The abolition of the 10p rate has been a real thorn in the side of the Government for weeks. What amazes me is the apparent lack of preparation - the Government must have anticipated the opposition it would face once the impact on low-earners became apparent. The Treasury presumably did its sums and realised that 5.3 million of the countryʼs poorest people would be worse off and that a backlash would be the likely result.

Thatʼs why Iʼm astonished at the remarks made by Mr Brown in the days leading up to his (entirely predictable) climbdown. He spectacularly failed to read the mood of the public, the media and his own backbenchers. It quickly became quite obvious that he would have to make concessions, yet time and time again he was said that there would be no concessions, no U-turn. By adapting such an entrenched position on this issue, he set himself up for a fall.

And when youʼre up to your neck in bad PR - as Brown certainly is at the moment - itʼs best to take steps to ensure that a line can be drawn under the episode. Fiddling round the edges of a problem stores up trouble for the longer term. So, as Brown admits that not all losers from the abolition of the 10p rate will benefit from a compensation package, Iʼm sure his communications team will be hoping that the numbers who continue to lose out wonʼt amount to hundreds of thousands - because if so, the Government will face a double-whammy of bad publicity as the media re-visits this episode in great detail to provide context for the next installment.

The anti-terror debate is bubbling up again. The idea of holding people for 42 days without charge makes me very uneasy, as have many of the moves made in the name of counter-terrorism. It’s easy to give up rights without thinking too much about it; it’s quite another matter to try to get them back.

For me, it comes down to trust. I don’t trust the system to get it right often enough. The track record simply isn’t good enough. There have been many occasions where other counter-terrorism laws have been used inappropriately - against Walter Wolfgang, the 82 year old who heckled Jack Straw at a Labour Party Conference, being just one ridiculous example that springs to mind.

As a society, we’re becoming increasingly risk-adverse; perhaps the Government is just desperately trying to thwart each and every situation that could lead to a pile of body bags but it will never be able to protect us to that extent.   It doesn't matter how many liberties we give up in the name of so-called security.  As the IRA said after the Brighton Hotel bombing, they only have to be lucky once, whereas security forces have to be lucky always. 

Well, we’re not going to be lucky always, and on that basis, I’m not happy about the gradual erosion of my civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism measures.