Preserving Our Way of Life

Never let it be said that New New Labour fails to learn the lessons of the past. While nobody much has been made to suffer for the invasion of Iraq, the peccadilloes of British soldiers or the shoot-to-protect tactics of the Metropolitan Police, even the Home Office recognises that a certain amount of extra public relations effort may be necessary before the obstinate British public can resign itself to yet another round of the war on democracy. "We are committed to better explaining existing policies, such as the UK's foreign policy, refuting claims made about them in the language of violent extremists," blathers a paper on what is tactfully referred to as a "strategy to prevent people becoming or supporting violent extremists" - the kind of people who think bombing civilians at random will make a society thrive, for instance. Well, explanation is always a good thing, of course. If only the Vicar of Downing Street had devoted more time and effort to explaining himself, the Glorious Successor might not now be facing such bad news in the polls. We must hope against hope that he can unbend sufficiently to employ a press officer or two, just to make sure there are no more misunderstandings.

Meanwhile, just in case any trigger fingers get itchy, the Government plans to introduce new measures, so as to avoid the inconvenience of jury trials where anyone important is involved. The latest counter-terrorism bill will permit the Minister of Unfitness for Purpose to withhold evidence in the interests of "national security or the UK's relationship with another country or 'otherwise in the public interest'". As we are all well aware, there are a whole raft of possible events which are, by definition, not in the public interest: revelations of criminal activity by the police or army, for instance, or anything that might cause undue embarrassment to a minister of state. Accordingly, the latest counter-terrorism bill does not concern itself with such pedantic details as actually restricting its provisions to cases where terrorism is involved, but simply liberalises the legal framework by permitting secret inquests by government-vetted coroners and lawyers, just to make sure there are no more misunderstandings.