Every other anti terrorism bill has become law so it is tempting to be realistic". Maybe if there was a sunset clause we wouldn't have to live with it so long. The trouble is that the only real way to oppose it it is to say quite clearly that this is a violation of our unwritten constitution, it violates principles of justice for a whole host of reasons. It is the crossing of the Rubicon. It is unthinkable to allow it to become law.
But if it goes thru, then in six months time it will be renewed. How can opponents say that this bill is the unthinkable when it has already been on the stature book for six months or so.
So this begs the question, why did Blair reject the Conservative proposal for a sunset clause? The main purpose of this bill is get the Tories. If Blair really thought this bill was needed he wouldn't risk it's defeat in this way. He has exposed himself as an opportunist of the worst kind but he knows his enemy rather well. This bill has put the Tories into headless chicken mode so it is them not Blair who, quite unfairly, are looking like the opportunists.