I’m a Newcastle United fan. Last season we went on a run of 13 games without a win. Thirteen games! There are only 38 in a season!
Needless to say, I was mightily relieved when we finally won one. It had got the point where I was happy to take any win, at any price, just to experience that relief.
So I know how Gordon Brown feels this morning. Because yesterday he scraped a win — on the back of nine votes from Democratic Unionists. The proposal to increase pre-charge detention for terror suspects to 42 days has passed the Commons.
It has still has to go to the Lords, of course. The second chamber is reportedly hostile to the Bill. The likelihood is it will send it back, with a raft of amendments.
Not that Brown will care. Because, despite how he wanted it to appear, this farce of a debate had nothing to do national security. No, this was all about making Gordon look big.
Several polls have shown that the country as a whole is behind the proposals. This is understandable. Most Britons don’t expect they’ll be affected by these particular proposals, so why should they really care? This is a mistake, as I’ll explain in a moment.
But to Brown, this popular support is political paydirt. And if the Lords try to block the Bill, it will give Brown another chance to posture.
"Look at me!" he’ll cry. "I’m standing up for the will of the people. But those nasty Lords are trying to stop me. They must be as weak on terrorism as David Cameron. For only I, G. Brown, possess the necessary big and hairies to protect you all. Vote for me! Please don’t destroy my career at the next election."
Yes, I’m being cynical. I’m deliberately couching this important subject purely in terms of what it means for Brown. Because that is exactly how the Government has played it.
This should have been a free vote. Instead, it became a party political issue. Labour bribed, bullied and arm-twisted its way to a nine-vote victory. Just so Gordon could look hard.
Look at the dirty backroom deals that were made. The Government made concessions on everything from Northern Ireland water rates to agreeing to lobby on behalf of Cuba.
These things have nothing to do with terrorism. They reveal just how desperate Labour was to win this one. And it’s a real shame they did. Because — to mix no less than three metaphors — this could turn out to be the thin end of a slippery iceberg...
During the 20th century, leaders of socialist countries promised their people greater economic prosperity. This, they promised, would be delivered by means of a central plan.
However, in order for the plan to work, everyone would have to do as they were told. Free enterprise wasn’t an option — it would get in the way of the plan.
There were, of course, dissenters. But the majority went along with it, at least at first. They agreed to give up some of their liberty (and then a bit more, and then a bit more...) in order to share in the benefits the plan would deliver.
But there was a problem. The plans of the central planners didn’t work. Socialism failed, and the world is a better place without it.
Yesterday, the British Parliament voted to give away a little more of our liberty. But what are we getting in return? Labour leaders would say increased security. But the case they’ve presented is not strong.
The state already has a considerable arsenal of powers with which to fight terrorism. Extending the maximum pre-charge detention period from 28 days to 42 days will have a marginal benefit — if indeed it delivers any benefit at all.
But the Law of Unintended Consequences teaches us that, where the benefit of change is slight, it is often better to stay as we are. The unforeseen costs may leave us worse-off in the long run.
Of course, that’s not the politicians’ way. Those in power like nothing more than to meddle. For an example, read today’s Penny Sleuth, in which Tom Bulford reports on how Labour is wasting £7 million trying to make people go for a walk (I’m serious!)
The Government has put a lot of effort into making the case for increasing its own powers. I doubt the same resources have gone into analysing the potential downsides. What risk is there that more Muslims will be radicalised? How will this impact on our safety? What about the potential for terror laws to be used for non-terror purposes, as has happened with existing powers?
These risks are difficult to quantify. But they are very, very real. If we’re going to run them, it has to be worth our while. But just as socialist planners couldn’t protect all citizens from economic woes, the state cannot completely protect us from terrorism.
"So what’s the solution?" some people ask. To which I would answer: Why do you suppose there is a neat, perfect "solution"? Clever men in clever suits, riding shiny black cars and holding red boxes — they don’t have all the answers. They only pretend they do.
"But I’m not really bothered — this won’t affect me. Bring it on!"
This is another line taken by some in favour of the extension. But they’re missing the wider implications of this. I could say the same about most EU regulations that get imposed on us without our say so. They don’t affect me, so why should I be bothered.
But I am bothered. Because I realise the next one might affect me.
The Government has not made a strong enough case for the 42-day extension. Its guarantees and safeguards are meaningless — and I don’t trust it to stick to them anyway. If we can lose even a little bit of our liberty on such a flimsy premise, I worry about where we might go next.
I’m proud to call myself British. Our values and freedoms are a big reason why. We shouldn’t sacrifice them for vague promises of protection from an ill-defined threat — promises that no government could possibly guarantee to fulfil.
Abu Dhabi buys the Chrysler Building
"The world’s money machine is slowing down," writes Bill Bonner in today’s Daily Reckoning (see below). "When Americans cut back, they export fewer dollars abroad. You’ll remember how the global financial system works, dear reader. The US emits dollars. Other central banks have to buy up the dollars, by emitting their own currencies. The effect is a global tide of paper money — none of it backed by anything other than faith — which has caused bubbles in dot.coms, housing, finance, and most recently, in commodities. It has also left huge piles of dollars in the exporting countries. By some estimates, this money, invested through sovereign wealth funds, has held up the US stock market for the last 6 months."
But it’s not just stocks that the sovereign wealth funds are buying. Today brings news that an Abu Dhabi fund is to buy New York’s iconic Chrysler Building.
"It’s yet another example of how America’s getting poorer while the east is getting richer," says Manraaj Singh.
In today’s free edition of Profit Hunter, Manraaj takes a look at how the Chrysler Building went from Art Deco record-breaker to petrodollar trophy property.
He also takes a look at the wider trend this purchase represents.
Discover how, by tracking the big money moves Manraaj is looking at, you could boost the performance of your stock portfolio in the next few months.
New investment recommendation — Profit from China’s construction boom
China’s expanding at breakneck speed. As our commodities man Garry White reported last week, the Chinese plan to build the equivalent of 10 New Yorks over the next few years.
We got Garry to take a look — and he’s uncovered an exciting way you can invest in this phenomenon.
At present, China has to pay a fortune to transport iron ore from Australia and Brazil. The mining company Garry’s found offers a solution to the problem — because it’s right next door to China’s border. It will slash the cost of iron ore for China.
This is a new mine. It hasn’t started production yet — but it will. This month.
Garry will be recommending this share next week. But he’s agreed to let Fleet Street Daily readers have a sneak preview HERE.
Until tomorrow
Ben Traynor
