Aborted

It irritates me that party politics is no longer based on party specific principles. All Michael Howard ever seems to do is disagree with Tony Blair for the sake of disagreeing, and when a debate arises on which both parties should agree, or at least discuss constructively, he still attempts to pull the carpet out from underneath the Labour party. It's actually quite childish, and in my opinion suggests that Michael Howard would be a weak, indecisive and generally ineffective Prime Minister. Tony Blair is by no means a tyrant, and Britain has seen a lot of improvements under Labour so I think it would be wrong to dismiss his abilities as a PM based on a few (admittedly large) errors of judgement.

However, in this instance I agree that the sunset clause was a good idea. I'm glad that legislation is being passed to help combat terrorism, regardless of whether the threat is as real as the government says or as non existant as some of the papers claim, simply because in my eyes proactivity is not a bad thing. I'm a standard citizen with as much idea of what's going on in the world as anybody else, and I like to feel that my government is doing their best to ensure my safety. Protests that this legislation will legalise the plucking of innocent people from the streets and holding them without trial are all very well, but in reality will this actually happen to any more people than it did before?

Similarly, I'm slightly unnerved by the inability of some people to trust the investigative skills of their own police force. If someone is suspected of involvement in terrorism by those entrusted with the protection of the British population, then that should be enough for people to accept. It just seems too easy to see corruption or ulterior motives when neither necessarily exist.

I'm not dismissing the flaws of this legislation, nor am I by any means suggesting the British government is perfect (however much I'd like to), but those are my two pence.