Another email from Charles Clarke, arriving nice and late in the day. Amongst the self-justifying pretence at compromise there was this:

I would like to apologise for the questionnaire which was attached to the message that I sent out to party supporters on Friday. It was not intended to gauge public opinion but to start a political debate around the proposals currently being debated in Parliament. Many people have raised with me perfectly valid concerns about how the questions were drafted. I can only say that I share those concerns and give my assurance that questions of this type will not used in the future.

Does that really need pulling to pieces? A political debate. Is that debate in the sense of “to engage in argument by discussing opposing points” or “to engage in a formal discussion or argument” with the email’s recipients? I notice he doesn’t say he’s going to share the survey’s findings in the spirit of this debate.

I can only say that I share those concerns. Then why did he put his name to it? Or not at least glance at what had been written and was being emailed out in his name.

So far, so “we’ve been caught treating the public like dickheads again. Next time, we’ll be much, much subtler”. Ninety days’ detention is still apparently non-negotiable (unless they have to haggle down to Janet Anderson’s 60 day fallback position). Some of the “concessions” Clarkie proposes are also worth a closer look.

a) Further safeguards for the process itself, including that a full High Court judge has to agree an extension of detention every seven days and will have greater flexibility, and that a code of practice, similar to the codes under PACE, will govern the treatment of those held under this Act.

Are these High Court judges, providing the judicial oversight, going to be of the calibre of Lord Hutton - who also happened to be a Diplock Judge? How is the code of practice to be enforced and where is the redress for a detainee who feels he has been mistreated? Will there be an independent ombudsman?

b) Around the application and definition of the offence, including clearer definitions of incitement, narrow application of the law extra-territoriality and a review into the definition of terrorism, to be conducted within a year by Lord Carlile.

In fairness, that sounds pretty reasonable although what if Carlile comes back in a year with a tightened definition of terrorism and some of the guys who’ve been banged up don’t fit the criteria?

c) A sunset clause with the 90-day power which provides that these powers will lapse after one year unless renewed by both Houses of Parliament.

Like the screws aren’t going to be turned again to renew the bill when the mooted sunset clause lapses. Or is Charlie proposing to eradicate terror in 12 months just as he’s promised to have “eliminated anti-social behaviour” by the next election.

The idea of judicial oversight has been kicked around for a while now. The mess surrounding the inquiry into the de Menezes shooting doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in police accountability, particularly as one of those shouting loudest for these new powers also tried to stymie the investigation. Will national security considerations get in the way again if some of Sir Ian Blair’s lads decide to give a detainee a dose of the Gerry Conlons?

The sunset clause is new, but as I said, how much of a carrot is that to sceptics who’ll have to face down the whips again this time next year? In all, a half-hearted attempt to win over doubters. I suspect the Government think they’re going to get beaten on the 90 days. I doubt this effort kept Charlie away from his dinner for long, if at all.

UPDATE: Ha ha! The offending questionnaire has been airbrushed from the New Labour website which is now as clean as Stalin’s holiday snaps. Fortunately, Google’s cache hasn’t caught up yet for those who haven’t seen Charlie’s finest hour.