THE House Commons vote on powers to detain terrorist suspects for up to 42 days without charge was an unedifying abuse of Parliament. It was not, as some have sought to characterise it, a shining example of our elected representatives doing their job and debating seriously a measure which affects national security, and therefore the lives of every individual, against an issue which goes to the heart of the very liberties which are supposed to be protected.

Neither the Prime Minister nor the Home Secretary have made a convincing case that the measure is necessary and by the time Gordon Brown was finished making private concessions to buy off the rebels, the proposed legislation had been emasculated and rendered meaningless: it had to be so in order to coerce principled opponents into the Government lobbies. By the time of the vote, the proposal had become exactly what it had promised to be throughout Mr Brown’s tortuous campaign to push it onto the statute book, a totemic political virility symbol having nothing to do with protecting the British people and, in its symbolism, threatening to place them in greater danger.

In making the issue a test of his personal authority, and persisting against the most expert and reasoned advice, Mr Brown allowed the stakes to be raised to the limit. Blairite plotters – rumoured at Westminster to have begun collecting a leadership campaign war chest – were already prepared to pounce. For Mr Brown, there was no way out, even if it meant Parliament was forced to debate what in practice was a piece of legislation that could only be passed on the virtual guarantee that it would never, ever be used. Yet for this useless political charade the principle of habeas corpus, which has served for most exigencies for more than 400 years as a cornerstone of liberty, was to be tossed aside. That is why many of those MPs who switched to support the Government are searching their consciences in regret. They, too, were in a trap. For the sake of what they had decided was a meaningless symbol they calculated that they might secure the authority and continuation of a Prime Minister who, while not exactly what they would prefer in terms of policy direction might yet be more persuadable than any alternative that might emerge from a consequent leadership contest. They, Parliament and liberty were hostages in a game that had more to do with the future of one man than the security of a nation.

Tribune has been clear on its opposition to this measure and remains so. The liberty of our citizens is more important than the authority of a Prime Minister. Mr Brown had only himself to blame for putting the two at odds. He, and the country, are weakened, not strengthened, as a result.

* * *
MICHAEL FOOT records in his definitive biography of Aneurin Bevan that “Bevan versus the BMA” fitted neatly into the headlines when the great Minister of Health was trying to get the doctors onside for the founding of the National Health Service. Sixty years on, as Nye Bevan’s successor Alan Johnson said this week, there are now echoes of the old alliance between the British Medical Association and the Conservative Party, this time over plans for a shake-up in the primary care service delivered by general practitioners.

The much-respected King’s Fund has been cited in the case against the creation of “polyclinics”. That represents just one example of where the facts are being misconstrued to fit the doctors’ purpose. While the King’s Fund has detailed concerns about the universal applicability of  the Government proposals, it specifically does not oppose polyclinics in principle.

Polyclinics are only destined for London and, as Mr Johnson himself points out opposite, it is simply scaremongering to suggest that existing GP surgeries will be forced to close. The refusal of doctors to become fully part of the NHS has meant GP services have not been spread to where they are need most. The Government’s plans are about improving access to care and services for patients. The BMA’s opposition is about protecting a closed shop and restrictive practices. Doctors are one of the nation’s greatest and most vital assets. Their place is inside the NHS rather than semi-detached businesses.