Politicians rarely fail to disappoint. As the British public absorbs ever more compelling evidence of the deadly danger posed by Islamic terror groups in this country, we might hope that government and opposition would come together to shape the best policies to secure our protection. On the contrary, the terror issue has become entirely partisan.
Tony Blair has for a long time implied that his Conservative opponents are soft on terror if they do not accept whatever loss of civil liberties he deems necessary. With messianic intolerance he dismisses those who argue that the state should bring foreign terror suspects to trial rather than hold them indefinitely without charge. He claims that the police need new powers to hold newly arrested persons for up to 90 days and implies that those who disagree will be responsible for future carnage.
Now John Reid, the home secretary, and Gordon Brown, the chancellor, trip over each other to claim before the cameras the role of anti-terror supremo. Reid disparages those who oppose the hopelessly one-sided extradition treaty with the United States signed by David Blunkett, his predecessor. Brown assures us that as prime minister he would take personal responsibility for national security and sneers that the Tories do not understand the danger we face. Last weekend the two ministers competed with David Cameron, the Tory leader, for space in the Sunday papers where each set out his anti-terror credentials.
With Labour trailing the Conservatives in the polls and with both parties camped on the middle ground, the government has decided that terror offers the best chance to open up clear water. The Conservative leader continues bravely to argue that identity cards are an expensive distraction from the real task of tracing plotters. Ministers think that Cameron’s youth and apparent naivety will lead voters to stick with the bruisers they know. Debating last week’s Queen’s speech, Blair used the simile of a heavyweight boxer felling the flyweight Cameron. Brown assumed that it referred to him but the image fits Reid just as well.
Cameron must do two things that appear contradictory. He needs to be smiley about the future, because the Tories have too long looked as though they hate the modern world, yet must appear convincingly severe about the terror threat. His promises of sunshine and love, designed to improve the Tories’ image, do not help to convince voters that he is a person of substance. Cameron models his every move on what Blair did a decade ago. But in those days Britain had no suicide bombers and there was no downside to Blair’s puppyish enthusiasm.
Labour may be right that it can gain electoral advantage from public fear of terror. But people see through politicians. They know that the government is making party politics out of their anxiety. So they will be sceptical about what they are told. They remember that Blair manipulated intelligence to make his case for invading Iraq. As the police inquiry into cash for peerages gathers momentum, people expect Blair to try to distract attention.
At a time when we need to trust our government, we do not. When the government needs full public vigilance to help to thwart terror plots, its warnings are viewed with suspicion.
Governments always feel that the opposition parties are naive. Senior ministers read intelligence reports while opposition politicians usually do not. The excitement of spookery goes to ministers’ heads. They are given partial access to a fascinating empire of secrets that most people experience only through fiction. What ministers see may be little more than a glimpse of the intelligence picture. The extent to which they can challenge it is limited. But even a glimpse of that other world is one of the highest rewards of senior ministerial office.
Even so, the Queen’s speech revealed that the government is in a quandary. There were plenty of words about security and terror but no commitment to measures. Although Blair argued earlier this year that it was essential to allow the police 90 days to hold suspects before deciding on charges, Reid’s position now seems to be that he is awaiting evidence on the point. Lord Carlile, the “independent reviewer” of anti-terrorism legislation, is also waiting to see. It is just as well, then, that parliament denied Blair the power when he first sought it.
Police operations are not the only consideration. The possible benefit of new legislation has to be weighed against its impact on Muslim opinion. A law that helps extremists to pose as victims may be counterproductive.
Even if you support the extension from 28 days, it is hard to argue that the change would be a breakthrough in fighting terror. More revealing is that Reid is conducting a review of anti-terror policies. The home secretary is a shameless populist but also an intellectual. More than his three predecessors Jack Straw, Blunkett and Charles Clarke he has spotted that the government’s approach lacks coherence. A series of measures produced more or less hysterically over recent years does not amount to a strategy.
Reid might just produce one. He is interested in organisation and government process, whereas Blair has never paid enough attention to either. Thwarting terror conspiracies is likely to depend more on good leadership of the agencies and co-operation than on how long we detain suspects.
Britain has been slow to respond organisationally to the threat we face. For example, during the 1990s when I was defence secretary, the Saudi Arabians were unhappy about dissidents operating against them from London. Our response was unhelpful. Britain had a tradition of free speech and those involved were committing no crime in the UK, we believed.
Omar Nasiri, a spy employed by the French and British against radical groups, has told this newspaper how in the 1990s the information that he supplied was not acted on effectively. He suggests that UK intelligence was interested in evidence of conspiracy only if the attack was planned in Britain. The French authorities despaired of convincing the British to take Islamic extremism seriously while bombs went off on the Paris Métro.
Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of MI5, confessed that her service is monitoring a larger number of plots than it can manage. She revealed that just 6% of her agents are from ethnic minorities, a small percentage given how many years we have been aware of the need to penetrate extremist cells. Let us hope that she is joining up the anti-terror work. When I was in parliament different organisations were responsible for its internal and external security.
Brown’s sudden interest in terror may be triggered by a fear that he will be blamed for years of underfunding the security services. Cameron will not stand idly by as he is accused of being incompetent to manage the nation’s security. An article in The Spectator accuses the government of presiding over chaos in the intelligence agencies brought about by its own indecisiveness. It sounds as though some on the inside are happy to supply the opposition with ammunition.
Manningham-Buller left us in little doubt that we can expect further terrorist slaughter. After such events we usually see our politicians at their most dignified and statesmanlike. But now the signs are that such tragedy will be ruthlessly exploited for party and personal advantage. The government will drag out the Conservatives’ voting record on its authoritarian proposals and the Tories will counter with accusations of muddle. Brown and Reid will fight each other for airtime.
It will be sickening but to expect any better really would be naive.
