Luke Akehurst - "firmly on the moderate wing of the (Labour) party"

Luke Akehurst had an idea and as Luke writes a blog described as:

"A blog by Luke Akehurst about politics, elections, the Labour Party and Hackney - With subtitles for the Hard of Left. Just for the record: all the views expressed here are entirely personal and do not necessarily represent the positions of any organisations I am a member of."

and as Luke is:

"Labour Party activist since 1988 - firmly on the moderate wing of the party. National Secretary of Labour Students 1995-6. Parliamentary candidate for Aldershot (2001) and Castle Point (2005). Hackney Councillor (Chatham Ward) and Labour Group Chief Whip since 2002. Supporter of Europe, NATO/nuclear deterrence, Israel, electoral reform. Guardian reader. Dad. Stoke Newington resident. Amicus union member. Employment history as a Labour Party Organiser, Local Government Political Assistant, Public Affairs consultant (specialising in advising defence and aerospace companies)."

I think he thinks we should all take notice...

Luke Akehurst's idea was:

"Maybe instead of Labour fielding a candidate in Haltemprice & Howden we should find a Martin Bell type candidate - preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following 5 word candidate description: "Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects".

I'm fed up with us playing softball with the Tories while they posture and pontificate on this issue. If they want to play liberal they should pay the full political price for it and be eviscerated at the polls for being soft on national security. We should have their stance on this issue on every single poster and leaflet at the next General Election and then see how Davis and his mates feel about a referendum on this issue."

Let's see how some of Luke's readers responded:

"Anonymous said...

Luke, I think you've lost it. Tories are 'soft' for not supporting internment, eh? Every bone in the Labour Party's body must tell it that 42 days was a cheap political stunt with nothing to do with national security.


Merseymike said...

How about the BNP? I am sure they will take that stance and they have a lot in common with the workerist right of the Labour party.

I'm a bit sceptical about the motive, but this is an excellent opportunity to argue exactly why this sort of legislation is such a fundamental threat to liberty. I would certainly vote for David Davis in this instance.

Anonymous said...

you've already used terrorism as a political game, why bother pretending otherwise. 90 days, 52, 42, doesn't matter as long as we look harder than anyone else.

What next? Water boarding? Death penalty? I thought we had a Labour govt. The argument elsewhere here today that the public are onside was as weak as it gets. Most would bring back the death penalty etc etc, but I don't hear contributors here arguing for that. A matter of time I guess, esp if it makes Labour look well hard against their political opponents.


E10 Rifle said...

What a revoltingly cynical idea Luke - playing politics with tragedy indeed. I tell you what: I'll get the family friend of ours whose badly disfigured face (from the Edgware Rd bombing) was used on the front of The Sun to whip up support for a previous anti-terror law vote - even though he DIDN'T support the government's proposals - to stand instead.

Christ, have you any idea how cheap and desperate your politics sound?


Robert said...

If the labour government is too chicken to even stand up and argue their case then they don't deserve to stay in power one minute longer.

Asking a victim of a terror attack to do their work for them is the sickest comment I have read in years.

Shame on you"

Those are just some of the early responses, believe me I could go on and on; do go and read the rest, there is a lot of anger out there and its directed at this increasingly totalitarian government. The most interesting response came from Rachel from North London, a fellow blogger who is on my blogroll and who is a survivor of the 7/7 bombings; she posted thus:

"As a 'victim of a terrorist attack', I spit at your repellent idea.

And if I was standing on a political platform I'd be standing right behind Davis.

I've met him, I back him, even though he is a Tory.

He stands up for freedom against fearmongering.

That's my own personal opinion, because, guess what, getting blown up on the way to work on 7.7 didn't affect my ability to think rationally,have opinions and care about freedom and democracy. If anything, it mademe even keener on preserving the freedoms that lunatics seem keen to destroy.

As to the other passengers on my train, and their families, they have their own opinions about politics, much as the passengers on any train do.

Al Qaida do explosions, not mass personality transplants

and terrorist 'victims' are actually just people like anyone else you know.

*rolls eyes*

Sheesh, you patronising muppet."

Fearless Luke posts some comments in his own blog, trying to justify his position and Rachel replies:

"What was particularly tiresome was that Nick Robinson actually parrotted this 'why not get a senior copper or terror victim' last night on the news!

I have voted for Labour most of my life but I am absolutely sick of the politics of fear, the selling of our liberty down the river, the sending kids to an illegal war under-equipped and underpaid, and the sheer monomaniacal arrogance and mendaciousness of the New Labour project."

and then Rachel posts again:

"Luke, I am not a conservative. I have always voted LABOUR. I can't do so any more because they are shredding ancient freedoms and engaging in fear-mongering.

I expect terrorists to attack our freedoms and our democracy by using fear and terror to hurt us. I was right there, seven feet away from a 19 year old suicide bomber in my carriage on 7/7 and lucky to escape with my life when he killed 26 fellow passengers.

I object vehemently to your assumption that victims of terrorism can be waved about to us as a bloodied figleaf to cover up a naked desire to be seen to be tough on terror for entirely politcal purposes, I object to being used as a political football, and if 'for the victims' is going to be invoked for this kind of liberty-trashing fearmongering, then this 'victim' (hate that word)is going to shout right back that those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

It is what I said in the Sunday Times and the Guardian when it was 50+ days being mooted

and I will go on saying it.

Please don't assume being blown up makes everyone agree with the Sun."

Finally big brave Luke is shamed into replying to Rachel's posts:

"I think Rachel's position just goes to show that experiencing something first hand doesn't necessarily lead you to come to the right conclusions about how to deal with it.

I disagree with her stance but at least it's more sincerely held than that of most Tory MPs who just saw this issue as a cheap chance to inflict a defeat on Gordon Brown.

I simply do not understand why the "civil liberties" of people suspected of terrorism would be considered of more value than the civil liberty of the rest of us to go about our lives safely.

The "limits of the role of the state" have been mentioned. I am more interested in the duty of the state to protect its citizens."

Does Mr Akehurst really think that only he and Gordon Brown knows what is the right conclusion regarding restricting civil liberties? Worryingly I think he does.

Rachel comes right back at him:

"Luke, my balanced, non-emotional, rational, non political position was formed after spending 3 years talking to people on the front line of terrorism.

This includes 3 Home Secretaries, numerous police officers, ex senior police officers, security service and ex security service officers, journalists, ex jihadis, prisoners, distingushed commentators and thinkers, families, survivors, soldiers and terrorism experts from Europe and the US and UK and lawyers, religious leaders, ordinary Muslims, academics, ex diplomats, politicans of all 3 main parties including Mr Davis and Mr Clegg, and the Home Affairs Committee.

I listened and learned from them all. Not all of them agree with the position I eventually took. Many, many do. I came into this with an open mind, as an ordinary person. I put aside my fear and my anger about terrorists and what they do, and of course I understand why people are afraid of terrorists. But I choose to try live in a way that demonstrates I prize freedom over fear. I will not live in a way that is terrorised and terrified; I will not do the terrorist's job for him.


Your stance appears to be driven by knee jerk tribal party politics, or perhaps by fear of terrorists. I think cherishing life and liberty is more important than politics and fearfulness.

My position is practical, not idealistic.

I explained in my two articles, in the Sunday Times and the Guardian for example, that M16 have for the last decade battled international weapons and drugs cartels with witnesses in different continents, speaking different languages, evidence cached on hundreds of computers, their own legal and security muscle and frequently the assistance of corrupt officials. yet they not have and have not asked for 42 days.

The DPP does not think it is needed, not the ex Attourney General, nor many others whose job it is to protect us and prosecute those who mean us harm.

Our best intelligence comes from co-operative communities and a public who trust the police and judiciary to do their job.

But you know this.

I would respect your decision more if you could explain why I, after all this time and energy bothering to work through all this, am still 'wrong' to cherish liberties and freedoms that protect us, that we have valued for 1000 years, and why a mess of a law whipped through for political purposes which there is no present need for, is 'right' - yet not so right that Labour can find one man or woman to stand for it and put it to the people to vote on."

Rachel continues then to comment on one of Luke's comments (in italics):

"I simply do not understand why the "civil liberties" of people suspected of terrorism would be considered of more value than the civil liberty of the rest of us to go about our lives safely.

Do you understand the concept of fair trials? Innocent until proven guilty? Do you understand that even if a man has previous convictions, he still has the right to a fair trial and a robust defence? You can't start deciding whose liberties are worth defending and whose aren't.

This is getting very Brass Eye Paedophiles now. Terrorists do not have different DNA to the rest of us. Terrorist suspects are just that - men or women suspected of offences under the terrorism act. Look at how the terrorism legislation has been applied to pensioners, protesters, students, clerics, poets and pranksters and think about what you are setting in place.

Once a terrorist has been found guilty of plotting murder and mayhem after a fair trial by a jury opf their peers, then I'll be cheering as he is led away to spend a long time behind bars.

This is not about being soft on terrorism. It is about being tough about standing up for the things terrorists attack. Democracy. Freedom. The right to walk about without fear.

People have died to protect our freedoms. You should think on what you throw away so lightly."

Luke Akehurst unfortunately seems to be one of the new breed of cynical, authoritarian, Labour apparatchiks. Their overriding concern appears to be to stay in power and to denigrate the opposition. The 42 day debate should have been a serious debate about the actual need for introducing 42 days detention without charge, instead it became a "with me or against me" type vote with extra hand twisting, promises to pressure group associated MPs and possibly monetary inducements. The whole affair stinks.


Now before Mr Akehurst accuses me of being soft on terrorism, I think I should say where I stand. One of my friends lost his wife in the 7/7 attacks, she died on one of the trains and we all lived with the pain of waiting weeks until his wife's body was identified. If someone is guilty of terrorist activity or even of planning terrorist activity then I would put them away for life, I'd even support the death penalty for the scum who kill innocent people in the furtherance of their murderous aims. However, that is for people found guilty of such charges.

If we could be 100% sure that this law would only be used against people seriously believed to be guilty of preparing a terrorist attack I might possibly be persuadable BUT you and I should both know that this law will also be used against striking petrol delivery drivers, people who protest about the Iraq war etc. etc. etc. Remember the local councils who are using "anti terrorist" surveillance laws to snoop on those parents who are suspected of living outside their child’s school catchment area or who are not recycling enthusiastically enough. It's called mission creep and it's what happens when you have a government more interested in social control and having power rather than democratic rights.


Thanks to Chicken Yoghurt for the spot.