Terrorism and the Law II

[This is the second of two postings on the terror Bill- first one posted below]

The Terror Bill

Criticism of British Terror Laws Prior to July Attacks
In June 2005 the European Commissioner of Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-Robles, published a damning report on Britain’s terror laws. He discerned a background in which ‘human rights are frequently construed as, at best, formal commitments and, at worst, cumbersome obstructions. It is perhaps worth emphasising that human rights are not a pick and mix assortment of luxury entitlements but the very foundation of democratic societies.’

The report criticised control orders-used to limit the freedom of movement of the once detained Belmarsh suspects- plus other aspects of Britain’s legal attempts to combat terrorism. Another report, by the European Committee for Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, attacked the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act(ATCS) 2001 for the treatment of detained suspected terrorists. It condemned the use of evidence obtained through torture in other countries as ‘entirely indefensible’ which could never be ‘admissable’. Such admissability was granted by the 2001 Act ‘provided it was not committed or connived at by British officials’.
In response the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said:

‘There is a balance to be struck between the human rights of individuals and the human rights of citizens to be protected against terrorist threat. That is a difficult balance, but we believe our legislation achieves that balance. It is always difficult to achieve but you have to bear in mind both sides of human rights.’(Guardian 9th June 2005).
However, also to be weighed in the balance is the other acts already on the statute book. Lord Lester, on 25th October questioned the Home Secretary repeatedly as to why the bill was needed when all the necessary powers to combat terrorism were already available to the police. Moreover, the Identity Card legislation- much criticised within the governing party and by Chris Huhne MP, as the ‘largest intrusion into citizens’ lives in peacetime’(Guardian 26/10/05)- would not have prevented the July bombings.

Reaction to July Attacks
All this was before the attacks which occurred in London 7th and 21st July. The government were allegedly scared voters would blame Blair for taking the country into a conflict which had stimulated such acts of barbarism. Government spokesmen and Blair himself denied any connection between the Iraq war and such acts of terrorism pointing out that Al Quaida had been trying to destroy targets in west as long ago as 1993 when the first attack on the World Trade centre took place. As it happened, the opposite occurred. Most people did make the connection between the two events. Polls showed a majority-over 60%- believed the war had made Britain more of a target- a conclusion which it would be foolish to deny. But, it seems, Blair was not blamed personally. Having struggled to reassert his popularity after his election victory on 5th May, Blair suddenly found his response to the underground bombings, whilst chairing the G8 summit in Edinburgh, had impressed the public with its gravitas and toughness. ‘The rules have changed’ warned Blair some time later and indeed, a rule change was just what he had in mind. His initial meetings with opposition parties won their support for more legislation but this consensus soon fractured when the outlines of what was being proposed became clearer. Main purpose of new law was the catch those indirect supporters and facilitators of terrorism.

‘Glorifying Terrorism’
A series of measures was proposed which were debated in the press and parliament during the late summer months. Charles Clarke was determined to appear tough and to tighten laws affecting those who might try to engage in terrorism. An offence was mooted seeking to outlaw those who encouraged terrorism through ‘glorifying’ it. Critics pointed out that such a law would even catch supporters of Nelson Mandela’s struggle against apartheid and those who celebrated Guy Fawkes Night on 5th November. On 6th October Clarke climbed down and redefined the clauses relating to this. But he had not given up. On 10th October he sought to ban 15 more ‘terror organisations’ and stated he would seek to ban also those groups providing ‘succour and support’ by ‘glorifying terrorism.’ Groups banned included Ansar al-Islam, a radical Sunni group active in Iraq plus groups in Somalia and Morocco. Of special concern to British civil rights activists are Hizb ut Tahrir and Sheik Omar Bahakri’s al Muhajiroun. These last named are groups which have condemned terror but which are militant supporters of Islamic jihad efforts.

Terms of the Terror Bill

The Bill is a complex and extensive document the main terms of which are:

1. Definition: includes those inflicting serious damage to property or people in an effort to influence the government or to threaten the public in relation to a political, religious or ideological cause.

2. Encouraging Terrorism
More tightly defined to relate only to statements which ‘glorify the commissioning or preparation of acts of terror’. Max penalty to be 12 months. Police will have to prove statements were intended to incite further acts of terrorism.

3. Disseminating Terrorist Publications
Aimed at bookshops and websites dealing in terrorist publications. Television programmes on Al Quaida recently exposed websites which show hostages being beheaded in Iraq by insurgent groups. The one run by Dr Masari from London was, according to him, ‘excellent for recruiting purposes’. The bill aims to outlaw such websites.

4. Preparation of Terrorist Acts
Aimed at those who intend to carry out such acts, provide facilities for the execution of or financial assistance.

5. Training for Terrorism
Designed to catch those who either offer training or receive it or provide instruction or materials. Attending a terror camp will carry a sentence of 12 years.

6. Making and Possessing nuclear devices or materials for terrorist purposes.
Will not affect those who demonstrate outside nuclear installations and sites. Carries life sentence.

7. Consent to Prosecutions
Both director of public prosecutions and attorney general needed for prosecutions under terrorist offences to provide ‘safety valve against hasty... decisions’

8. Proscribing Extremist Groups
Ability of Home Secretary to ban groups will be extended to those whose activities ‘glorify, exalt or celebrate terrorism’. Aim is to reduce the chances of young people coming into contact with such negative influences.

9. Immigration law Changes
Power for Home secretary to remove nationality of those with dual nationality from those considered to be ‘not conducive to the public good.’

10. Detention without Charge
Maybe the most controversial of the measures, will allow suspects to be held without charge beyond the current 14 days up to a limit of three months. After 48 hrs police- superintendent or senior rank- can ask for weekly extensions. Such a wait could be necessary if waiting for DNA test results.

11. Independent annual review of the legislation

Other Countries’ Laws

Detention Without Charge

France: 48 hrs but can be extended for two further periods of 24 hrs on authority of a judge. But can be held up to four yrs awaiting trial.

Germany: Usually 24 hrs but can be held up to 6 mnths on review of judge.

Greece: 24 hrs before seeing a judge but can then be held up to 12-18 mnths

Morway: 48 hrs but then judge can grant further weekly periods of detention.

Italy: 24 hrs only.

Spain: 13 days incommunicado. Can be held four yrs awaiting trial.

Reactions to the Bill

The above shows British laws will prove to be the toughest in Europe. UK will also be alone if it presses ahead with plans to deport terror suspects back to countries which may use torture against them. Home secretary also announced 12th October plans to deny asylum to anyone involved in terrorism anywhere in the world.

Lord Carlile, the official independent reviewer of the terror laws was in broad agreement with the bill
but
a) he questioned the clause about training camps. What if the training camp is in support of a cause we support eg ANC in days of apartheid.
b) worried about deportation of suspects like Belmarsh 10 who were under ‘control orders’ in the absence of ‘no torture’ memorandums with countries to which they would be deported to- in this case Algeria. Critics say such agreements would be of little use as police are often beyond control in such countries.
c) thought the 90 days detention without charge provision would be struck down under the Human Rights Act. He argued much tighter judicial control would be necessary to safeguard the rights of people detained.
Others point out 90 days is the equivalent of 6 months of a standard sentence. Why hold them so long?

Police in favour of measures which ‘recognise the changing nature of the terrorist threat.’ They applaud new powers to ‘root out terrorists before atrocities occur.’

Liberty Director Shami Chakrabati predicts the measures would have a severe effect on community relations. it will criminalise support for non violent political parties. Very dangerous route the government is taking.

Seamus Milne, Guardian, 13th October 2005.
Milne argues Blair tends to legislate when not sure what to do. Strategy seems to be to flagrantly overstate and then modify in face of outrage until something that can be passed has been arrived at. Not a good way to pass laws.
Mark Oaten Lib Dem opposed to the 3 month detention measure though pleased the glorifying clause rewritten. But ‘anyone who voices support for armed resistance to any state or occupation, however repressive or illegitimate, will be committing a criminal offence punishable by 7 year prison sentence.’
‘terrorism is defined as any politically motivated violence against people, property or electronic systems anywhere in the world’
Blair’s statement in Washington that he was totally opposed to the ‘caliphate’ or imposition of sharia law, suggests the war on terror is really one on Islam.

Cherie Blair, leading human rights lawyer: has made a number of statements suggesting she is opposed to the draconian nature of the proposed laws, attacking laws which will ‘undermine our most deeply held values’. She is adamant judges must be in control of the process.

Panorama 9th October 2005
Examined the bill and produced a number of criticisms:
a) Three jurors from the 14 month ‘Ricin case’ expressed worries regarding the attitude of the authorities. They sat through months waiting for killer evidence to be produced but none came and they concluded the trial was illiberal and unnecessary. In the end it collapsed without a result.

b) Moazem Begg, Guantanamo detainee, said he would defy the law if not allowed to assist muslims under attack or occupation.

c) Lord Lloyd said defining ‘glorifying, celebrating or exalting’ was virtually impossible and therefore ‘silly’.

d) Lord Steyn was sure it would be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, article 10. He felt the government could not be trusted.

e) David Bickford, former MI5 adviser felt the act would alienate the Muslim community for intelligence purposes. It would make us ‘less safe’.

f) Douglas Hurd: said trying to nab people like Omar Bakhri Mohammed, radical imam, was pointless- better to ignore him. Intelligence is key to fighting terror but this won’t help. In favour of using phone taps in court as is Lord Lloyd who sees the non-use as ‘dotty’..

g) Lord Lloyd said the 90 days provision ‘looks like internment’ and is ‘intolerable’.

Internment?
Introduced in Northern Ireland in 1972 and caused huge backlash; this is not a good omen for the new law as many Muslims might be alienated by the measure.
Special Powers Act under which internment was introduced dated back to 1922 and was indeed draconian having nine sections under which the Minister of Home Affairs could: arrest without charge; intern without trial; prohibit the holding of coroner’s inquests; flog, execute, destroy buildings; requisition land or property, ban any organisation, prohibit meetings, publications or even gramophone records. In addition it enabled the home Minister to do what he ‘thinks necessary for the maintenance of order’, even without the agreement of Stormont.

It was annually renewed until 1933 when it was made permanent. They were dissolved in 1973 but then many of their provisions were reinserted into the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 1974.
What is being proposed is maybe in breach of the HRA but it is no return to internment. However, it seems too close for comfort and that is bad news enough.

Already the bill has been diluted in a number of ways and key clauses redrafted but it still seems likely to incense the Muslim community and may well be more severe than we require or need to prevent acts of terror. But this is a hugely disputed matter and, quite probably the public will follow their usual practice of treating their civil rights in a casual, cavalier way in pursuit of their own security. All this could prove to be counter productive and a whirlwind will be reaped at a later date.

Bill Jones
20/10/05

Terrorism and the Law I

Legislating Against Terrorism I: The Context
[This is the first of two briefings on legal responses to terrorism-the next focuses on the Terror Bill considered by Parliament, autumn 2005]
1. ‘They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.’
Benjamin Franklin
2.‘Extreme measures, like torture, preventive detention, and arbitrary arrest, typically win the battle but lose the longer war.’
Michael Ignatieff,
The Lesser Evil, Edinburgh University Press, 2005.
3.‘Islam is the only civilization which has put the survival of the west in doubt, and it has done so at least twice.’
Samuel P Huntingdon,
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, Touchstone books, 1996.
Introduction
The key word in the first quotation above is ‘temporary’. Franklin must have realized that all governance is based on some surrender of liberty in order to achieve security. Maybe Hobbes exaggerated the chaotic state of nature of ‘war of all against all’ which would exist outside governed societies, but we can all understand that any civilized society entails a tacit agreement by members to inhibit their passions -and concomitant desires to indulge them- in the interests of living free of harm from the passions of others. Early political theorists imagined or predicated a ‘social contract’ in which citizens in a state of nature surrendered some freedoms for the reward of permanently peaceful conditions in which to live their lives. In Western Europe, after many failed and bloody attempts, we like to think we have evolved systems of government which strike that crucial balance between security and liberty. In Britain the story probably began with Magna Carta in 1215 which guaranteed certain fundamental liberties, continued with the development of the common law and then the passing of the act of Habeas Corpus in 1679 and was brought up to date by the Human Rights Act in 1998. The relevance of this discussion to the present day is clear, as is its warning: shoring up our safety by means of hastily passed restrictive laws will in time rob our society of its freedom without increasing its safety.
Provenance of Terror as a Political Instrument
There is a tendency to think terrorism a modern phenomenon but it is as old as human society itself. It is, essentially, the winning of compliance through the threat or reality of severe physical harm. It follows that war is nothing more than government sanctioned terrorism whereby citizens of one country are forced, by fear of injury or death, to comply with the demands of another. That is the macro level, if you like, but terrorism exists on different levels; the micro level of crime- trafficking of women, protection rackets; or within states- the campaign waged by the IRA to achieve a unified Ireland or the recent ‘ethnic cleansing’ of communities in the countries comprising the former Yugoslavia. In all these cases people faced the threat of severe injury or death unless they complied with the people exercising terror.
However, the use of the word ‘terror’ is not usually associated with war between countries, nor with crime, which we seek to control through a network of domestic law. It is more often the in-between level of groups seeking political goals through this means within states which attracts such a description, though, of course, many terrorist groups either have international extensions or, like Al Quaida, are essentially international in character and purpose.
The word ‘terror’ has another characteristic: it is flexible and dependent on the prism through which it is viewed. So governments might condemn secessionist groups using violence as ‘terrorists’, as the British did so many freedom movements while their Empire was in decline. But once the British had accepted the inevitable and wished to minimize the offence of such liberation struggles to subsequent diplomatic relations, these ‘terrorists’- think of, Kenyatta, Nyrere, Kaunda- became ‘fathers’ of their nations welcomed to Buckingham Palace by an admiring Queen Elizabeth. True, Gandhi, achieved this status without advocating force but few have followed his non violent teachings in practice. Moreover, we saw Margaret Thatcher’s government describing Nelson Mandela and the ANC as ‘terrorists’ only for the term to be hastily forgotten by Conservatives once his near canonization took place after the whites had fled the scene. It would be fair to say that the distinction between ‘terrorist’ and ‘freedom fighter’ is lost as soon as the new tenants move into the presidential palace.
Does terrorism work? One could argue, not; that the IRA have not achieved the unification of their country and do not seem likely to. Similarily ETA has not achieved independence for the Basques. But it has to be allowed that:
i) It was terrorism which won Adams and McGuinness places around the Good Friday table and the threat of it which led Mo Mowlam to visit terrorist leaders in the Maze Prison in 1998 to seek their support. Most people are moved by threats to the life and limb of themselves and their loved ones and the IRA have shown that substantial political benefits can be won through making such ruthless threats.
ii) Violence of some kind has attended the inception of most countries in the world. Think of USA, Israel, Algeria, Russia. Even Australia’s founding entailed the slaughter of hundreds of aboriginals.
iii) Terrorism wore away the foundations of the imperial powers and persuaded them to accept the inevitability of losing their colonies.
iv) Violence in formation has often coloured the nature of the resultant state: the USSR was the product of a small ideological faction which went on to impose its unwelcome thoughts upon a resisting population and repress with great savagery anyone who objected. Something similar might be said about Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Even the history of Northern Ireland after 1922 could be attributed, according to one view, to the violence of its inception. The use of terror breeds more terrorism in other words.
Huntingdon’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’
Samuel P Huntingdon’s brilliant and uncannily prescient study, The Clash of Civilizations, in the view of many, defines the world as we have come to be at present. Islam took Constantinople in 1453 and besieged Vienna in 1529, reversing much of the ground won by the Crusades in the 13th century. But then the Christians fought back and Islam began a long retreat after its failure to take Vienna again in 1683; a retreat which continued throughout the 19th century and concluded in the 20th with Turkey the ‘Sick man of Europe’ whose wider area of influence was dominated by Britain, France and Italy. Then it was the west’s turn to retreat, their empires in decline culminating with the implosion of the USSR which itself opened up a number of newly minted countries to the appeal of Islam.
Anatomy of the Conflict
1.The truth is that both religions are not dissimilar: both posit an ‘us and them’ view of the world; neither are polytheistic in that they can embody other creeds into their own; and each seek to convert non believers to the ‘true’ word. Both have shown a missionary zeal. The result has been a millennium of violent conflict which continues unabated.
2.Muslim countries have been more fertile in producing population-many of them underemployed and volatile. Millions have migrated to the west in search of material prosperity Both these home and emigrant groupings have provided fertile soil for those who argue the fundamentalist version of Islam.
3. The mingling of both creeds have highlighted differences between the restrictive norms of Islam and the more liberal, diluted versions of Christianity which characterize the west. Both cultures assume theirs is the superior and tend to regard the other with a degree of contempt. Muslims particularly dislike the west, not for its Christianity, but for its lack of religious piety: ‘the godless west’. Western culture is seen as corrupt, decadent but also as seductive, a devilish snake to be resisted; no surprise the USA is described as ‘The Great Satan’.
4. Muslims feel humiliation at the technological accomplishments of the west compared with their own culture. This tends to reinforce for us the idea of a religion and culture left in the past. Fatima Mernissi’s Islam and Democracy,(1992) by no means the view of a bearded ayatollah, called for Islam to ‘liberate itself from this subservience’, to train its own engineers and scientists, build its own weapons. Islam must free itself, she argued, of dependence on the military power of the west.
5. In the immediate aftermath of colonial status Muslim countries tended to be pro western. But one by one they shifted to a hostile position: Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Afghanistan. Less hostile, but still unfriendly, were Tunisia, Indonesia and Malaysia. Turkey and Pakistan were friendly but bitterly assailed by Muslim critics at home and abroad. Kuwait was the most pro western state in the early nineties; virtually a ‘satellite’ state of the west whose liberation in 1991 was bitterly resented by Muslim states, not to mention the ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands by the US backed Israel. Muslims in most of the world’s countries now tend to be anti west and to have some sympathy at least with terrorist activities. But there are thousands who do not share such views ands who abominate terrorist activities.
Quasi-war
6. Given that Muslims now comprise 1.6 billion people and stretch from Indonesia to Muslim communities in Western Europe, it was almost inevitable that once the USSR was removed as the west’s principal opponent, Islam would be substituted. Opinion polls in US and Europe reveal Islam being perceived as the major threat. Huntingdon argues a ‘quasi-war’ has been in progress for some time in the Middle –East. It has been fought with limited means: aerial attack, sanctions and covert action by the west; car bombs and terrorism by Islamic groups.
7. The West’s attempts to intervene in the Islamic world for power or economic reasons-Cold war reasons, oil- have caused immense resentment among Muslims. This has spawned groups like Hamas, Fatah, Al Quaeda and others, determined to expel the new ‘Crusaders’ from their lands and inner counsels. Hence we saw the tragedy of the Twin Towers on 11th September 2001, the attacks in Madrid and our own attacks in London on 7th and 21st July. Unlike the conflicts of old, the current one is not conducted via conventional armies facing each other- in that contest the west would surely win every time- but between the unwieldy armies of the west clashing blindly with a foe which has been recruited with the help of the internet, trained, maybe in Pakistan, Palestine or Iraq itself and alert to the globalization which makes an explosion in Baghdad reverberate around the world. But the cruelest innovation is perhaps the most baffling. It seems scores, maybe hundreds or even thousands of young Muslims are prepared to sacrifice themselves in the cause of their religion. How can one deter those who have no fear of death and may actually will it? Experience and reason tells us residents of liberal democratic states that such actions must at root cause be the result of something harmful: poverty, deprivation, lack of education? But the evidence often says otherwise; suicide bombers are often middle class educated Muslims, like Mohammed Atta, who led the attack on the Twin Towers.
UK Attacks
The extraordinary aspect of these attacks for British people was that these suicide bombers were British citizens, raised in a northern city and imbued with a love of British sport and many other aspects of our culture. An opinion poll in The Guardian 26th July 2005, revealed the chilling fact that 5% of our 1.6 million Muslims- some 80,000 people and 7% of those under 35 -thought that further attacks by British suicide bombers would be ‘justified’. The editorial grimly commented: ‘If you were unfortunate enough to die in such a bombing in other words, tens of thousands of your fellow citizens would justify your death to themselves.’
Michael Ignatieff’s ‘Lesser Evil’ Argument
Ignatieff’s book addresses the subject of values and fighting terror and comes up with something like a set of criteria by which to judge measures designed to combat terror. His starting point is that terrorists have rights too, even though they have exploited the openness of our liberal societies to inflict their politically inspired damage. There are international agreements- the Geneva Convention, the Torture Convention-which articulate these rights and which even those governments attacked by terrorists, should endeavour to recognize even in the darkest of times. Because democracy cares about individuals, their rights-even those of terrorists- have to be seen as part of the end purpose of the exercise. But, Ignatieff agrees, this does not mean recognition of such rights, embedded in the law, have to be seen as inviolable and wholly permanent. They can be withdrawn in some cases if deemed necessary.
But it is what replaces them which causes the anguish. Where is the line of legislation which deters further transgressions without alienating the wider group from which the transgressors have emerged? This is made even more difficult by our lack of knowledge regarding future intentions of the terrorists nor of the impact- benign or adverse- of any new measure. It could be that a further tightening of the law will cast many more recruits into the calculating intimacy of terrorist cells. No one knows; we blunder forward in the dark. Ignatieff seeks to cast some light however, by arguing that:
a) We should have no illusions regarding the ‘evil’ of any new restrictions of civil rights thought to be necessary. Totalitarian governments have no scruples about using force, torture, imprisonment without trial, but our democratic forms of government won their liberties by fighting such perversions of human governance.
b) We should only introduce such measures as a last resort, having honestly tried everything else.
c) We should ensure they affect the smallest possible number of people.
d) We should subject such measures to the cleansing test of constant adversarial democratic debate.
e) We should continuously review the necessity for continuing with such measures and remove them when safe to do so.

Bill Jones 18th October, 2005

Conservative Party Leader - Part II

‘This year’s third election defeat has had an effect among thinking Tories that the first two failed to trigger. The big thing about the Tories this week is that a lot of them have got it.-got it about the fact that the party fails to connect with the voters, got it that they are too far to the right, got it that they appear out of touch with the real world and most of all, got it that Labour dominated the last decade not through political black arts but through changing.’

Martin Kettle on the Tory conference, Guardian, 8th October.

‘The Conservative Party has no God given right to survive, let alone succeed.’

Francis Maude, Tory Chairman, Blackpool, 3rd October.

‘The leadership contest has into a competition to which candidate can most closely resemble Tony Blair’

Rachel Sylvester, Daily Telegraph, 3rd October, 2005.

‘Never before has a politician risen without a trace so far and so fast as David Cameron.’

Andrew Rawnsley, 9th October, Observer.

‘We are seeing a genuine fight for the philosophy, style and intentions of our principal opposition party, the outcome of which could shape British politics for years to come.’

Observer editorial , 9th October.

‘It’s not that we’ve got nicer, it’s just that we’re fed up with losing.’

Former MP Steve Norris at the conference.

Whether Martin Kettle’s assessment is correct remains to be seen. If memory serves, Hague, IDS and Howard, all spoke of moving into the centre ground but after a few months found the message was being returned with knobs on by party members. They all eventually took fatal refuge in defending the core vote and found themselves either resigning after defeat or before it loomed. Kettle thinks this time it’s different and indeed it should be. The alternative is maybe that the party will atrophy and disappear.

Such an eventuality was not wholly fanciful at the start of the conference. A Populus poll for The Times showed 44% of Conservative voters saying they would prefer a new right of centre party- an increase of 15% on last year. It seems the more optimistic proceedings of the conference have probably scotched this possibility for the time being.

The five hopeful candidates for the leadership have now used the Blackpool conference to set out their stalls. Speeches at Blackpool have historically been crucial for a number of Conservative leaders. In 1963 R.A. Butler found his attempt to swing the massed blue rinse brigade failed as did that of Quentin Hogg whose theatrical casting of his coronet into the ring was seen as too histrionic by a stratum of society which has always preferred discretion and a goodish thickness of curtains between the public and their private doings. Then in 2003 it was the turn of IDS to fall victim to the curse of the Golden Mile. Already in trouble for having not budged the party’s poll ratings, Duncan Smith attempted to deliver his best ever conference speech. His aides sought to help him by provoking 14 fake standing ovations while ‘the quiet man’ threatened to ‘turn up the volume’. A month later he was voted out and Howard installed in his place without a formal vote.

One thought that occurs is that contenders were being measured against the standard set by Toby Blair at conference and in the House. It’s a tough standard as Blair has raised the bar substantially since he emerged in the nineties. It also tends to undermine the idea that speaking skills are no longer a necessary element in a politician’s armory. It’s true that the set piece speeches are rarer but they do exist and those aspiring to be the best, must be the best in this category as well as in the House and on television, not to mention party committees and other more private events.

So how do the candidates measure up after this trial by conference?

Leadership rules

After the 'magic circle’ days when new leaders would ‘emerge’ from a conclave of senior Conservatives, a vote was introduced in the mid sixties. This required the winning candidate to do so by a margin of well over 50% after a maximum of three ballots. Challenging the leader was also made relatively easy as long as a given number favoured a vote and could muster a few supporters. Mrs Thatcher thus found herself challenged in 1989 by Sir Anthony Meyer- something easily met- and then again in November 1990; and this time it proved fatal causing a trauma from which the party has not yet recovered. William Hague, during his tenure as leader made it harder to challenge the incumbent and also opened up the elections to democracy. Some say too much democracy as when the ageing membership voted in 2001 between the voter- friendly Clarke and the voter- repellent Duncan Smith it was the loser IDS who triumphed. Inconsequence Howard tried to change the system to one in which MPs would again elect the leader but the hastily established ‘electoral college’ comprising MPs; MEPs and peers; and local party chairmen turned the idea down on 27th September. A two thirds majority was required but the overall result was only 61% to 38.9%, over five percentage points down short of what was required. So the selection of the new leader will be made according to the ‘Hague’ rules as follows:

Week to 14th ‘Hustings addresses by candidates to Tory party audiences in Westminster.
13th October …. Nominations close
18th October …..First ballot of MPs. Candidate receiving fewest votes is eliminated.
20th October …..Second MPs ballot if more than two remain. Lowest eliminated once again.
25th October …..Third ballot if two or more remain. First two candidates go through to vote by party members.
November….. Month given for two candidates to campaign in country to win support of party members.
5th December… Ballot of party members closes.
6th December…. Winner announced.
7th December…. First PMQs for new leader.

Modernizers versus traditionalists

As the report from the Policy Exchange showed, the party is in need of change. But how much change and of what sort? These are more difficult questions and the recent conference has seen the first shots in the struggle between the modernizers and the traditionalists. The former favour rebuilding the party from scratch rather as Blair did Labour. They yearn for a symbolic object for a new leader to attack as Blair did Clause Four or enemies to vanquish as Blair did the unions and vested Labour interests. Cameron and his somewhat derided ‘Notting Hill’ set, including George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor and MP for Tatton, belong to this faction but Howard too has made sympathetic noises as well as the old warhorse Clarke.
Traditionalists tend to look back to Thatcher with almost religious awe, treasuring the hallowed principles of less government, sound money, scepticism on Europe and low taxes. This group includes probably a majority of the ageing membership, who seem to regard Europe with the same hostile passion as Churchill and his followers reserved for Hitler in the thirties. David Davies and Liam Fox are probably the closest candidates to this line of thinking.

Candidates

After Michael Ancram and Theresa May stood down from the contest, we were left with five candidates who have declared; it now seems unlikely any others will show before the ballot of MPs.

David Davies, 56
Shadow Home Secretary

Brought up in a council house by his unmarried mother, Davies attened Warwick University, prospered in business and became a part-timer member of the SAS. Appeals to the rightwing of the party with robust views on low tax, minimal regulation, reformed public services and a decentralized Europe. He is closely associated with euroscepticism and was a whip for the Maastricht rebels. Some say he retains some of the whip’s blend of charm and menace. A competent performer in the House, he seldom manages to raise the pulse rate of his audiences. Nevertheless had managed to attract the support of 66 MPs before the conference. Not a bad result given his alleged lack of charm and abrasive tongue. The Economist explains that his campaign at Westminster has been organized by tough minded whips or former whips- Derek Conway and Andrew Mitchell. But his speech lived down to expectations-‘dull and flat’ said The Economist- and was overshadowed by all the others. But it seems his performance in fringe meetings were no better. The Economist criticized his claim that public services in Switzerland and Sweden were better than UK despite being poorer countries. The journal pointed out that both countries have been richer over a 20 year period according to GNP performance. His policy angles are well suited to pushing rightwing buttons- tough on prisons, capital punishment, immigration, Europe and binge drinking- but, according to The Economist, he ‘failed to sound fresh on any’ and seemed lack lustre. Some argue the support is now draining away from Davis and there is time enough for his surefire chance in September to become a busted flush by late November.

David Cameron, 38
Shadow Education Secretary

Educated at Eton and Oxford, son of a stockbroker and married to a daughter of a baronet. Served as an aide in Number 10 and the Treasury before becoming an MP. Has placed himself at the head of the ‘modernizers’ and the comparisons with Blair have been plentiful. Likes to be known as ‘Dave’. He believes the party has to change drastically to have any chance of success. He favours lower taxes, good public services, elected police chiefs and stronger family relationships. Has a disabled son who has helped his interest in the education and care of such disabled people. Initially was seen as too young and inexperienced to command support but has leapt forward though his apparently natural way of speaking without notes and engaging with his audience. His address to the conference-without notes while walking around the stage Blair-style- was a tour de force which won a large number of plaudits and no doubt some converts among MPs as well as the public. A Guardian poll showed he was most favoured by floating voters as the parson to take on Brown: 50% compared with 43% for Davis and 41% for Clarke. He also was rated as ‘likeable’ by 65% (Clarke 38%, Davis 62%) and 54% thought he would appeal to younger voters(38% Clarke, 18% Davis). Person to take on Brown: 50% compared with 43% for Davis and 41% for Clarke. A US pollster, Frank Luntz, on BBC Newsnight 7th October reported his focus group had overwhelmingly picked Cameron out as the man most likely to win and election; they liked his optimistic approach to the future while Clarke had banged on about himself too much. Odds on Cameron have shortened drastically and some say the ‘force’ is now with him. But he is young and much more inexperienced than Blair was when about to become leader and, given the implosion of Hague, is something of a gamble for the party to take. Could he stand up to Blair and Brown at the Dispatch Box? Does he have the metal for the fight at the highest level?

Ken Clarke, 65

Educated Nottingham Grammar School and Oxford. Former Home, Health and Education secretaries plus Chancellor of Exchequer. Famously laid back with interests in jazz, cricket, football and birdwatching. Powerful debater who could take on Blair and Brown. Deputy chairman of British American Tobacco which wins him few admirers, especially when he took a trip ti Vietnam in 2001 when his supporters were trying to whip up enthusiasm for him as leader. Some say he is a bit too lazy to be leader though his record as a minister is impressive. At heart is probably something of a loner and lacks, as Dennis Healey did, a group of active acolytes in the House; maybe a prerequisite for an effective campaign among MPs. Has stood twice already and been rejected but argues he is still young and active enough to do the job. Has even hired a press officer for this campaign. His record as a pro euro pro EU person lost him the contest against IDS but he has since recanted a little on the euro which he argues is no longer a current political issue. Essentially a One Nation Tory-though made an impressive speech against the invasion of Iraq- with support from the old guard ‘Wets’ like Heseltine and Patten. His speech was a vintage, witty piece of brutal Labour bashing Clarkism but it was perhaps less impressive than that of his fellow left of centre rival, the more natural and optimistic Cameron.

Liam Fox, 44
Shadow Foreign Secretary

Educated St Bride’s High School and Glasgow University where he studied medicine and starred as a debater. Worked as GP before becoming an MP. Organized Howard’s leadership campaign. Openly rightwing candidate so competes with Davis on policy positions. Talks about ‘rolling back the intruder state’ and lowering taxes as well as establishing a new relationship with Europe where UK has more control over its own destiny. Spoke last in he ‘beauty contest at the conference but surprised everyone with a sparkling speech which won a spontaneous standing ovation. Some say he has picked up support from Davis-and his youth seems to make him the rising hope of the Tory right but must still be seen as an outsider in mid October. His relative youth is also a big asset as well as his one-time dalliance with pop star Natalie Imbruglia.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind, 59
Former Foreign Secretary.

Educated George watson’s School and Edinburgh University where hen studied law. Later studied politics at postgraduate level on politics of Zimbabwe. Trained as barrister and made QC in 1985. Lost seat in 1997n and outside House until 2005, thoughn worked hard to stay in touch with leadership throughout this time. Always ambitious he points out he is much younger than Clarke and only a little older than Davis but he has the appearance and manner of an older person which must count against him. His speech at the conference was first up and he managed to make a good, witty no notes performance but his chances of winning must be slim. He claims he is the ‘lifeboat alongside David Davis’s ocean liner waiting for those who were unimpressed with Davis’s performance.

Concluding Comment

Perhaps the Davis bandwagon was fatally stalled at Blackpool. The party is still looking for that bit of magic to transform its fortunes like Blair did for Labour. Davis is a trusted figure- tough, reasonably sympathetic and comfortably rightwing on all the major issues. But the party knows quite a bit about David Davis and some have reached the conclusion he lacks that magic ingredient. Meanwhile, someone about whom they know a little- David Cameron- has sprinkled just enough stardust to make a growing number think he just might have the Midas political touch which the Tories so desperately need. For those who favour form horses, the Daily Telegraph, which has backed the last three leaders, has yet to make its choice.

But there are still some important uncommitted MPs to be courted including Shadow spokespeople John Redwood, Caroline Spelman and Theresa May. In addition there is the 25 strong ‘Cornerstone’ group (dubbed by wags the ‘Tombstone’ group) associated with the right-winger Edward Leigh. They are said to be leaning towards Liam Fox but they could prove to be less than a block vote once the hustings (e.g. in front of the 1922 Committee) scheduled for this week-10-14th October take place. If Cameron does win a question for Labour will arise: should they elect, as Blair’s successor, a man 20 years older than the Tory leader?

Bookies’ odds

These vary enormously:
1.Read-a bet (online) Davis….4-9; Clarke 3-1; Fox…. 7-1; Cameron…. 14-1; Rifkind….50-1.
2.Coral: Davis 10-11; Cameron 11-4; Clarke 10-3; Fox… 14-1; Rifkind…. 80-1.
3. Bet fair: Cameron 1.38-1; Davis 2.1-1; Clarke 6-1; Fox 12-1.
Clearly Davis remains the favourite with many bookies but Cameron is moving up fast as a possible new favourite. Davis was warned favourites seldom win so Cameron has a similar fear that he might have ‘peaked’ too early. There is a long way to go before 6th December.

Bill Jones 8/10/05

Aim of this Blog

The aim of this blog - a companion to my other blog Skipper - is to display the handouts I use for my two hour current affairs classes which I do usually in the autumn. So the first one deals with the conservative party leadership race.

I run a blog called Skipper59 and this is a kind of companion to it to display the handout material I prepare for my various current affairs classes. The handouts are quite long usually-they form the basis of a two hour discussion sessions - while my postings for Skipper are mostly shorter and more concise.