was also struck by this: His wife Sarah's appearance was touching and starry: she is truly his greatest asset. Iron rule of politics: anytime hacks start referring to the leader's spouse as his/her "greatest asset" it's time for sentient folk to head for the lifeboats. cf,  Laura Bush. A good wife (or husband) is not enough. Sarah Brown's appearance introducing the Prime Minister was a) obviously borrowed from American politica and, more importantly, b) a sign of weakness not strength. She was there as a sort of human shield to protect Gordon from the nasties who want to do him in.

So, Gordon Brown's speech to the Labour party conferene wasn't terrible. By which I mean that it clearly pleased his audience. And his "This is no time for a novice" line was an entertaining slap aimed at both David Cameron and David Miliband. But that carries danger too: Brown is trying to make the case that only he can be trusted to implement necessary reforms. He is betting that, come the election, voters will choose "experience" over "change". Does that sound familiar? Well, it didn't work for Hillary Clinton did it? And I'm not sure it's going to work for John McCain either. Nor does Brown have the luxury of running against an ncumbent the way McCain can try to leverage his differences with George W Bush or Nicolas Sarkozy was able to run against Jacques Chirac.

How will Lbour fight the next election? Stupidly, it seems. According to a briefing paper obtained by the Guardian, Labour "has decided to attack the Conservatives at the next election as an unreconstructed, dangerous rightwing party that is only masking its true instincts behind slick positioning." Oh dear. Labour argue that: "Occasionally the mask slips and we see the dangerous, old- fashioned Tory rightwing instincts hidden underneath. They believe in unfettered free markets, cuts in public services to fund tax cuts for the richest, and a smaller, less effective government. David Cameron believes Britain would be stronger if we stand alone, rather than come together.

Meanwhile, back in Blighty, former Home Secretary Charles Clarke says Gordon Brown is toast and the PM should "stand down with honour". Just what Labour needed as the conference season looms! Iain Martin's column in the Telegraph today is an entertaining survey of the current, hapless state of the Labour Party: adrift on the high seas, all faith in the skipper lost, but no idea how to organise a mutiny, let alone brave the consequences of such an insurrection: In their plotting, the PM's internal enemies have adopted one of their target's worst traits: procrastination. If Brown declines the opportunity to resign with honour, then Clarke promises that "we" - a group presumed to include former cabinet ministers such as Alan Milburn and Stephen Byers - will take action as yet unspecified.

I read Polly Toynbee today and assumed it had to have been written by some pluck-faced intern charged with writing nonsense in the style of La Toynbee while she gets away from it all at her Tuscan villa. But apparently not. It is not a spoof or a parody. Anyway: Gordon is dead, long live the boy Dave! Seriously. Even so, it's worth noting that even Brown's most deluded defenders are now switching sides. Suddenly everything changed. The burst of optimism was so startling it dazzled those too long trapped deep in a dungeon. In that one moment it was all over for the old leader who had plunged them into these depths. Suddenly here was the chance of escape everyone was waiting for.

Since Camilla Cavendish makes some points in her Times column today that are similar to some I made about David Miliband's leadership challenge yesterday, I obviously think she's written a fine, penetrating piece. As she says, In policy terms, it is the Conservatives who have so far seemed optimistic about the ability of people to make decisions for themselves, and Labour that has made devolving power to a few hospitals and headteachers look like an am-dram production, involving more histrionics and agonising than Racine. The irony is that where it has devolved most power - to Scotland and Wales - it has let nationalists hollow out its core vote. This last point - about devolution - is not quite right.

No, I don't think so. Do you? Really? On the other hand, Danny Finkelstein thinks that David Miliband's piece in the Guardian this morning signals his determination to be a candidate to succeed Gordon Brown. Rosa Prince agrees. And there was me thinking that Miliband is the intelligent one. Doesn't he remember William Hague's example, doomed to become party leader too young and at the worst possible moment. There's precious little upside in being the next Labour leader, whether the changeover takes place this year or next. Better by far to back a caretaker such as Jack Straw - the only politician named by Miliband in his piece - and succeed him once some of the shine has been knocked off the new Tory government and once, of course, Labour has begun its penance in opposition.

Would even the west of Scotland Labour party stoop to producing a fake war hero to endorse Margaret Curran in the Glasgow East by-election? According to Guido, why yes they would...

Labour's latest approach to crime: Plans to 'shock' knife carriers Not quite what it seems admittedly, even though wouldn't surprise you if these clowns did suggest we start electrocuting teenagers, would it?