Alan Johnson's arguments for Stop and Search

Read this BBC article on the Supreme Court ruling on the abuse of anti-terrorism law by the police. Good news (well a start anyway).

Then I get to Alan Johnson's bit. Alan Johnson shows Blair and Brown's Labour's attitude to Civil Liberties. They still don't understand why people got annoyed with police abusing powers.

The BBC gives two of Johnson's arguments against the Court ruling and May's position on asking for reasonable suspicion. These need to be looked at, as they are... interesting.

"The number of stop and searches under Section 44 has reduced considerably over the last two years"

This is an argument to keep the powers? Where? How? Did I miss something?

So it was wrong then and it is wrong now. It would actually suggest the power isn't much use: they used it more when it was new but didn't find it as useful as they'd like. Hardly an argument against the judgement or for the power. Barely even relevant.

Second the BBC says he "said the decision would restrict the powers of the police."

Let me take this to the ridiculous extreme. The police could stop a lot of crime if they could shoot to kill anyone outside after dark. This is a restriction on the power of the police. Just because it is a restriction has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong.

I'm not a fan of (Liberal Democrat) Lord Carlile. I feel since he was given his job of reviewing terrorism law he has gone native. He was given this job by Charles Clarke in 2005, not the coalition. He points out that the powers were simply not effective: so the restriction is not significant. Pennie Quinton, who brought the case was interviewed on PM this evening, and she said that Section 44 had not led to a single charge.

I have had a quick browse round the web to see if he had better arguments, but when the Guardian only give the Labour view a paragraph then it may be seen as a bad sign.

I think the need for reasonable suspicion is hardly an insurmountable barrier for stopping someone the police reasonably suspect to be up to no good...

Cuts that are and cuts that aren't

Well we knew whoever won it'd happen: the cuts begin.

And of course the people who did so much to get us into this mess aren't going to admit that, not after the new government has had literally weeks to settle in and sort out the mess.

But I do find Labour's "anger" about the North Tees and Hartlepool hospital almost comical in the hypocrisy stakes. Labour said they would spend £450m on this in an attempt to shore up the vote in the area. (Which didn't fully work. I imagine the new Conservative MP for Stockton South not be best pleased.)

This is an idea. Not a hospital. There are nice pictures drawn by architects but no constructions. It is to replace exisiting hospitals. Cutting it does not affect anyone's health care. Except the little model people who now won't be used in the scale model.

Labour are playing opportunistic opposition. Fair enough but don't expect to convince anyone. Perhaps engagement in the problem might be a better option. If we can't cut something suggest alternatives.

Been a while hasn't it...

Well the election happened in my absence. I was somewhat busy campaigning and didn't write much. In the parliamentary campaigns I was involved in (to various extents) the news was mixed but on balance disappointing. A win, a good loss (as it were) and three disappointing defeats.

Some questions I may rant about arising from the election are...

• Why is it we keep believing good opinion polls and ignore the bad ones?
• Why do we lose in three way marginals?
• How do we chose target seats so badly?
• Why are we disappointed with our best ever total vote as LibDems?

Some have easier answers than others...

However for now I think things have moved on enough to ignore these and instead move on to issues that don't concern me.

Things That Don't Concern Me 1: The Deputy Leadership

I had no idea the membership didn't vote for the deputy leader of the party. Mind you I ought to have done the '06 and '03 elections were done the same way and I was a member for both.

So we have two candidates:

Tim Farron backed publicly by Ming, Tessa Munt and Chris Huhne.
Simon Hughes backed publicly by Beith, Vince and Sarah.

See the list on LD Voice for current state of play.

In my opinion Hughes must win. His speech at the special conference was superb. He is a voice from the outside of the coalition. He is a liberal fighting against Labour by being better than them at fighting for social justice.

So I hope my MP votes for Hughes, and I hope he wins. Then we have a strong, experienced voice critical of the coalition within it. Hooray!

Things that don't concern me 2: Which Milliband

I really don't care. Balls would be less of a disaster for Labour than some people seem to think. People say they dislike combative opposition but the mud will stick. Milliband E and D are interchangable.

Lords reform 12 years in

So what have Labour done in the decade they have been in power to enhance deomcracy?

Good (but could be better): Welsh assembly, Scottish parliament using Some PR.

Better than what was before: London assembly.

Bad: party list for Euros.

Totally rubbish: the House of Lords.

A decade of an allegedly progressive government with huge majorities had no sense of what it wanted to replace our bizarre second chamber with? Are we really meant to believe that? Surely Blair or Brown could have found some vision they found attractive from the possibilities. They didn't.

To me this means they actually want what we have now: a chamber of appointees who owe their Partymachines their position, and no one else. Their only concern, a reasonable one, was to remove the in built Tory majority of the hereditary. That isn't the only problem with the Lords.

We now have a mess. Undemocratic, unaccountable to the people, and controlled by the control freaks. The Tories seem to want to return the hereditaries, though whether they'll risk it is another thing.

Another item on the charge sheet for the 1997-2010 goverments.