And another thing…

LET’S get one thing straight: the government does not want to give prisoners the right to vote.

That’s the kind of thing the LibDems would do voluntarily; but it looks like the government will have to concede the principle against its better judgment, following an absurd ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

Prisoners sentenced to less than four years in prison may be enfranchised, following a government consultation on how we plan to respect the European court ruling.

But before you rush to your keyboard to type out inevitable words like “typical”, “NuLiebore”, “referendum” and “Lisbon Treaty”, can I draw your attention to the remarks by Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Justice Secretary:

The principle that those who are in custody after conviction should not have the opportunity to vote is a perfectly rational one.

Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been flagrantly violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences.

The government must allow a parliamentary debate which gives MPs the opportunity to insist on retaining our existing practise that convicted prisoners can’t vote.

Interestingly, at no point does he suggest that a future Tory government would do anything different from us. All he’s doing is stating the blindingly obvious (“Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been flagrantly violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences”) to try to persuade voters that with him in office, the policy would change, without actually saying that. Because, as a good lawyer (and he is a good lawyer, incidentally) he knows that if the Tories ever do form a government in the future, they’ll have to comply with the European Court as well.

But there’s an interesting post script to all this: Many readers of this blog who are not — how can I phrase this? — instinctively pro-European will want the government to ignore this ruling. I have some sympathy with that.

But the same people are likely to insist that the government doesn’t ignore a previous ruling that it should destroy the DNA samples taken by police from those those have been arrested but who were subsequently not charged or convicted with an offence.

Complicated, this modern life business, ain’t it…?

ASIDE from the rather blatant and inexcusable split infinitive, the quote above is notable for the fact that it emanated from a “well placed” Tory following the arrest of Damian Green, according to Nicholas Watt at The Guardian.

Dominic “Putting the legal profession first” Grieve has apparently accepted Quick’s apology for being beastly to the Tories yesterday. But what does”accepted” mean? That’s right – it means “I will expect your resignation letter on my desk the day I become Home Secretary”.

Apparently Quick got on the Tories’ bad side by sharing the view of the majority of the British public that proposals to introduce 42 days’ detention before charge should have gone through. Such independence is frowned upon by Tory high command. He probably didn’t even go to the right school, either.

And as Boris has shown, the Tories are not above sacking senior police officers out of spite, not to mention for party political advantage.

So, answers on a postcard, please: Who is the “well-placed Tory” who was in such a rage at Bob Quick that he couldn’t even bring himself to open Fowler’s Modern English Usage?

I HAD intended to write (and in fact had finished writing a piece) blasting senior Tories for creating a situation where it was felt justifiable to leak or to publish details of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick’s home address. Quick is in charge of the police investigation into Tory MP Damian Green.

Indeed, the cynical bullying of the police by David Cameron and Dominic Grieve is something I have previously warned against.

However, within seconds of publishing my diatribe – based entirely on the BBC website story – Carolyn told me she had heard a radio report suggesting he had withdrawn his criticism of the Tory Party. So the status of my original post was quickly converted from “published” to “draft”.

AC Quick claimed that the publishing of his home address and the bullying of his officers – including, I presume, the prejudgment of the enquiry – were somehow linked. Yet according to the Mail on Sunday, Quick’s home address was included in an advertisement for the wedding car hire firm run from his home.

Most visitors to this site know my view: that prejudgment of the inquiry, the assumption that Damian was arrested simply for carrying out his duties as an MP, is premature and, until we know the police’s conclusions, unjustified.

Yet this latest episode has hardly cleared the water – just made a complicated and controversial story even more so, on both counts.

REMEMBER when the Tories described themselves as “the party of law and order”?

Alas, no more. The Shadow Home Secretary, “the lawyer’s lawyer”, Dominic Grieve, has written to the government asking 50 questions about – what else? – the Damien Green affair. All well and good. Except you would have thoight that a lawyer of Dominic’s experience would have known that at least some of the questions cannot be answered by the government and should have been directed at the police instead.

So what’s his game? Simple: if the government doesn’t answer all his questions (which it won’t, I hope), he’ll put on his faux indignation look (does he have any other?) and claim the government isn’t being transparent or accountable. And if it does answer his questions, he will claim that this is proof that the government was pulling the police’s strings all along.

Here’s an example from his nice long list: 

21. The guidance on the offence of misconduct in public office states: “A charge of misconduct in public office should be reserved for cases of serious misconduct or deliberate failure to perform a duty which is likely to injure the public interest”. In what respect was it suspected that Damian Green might have done this?

22. Who in the police approved the decision to inform the mayor about the proposed arrest of Damian Green?

23. Who in the police decided not to inform any government minister about the proposed arrest of Damian Green?

26. Why were counter-terrorist officers involved in the arrest?

THE BBC have just reported that “Do-Nothing” Dave and Nick “The Claw” Clegg are having their own meeting because they’re in a huff at not being invited to Harriet’s much more interesting party along the corridor.

I can just imagine it:

Nick: Gosh, Dave, this is awfully good of you. Is there anything to drink?

Dave: Not at all, Vince. I’m glad you could make-

Nick: It’s Nick.

Dave: Pardon?

Nick: It’s Nick. Nick Clegg. You called me Vince.

Dave: Did I? Oh, I’m so sorry. George! Make yourself useful and Get Vi-… Nick a drink will you? Tap water all round.

George: Yes, David. Sorry, David.

Nick: You don’t have anything stronger? Wine, maybe?

Dave: Wine? Good heavens, no! Don’t want to be seen enjoying ourselves in these difficult economic times that weren’t created in America, now, do we? And anyway, Harriet’s lot bought all the good stuff for their little… thing.

Nick: Well, then…

Dave: (smiles)

PROLONGED SILENCE

George: Another water, anyone?

Dave: Oh, you’ve got to go? Well, thanks for coming in, Ming. I’ll let you know what’s happening tomorrow.

Nick: It’s Nick- (DOOR SLAMS)

OK, I lost the thread of what I was going to say, there. Where was I? Oh yes, Dave and Nick have decided to call for a full debate into the Green affair tomorrow. I’m just surprised that the Shadow Home Secretary. Dominic Grieve, that doughty defender of lawyers’ rights, has capitualted to this. Discussing a live legal case? At any other time the lawyers’ party would never risk perverting the course of justice with such a debate.

And normally the Speaker wouldn’t allow it. But perhaps the bullying and threats against him by Tory MPs will mean he feels less able to stand up to them. Who knows?

I almost wish I was going to be in Westminster tomorrow, but I decided last week my time might be better spent in the constituency.

GEORGE Osborne’s star is waning, according to Conservative Home’s survey of Tory Party activists:

Our latest survey of over 1,600 rank-and-file members found that 49% were satisfied with Mr Osborne but 47% were dissatisfied; a net positive rating of just 2%. That is a huge shift since last month when George Osborne enjoyed a net positive rating of +70%.

Undoubtedly some of the recent fall is short-term fallout from He-Said-She-Said-No-I-Didn’t-YahBooSucks-Gate. But there seem to be deeper, more considered reservations among the blue rinsers. He certainly hasn’t quite cut it against Alistair Darling, at a time when most commentators expected him to capitalise on the government’s perceived weaknesses.

There’s certainly no reason for Cameron to keep Osborne in the Shadow Chancellor’s role if he doesn’t want to. A move sideways to Shadow Home Secretary would allow ‘Dave’ to demote Dominic Grieve, the “accidental Shadow Home Secretary” as well as promote the far more effective Michael Gove into the Shadow Chancellor’s job.

You read it here first, folks.

VERY interesting development on the “42 days” issue. The Home Secretary has announced a new counter-terrorism Bill to be introduced “whenever necessary”. And she seems to have accused some on the civil liberties wing of the argument of ignoring the terrorist threat. Excellent.

And a strangely hesitant response from Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Home Secretary, who is taking a long time to claim that this means the government is performing a U-turn on the issue. Time will tell, once the dust settles.

He’s doing his standard “angry indignation” bit in response to being accused of being soft on terrorism. That gimmick gets a bit old and tired after a while. The faces on the benches behind Dominic suggest he might not be in the job much longer.

Two things concern me about Dominic Grieve. First, as a lawyer he seems overly concerned with maintaining the legal profession’s privileges; as his party’s front bench spokesman on the Proceeds of Crime Bill back in 2001, he bent over backwards to try to preserve judges’ discretion when it comes to whether or not to penalise drug dealers financially.

Secondly, and more importantly, am I the only person who thinks he’s a dead ringer for Walter Softie out of Dennis the Menace?

A Speaker's eye view of the Shadow Home Secretary

Dominic Grieve, the new Shadow Home Secretary, is a decent chap. He’s also extremely sharp and, as a public prosecutor in a previous life, has prosecuted an impressive range of individuals and organisations.

But his claim in 2005 that he thought the 7/7 London bombings were “totally explicable” – comments brought to light by The Spectator in the past few days – should be of concern to all of us. “Explicable”, of course, isn’t the same as “justifiable”, but it’s not a kick in the shirt off it either. Motivation can always be explained. Myra Hindley, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe – their actions were, arguably, “explicable” if one takes account of the various psychological assessments that have tried to plumb the depths of these particular individuals’ minds.

But look at what Grieve also said in his 2005 comments. The 7/7 bombings were “totally explicable” because (and these are indirect comments): “of the deep sense of anger over the Iraq war, a wider despair about the Islamic world and what Muslims saw as a ‘decadent’ western society.”

I don’t deny that among British muslims there is anger at what has happened in Iraq, the ongoing situation in Israel and the denial of basic human rights by muslim regimes in the Middle East. But such anger can hardly be used as justification of murder.

And yes, there is resentment by some muslims at what they see as the west’s decadence. In fact, it seems that this, more than foreign policy, is the motivation for feelings of violence towards British citizens. It provided the motivation of the terrorists of 9/11. But such anger at moral standards are religiously inspired and, while important to the holders of those views themselves, they can never – should never – be addressed by government.

It is this point that most concerns me about Grieve’s views. By acknowledging anger at “decadent western society”, he seems to be suggesting that such grievances can be addressed. For the minority of British muslims who believe Islamism is the answer, acknowledging such grievances is never going to be enough. And addressing them in any way is out of the question, since that would represent an unacceptable compromise of liberality and tolerance.

PS (at 10.30pm). Just had a suggestion from a contributor responding to this post over at LabourHome that I’m accusing Dominic of seeking to justify terrorism. For the avoidance of doubt (and apologies if I didn’t make this clear enough) that’s not what I’m doing, and neither would I ever make such a suggestion. The point of this post is to warn against seeking to appease extremists.