Behold the true face of the modern Labour Party

Thanks to Luke Akehurst:

Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice & Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following 5 word candidate description: "Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects".

I'm fed up with us playing softball with the Tories while they posture and pontificate on this issue. If they want to play liberal they should pay the full political price for it and be eviscerated at the polls for being soft on national security. We should have their stance on this issue on every single poster and leaflet at the next General Election and then see how Davis and his mates feel about a referendum on this issue.

Yup, thats right. The party of Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Eric Blair is now aping the Republicans in their desire to show off to the electorate how tough and stern they can be on issues of "national security". Why he just doesn't go around beating his chest and laughing at sissy "liberals" is beyond me - it would be practically the same thing.

I often considered past critiques of the British Labour Party as having a NeoCon disposition as somewhat laughable. Even John Gray limited that description to Tony Blair in his Black Mass book. But since Brown has come to power, with this almost bizzare emphasis on Britishness, British Jobs for British People and pushing ever more stringent national security agendas, I'm starting to think it could be closer to the truth, in the security and foreign policy realms.

This repellent suggestion also reeks of the political manipulation of the 9/11 victims, much of which went towards justifying laws that just as equally as 42 days would have not stopped the event from happening, as well as a weapon to attack dissenters with. I'm glad Brown's government is on the way out if this is the sort of thing that can seriously be floated among the Labour party. I'd rather take a risk on the Tories being frothing nutcases than deal with the ones we currently have.

That said, this issue does seem to have revived some form of support for Labour. The voters seem to be broadly behind it, and while of course it is always a bad idea to guage support based on comment sections in tabloid newspapers (too easy for party political types to astroturf) the fact that a stream of vitriol can be directed at someone of the background of David Davis by Sun readers seems nothing short of extraordinary. I mean, he's anti-EU, anti-gay rights, pro-death penalty, an ex SAS soldier and often makes proclaiments about "moral degeneration." In other words, he's the sort of person the average Sun reader would normally cheer on.

There is no chance that I can see of Davis losing his seat, especially not to a wanker like Kelvin MacKenzie - no matter how much money Murdoch gives him, and how closely the press stick to the government line ("ooh, isn't Davis such an attention seeker? What an egotistical little twat..."). But I still worry about the wider implications of this 'refendum' - with good reason as it seems.

Well I for one...

Am very glad the government wont be pandering to religious extremists with this new 42 day detention scheme. Furthermore, as I am sure you are aware, I am always glad to see Labour stamp its authority over the potential party rebels on this issue.

Oooh, snark. Its a new direction I'm thinking of taking. It has more satirical potential than justified outrage, for starters, and often makes the point just as well.

Anyway, I'm off to troll retards, authoritarians and Dail Mail readers on Have Your Say, home of such insightful views into the 42 Day Detention legislation such as:

The 42 day period is too short and should be indefinite

Because apparently we can't protect our freedoms without giving them up, which makes perfect sense.

Fortunately, most of the most recommended comments are ones bemoaning this authoritarian free-fall we seem to be in, though I did notice at least one comment generated by the spEak You're bRanes Twat-o-tron got 172 recommendations:

it's sad but true. in my opinion criminals ar islamifying britain because of thir so-called 'humanr ight'. soon we will vote bnp. lets do what the french do and all strike!!!

English_forever, England

Sadly, I think most of those votes are non-ironic, given the next comment says:

The destructive animals who perpetrate this heanous crime, should be allowed no privilages, no sympathy from mis-guided statesmen, and no mercy.

Any foreign creature involved in the plotted deaths of Westerners ought to be put out of their own misery, humanely, and not fawned over by stupid and naive politicians.

I'm sure you also noted the dehumanizing terms here. Of course, he also seems to have missed the point of a trial is to ascertain guilt, and is not some sort of bizzare favour to terrorists, and when someone is charged with such a serious crime, they are normally held until the trial ascertains this.

If they didn't let them into the country in the first place, then they wouldn't have to lock them up. A shame the Government won't deal with border control as a priority issue!

Yeah, because as you know, no Islamic terrorists are born in this country, because all the darkies are from Foreign Parts. And white people don't become Islamofascists.

That was sarcasm, for any passing HYS commentators. I know you may be unfamiliar with the term.

However, by and large it seems that the comments are very critical of the government, which is somewhat heartening. I even saw the quote by Hume "better a murderer go free than a honest man be hanged" be mentioned.

Still, once again the fate of UK politics is now in the hands of an unelected chamber of foppish aristocrats, religious nutters and political loan sharks. Oh joy.