If you’d been following Gordon Brown’s comments about terrorism in the media, you could be forgiven for thinking that he doesn’t want to score party political points on the matter, and in fact wants cross-party consensus.
Just look at what Patrick Wintour wrote in The Guardian, what Sky News reported or what Philip Johnson wrote in The Telegraph.
They all talked about how Gordon Brown wants consensus. Sounds fairly reasonable doesn’t it? All parties pull together for the common good in the face of threats to our security, etc etc.
Only one problem with this picture. It’s that small matter of accuracy.
Because whilst in public Gordon Brown has been saying he wants cross-party consensus, in private he’s been telling Labour Party members that a key part of their general election campaign will be to attack the Liberal Democrats on the issue.
An email was sent from Gordon Brown to Labour Party members, with the subject line – “Labour Party General Election Campaign (Lib Dems – Soft on Crime)”.
It goes on to lay out the attacks Labour should use against the Liberal Democrats. On terrorism the instructions are very straight-forward: attack the Liberal Democrats, as this extract shows (click on picture for full size view):
The Lib Dems have also tried to block Labour’s necessary measures to protect Britain from terrorism. They voted against 90 days’ detention for terror suspects and have said they would get rid of control orders.
Now, saying part of your general election message is to attack the Liberal Democrats over anti-terror laws isn’t exactly seeking cross-party consensus is it?
Share:
6 Comments
If that’s the line of attack against the LibDems I wonder what he has up his sleave for the Tories..?
One could read that email as meaning that scrapping ID Cards ‘will help keep Britain safe’ etc etc.
Not just “could”, dreamingspire; as far as I’m concerned, that’s the obvious default way to read the sentence!
Frankly, I can’t say I’m surprised – “soft on crime” is about the only bit of anti-Lib Dem drivel that really sticks any more. Not that it’s true, I hasten to add. But, despite the “We Can Cut Crime” campaign, I don’t think we have made enough noise on this issue, and would hope to see us taking on this battle head on in a general election campaign, before Labour have a chance to launch an attack. That way, when the attack comes, it looks like a reaction, however inevitable it might have been.
He may have made some encouraging noises about “reforming the constitution” etc., but Gordon’s no Liberal, never was. Lib Dems have to meet the challenge head on and stand up for the liberty of the individual unashamedly (a traditional British value, if you like). Nor should we hesitate to attack authoritarian govt. ministers, like the egregious Liam Byrne and his comment about ID cards becoming “a great British tradition, like the railways”,thereby displaying the total lack of knowledge of British history and tradition, typical of your bog-standard Blairite.
If Brown tries to push this hard it could easily backfire. Even if they agree with what he’s actually saying, I suspect voters would be unhappy if it looked as though he was trying to use anti-terrorist legislation for party political ends.
Jeremy,
Not that I disagree with you, but havent we used anti-terror legislation for party political ends in as much as our position defines our political and philisophical views?