Theresa may

From control to surveillance

Like husband, like wife. Yvette Cooper has begun shadowing Theresa May where Ed Balls stopped: by lacerating Nick Clegg’s naïveté in believing that control orders should be abolished. There is a faint note of animus in her politicking too. ‘National security,’ she said, ‘should not be about keeping Nick Clegg safe in his job.’ The government invited Cooper’s charge with its own crass political calculation. Spinning the new measures as a Liberal Democrat victory could only elicit that response from an opposition that is intent on exploiting the government’s broad weakness on law and order. In fact, as Lord West has remarked, the government has not even come close to

Sexism is a red-herring; it’s family that matters

I’m afraid that women have been faking it, having us men on. You see they understand the offside rule and always have done. How could they not? It’s so simple that even a brace of abject football pundits know that an actively involved player is offside when he is closer to the opponent’s goal line than both the ball and the second-to-last defender, but only if he is in his opponent’s half of the pitch. Messrs Keys and Gray may not be too sharp on interpretation – unlike the ‘young lady’ (£) they berated – but they’re smoking hot on the theory. So do me a favour love and drop

Balls strikes at delicate Clegg

Ed Balls has been biding his time on Control Orders, but now he has struck. Writing on his blog, he appealed for consensus on this ‘sensitive issue’. ‘I have told Theresa May that, wherever possible, I will support her over the counter-terrorism measures that must be taken in the national interest – and we will play our part in building a new consensus for the future… that’s what a responsible Opposition should do.’ Balls knows that May favours retaining Control Orders, so perhaps this is a subtle endorsement of her position against the Lib Dems. He continues, conceding that he does not possess the facts. (The Home Secretary, of course,

High Court rejects temporary immigration cap

The High Court has just declared the government’s temporary cap on non-EU immigration is unlawful. Its ground was that the cap was not introduced with proper parliamentary scrutiny. However, the annual cap, which will not be in place until April next year, is not affected by this decision. But without a temporary cap there’ll be a spike in applications as people try and beat the cap. It’ll be fascinating to see how the PM and the Home Secretary respond to this ruling. At the moment, the government is playing it softly, softly. But there are Tories who think that the government cannot just allow a key part of its flagship

The anti-Clarke campaign is gaining momentum

After months of whispered asides, Theresa May cut loose yesterday and expressed what may on the Tory right (not to mention Labour’s authoritarian elements) feel: Ken Clarke’s prison proposals are potentially disastrous. Prison works. Tension has built to its combustion point, but there is no apparent reason why May chose this moment. Perhaps she was inspired by the persistent rumours of Cameron’s displeasure with Clarke? Or maybe the cause was Michael Howard’s smirking syntax as he denounced Clarke’s ‘flawed ideology’ in yesterday’s Times? Either way, the campaign to move Clarke sideways in a Christmas reshuffle is gaining momentum. The usual suspects from the right of the parliamentary party have been

The welcome arrival of elected Police & Crime Commissioners

Directly-elected Police & Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are the boldest reform of policing since the 1960s. In May 2012 there will be 41 new political beasts in England and Wales with large, direct mandates. They look set to transform policing and public debate about crime. The new Commissioners will replace weak and invisible police authorities who, despite costing £65m a year and spending £25m in the last 3 years alone on expenses and allowances, have failed to hold chief constables to account. As a result, police chiefs have become too powerful, too detached and too risk-averse – with failure to tackle crime often just excused. Commissioners will be elected to oversee

Another coalition compromise, this time on immigration

Agreement has been reached on the troublesome immigration cap. The BBC reports that skilled non-EU migration will be limited to 43,000. This is just a 13 percent reduction from this year’s cap and there are numerous exemptions to be made; notably, inter-company transfers will not be included when workers earn more than £40,000 per annum. This is a considerable moment for the coalition because the cap was thought unworkable. The Conservatives have their cap, a pep pill for the embattled Home Secretary.  But this is also a victory for Vince, who is being feted by businessmen across the airwaves this morning. Cable and May have also been praised by Migration

Labour’s terror u-turn doesn’t lessen its authoritarianism

It is a day for about turns. First, the Pope has taken a historic decision to approve the use of condoms to fight AIDS; second, Labour has vowed to change its position on terror legislation and law and order. The party feels its record in government has damaged its reputation as a guarantor of liberty. Generation Ed wants to make another break from the past. Ed Balls has masterminded a cunning sleight of hand. The proposal is nowhere near as dramatic as headlines suggest. Labour will support the government’s proposed reduction of detention periods from 28 days to 14, provided the police and security services are not impeded by the change. Balls

In defence of Control Orders

David Cameron currently thinks the coalition is heading for a ‘f***ing car crash’ on Control Orders. While the Home Secretary Teresa May is now convinced of their necessity, many Liberal Democrats and some Conservatives disagree. Everyone would prefer potential terrorists be prosecuted, but sensitive counter-terrorism evidence cannot always be used in a criminal court. In addition, the European Convention on Human Rights decrees that terror threats cannot be deported to states where they could be tortured. Hoping to circumvent these problems, the previous government attempted detention without trial. When this was struck out in the courts, Control Orders were the best viable option left. Control Orders – of which there

Out of Control Orders

The government’s developing a tension headache over Control Orders, and there have been two noteworthy interventions. First, Theresa May lambasted Ken Macdonald. The former Director of Public Prosecutions, who is a now a Lib Dem peer overseeing an independent inquiry into counter-terror legislation, has made clear that he ‘will go ballistic’ if the Home Office retains Control Orders, which it is expected to recommend, in line with the advice of another Lib Dem peer, Lord Carlile. Second, David Davis has described Control Orders as ‘Kafka-esque’, the term used by Chris Huhne on the Politics Show yesterday, and has also said that he will vote against the government if Control Orders

Are the coalition in control on Control Orders?

Friday’s foiled bomb plot is a reminder, if one were needed, that the terrorist threat has not gone away. Inevitably, given the volatile state of the argument about the balance between liberty and security, this incident has become part of the political debate on the issue. Ben Brogan is using it to argue that given the level of threat to this country, David Cameron should call off all the inquiries into whether or not the security services acquiesced in torture. This plot has also come at a time when the coalition is trying to come to a mutually acceptable position on control orders and how long suspects can be detained without

The growing need for elected police commissioners

The police are more Thin Blue Line than The Sweeney. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has found that 15 of 22 police authorities perform ‘adequately’, which is defined as meeting ‘most of the minimum requirements of the specified role…they were most effective at dealing with local short-term policing priorities’. More worrying, with forces facing 20 percent cuts: only 4 authorities were judged to have set clear strategic direction and ensured value of money. Worse still, the report found that: ‘In just over half of the police authorities inspected, there is little or no account made of the delivery of efficiencies or workforce modernisation’. These administrative shortcomings are adversely affecting operations,

Balls fires a warning shot at May

It has taken Ed Balls 24 hours to steam into action. He says: “The government’s deep cuts of twenty per cent to policing could mean up to 20,000 fewer police officers, according to the Police Federation. And I’m particularly worried that specialist policing units, such as those to tackle organised crime, domestic violence or child abuse which the government no longer considers to be part of the frontline, could be the first to be cut.” This comes as the latest crime figures suggest that crime has fallen, thanks in part to the last government’s massive recruitment drive in policing and its increase of the prison population. Deep budget cuts to

What about the Home Office?

The less we hear from Theresa May, the more I worry about the Home Office budget. I’m hearing rumours of her taking a 30 percent cut, which I first dismissed as a piece of expectations management. But now I’m beginning to wonder. We know that defence is settled – about an 8 percent real-terms cut. The NHS, which absorbs a quarter of government spending, will have real-terms increases (something even the left-leaning IPPR doesn’t back). The schools budget has escaped relatively unscathed, we read. So what’s left? Again, there’s so much deliberate misinformation out there that I hesitate to give a rumour round-up. But here goes.   One major victim

Theresa May the target

I wonder if Theresa May felt faintly apprehensive this morning. It must bad enough to awake and remember that you’re the Home Secretary, held responsible for every immigrant, every strike and every crime committed in Britain. Northern Ireland is more poisoned ministerial chalice, just. Now, she is being shadowed by Ed Balls, a ravening attack-dog liberated by the opposition. Balls has re-invented himself as a traditional Labour politician, casting himself as the champion of the working class. He says, accurately, that the poor are the victims of crime and the victims of unbridled immigration and social dislocation and his opposition will be ardently authoritarian. May will have to cut police

Clarke ups the ante

Perceptions count and the coalition are perceived to be vulnerable on crime. Its policy of reducing the number of prisoners on short-term sentences has been caricatured as a reduction in sentencing per se, a liberal assault on the consensus that prison works. I don’t agree with that analysis (which overlooks that excessive sentences in disorganised and overcrowded prison can create habitual criminals, who cost society in perpetuity thereafter) but readily concede that it’s easy to traduce the government as soft on crime, and I was surprised that Ed Miliband didn’t do so last week – as were plenty of Tories. In fact, opposition comes from within the Tory party, even from the

Ken Clarke in the firing line

There’s an intriguing pre-conference story in the Mail on Sunday today. The paper reports that: “Ken Clarke faces a whispering campaign by allies of David Cameron and George Osborne to move him from Justice Minister because of his ‘disastrous’ views on law and order, it was claimed last night. Conservative MPs say Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne are ‘ frustrated’ by Mr Clarke’s refusal to take a tougher line on key issues such as prison sentencing.” Clarke’s liberal views on criminal justice certainly are infuriating his colleagues. Allies of Theresa May have been heard to complain that “Ken is going to send the crime rate soaring and we’re going to

Too many policemen chasing paper-clips

Back in June, I asked how long the public would stomach David Cameron blaming Labour. Not long, was my answer – the government would have to form a narrative that suggested it was the ‘great reforming government’, not a symposium of partisan budget balancers. So far, it has failed to compel of cuts’ and public service reform’s necessity. Crime can now be added to the list. Theresa May has blamed Labour for HMIC’s findings into the police’s failure to arrest anti-social behaviour. ‘Labour achieved nothing,’ she said. Fair enough, but this was an opportunity to husband a narrative for public service reform. HMIC is in no doubt that the police

May’s straight-bat technique

Theresa May channeled Chris Tavaré today, every question on this phone tapping scandal was met with a solid defensive answer. She was helped by the number of Labour MPs who overreached — one compared it to Watergate while Dennis Skinner, who is nowhere near the Commons performer he once was, produced an ill-judged demand that Cameron come to the Commons and sack Coulson. Those MPs who were most effective were the ones who kept their cool. The personal testimony of Chris Bryant was particularly powerful.   Perhaps, the most noteworthy element of the proceedings was how a particularly glum looking Ming Campbell and Simon Hughes kept whispering to each other

The coalition’s vulnerability on crime

Parliament has that beginning of term feel today, lots of people discussing what they did on their summer holidays. After the holidays, the main topic of conversation is this whole phone tapping business. Everyone is wondering how long the BBC will keep playing it as the top story; it even devoted two thirds of the One O’Clock news to it. Given how reluctant the papers are to touch it, the story will burn out if the BBC stops fanning the flames. But one thing that I feel is being overlooked is Tony Blair’s attack on the coalition as soft on crime. If David Miliband wins the Labour leadership, I expect