Harry’s Place

I am opposed to the 42 days because I can’t recall anyone bothering to lay out a convincing case along the straight-forward lines of: “We need this because firstly A, secondly B and thirdly, and most importantly, C.”

Well, you should resign from this blog and force a by election.

Is the idea that he wins a landslide against the Labour candidate?

But… that wouldn’t really prove anything though, would it? I mean, he already has a majority of 5,000, over the Lib Dems. Who won’t be standing.

What is going on?

Seems like a huge hissy fit to me

If that is it, what a sad man! What an utter waste of time that would be.

We must be missing something. Surely even a Tory couldn’t be this stupid?

maybe he thinks that the debate against 42 days wasn’t made sufficiently clearly by the people who opposed it in parliament - ie he wanted to go further against it than Cameron would allow him. All the whispers indicate that he was being told that his claim that the tories would repeal the law if they got into power were off-message.

the by-election means he can keep the issue in the spotlight and potentially embarrass both Cameron and Brown. the public might apparently back the 42 day thing but he may be staking his career on the idea that the debate against it wasn’t focused correctly.

seeing as it’s a safe Tory seat I’m still not sure of the overall point. Much better to have just resigned or possibly defected…

The only reason I can think of is that Cameron and co were briefing that Davis had fucked up the opposition to the vote and should’ve won it.
Davis throws toys out of pram.
It will be interesting to watch him try and persuade his Tory constituents who largely support 42 days to vote for him and against 42 days.

He’ll end up running against CCTV cameras.

This is curious. And it’s this propensity to implode just at the moment when things look to be turning their way that means the Tories are not the shoe-in party of government at the next election that so many appear to think.

Weirdest bit of news in a long time.

What on earth is he up to?

Doesn’t sound like he’s got Cameron’s backing.

Really stupid move I would say. Won’t be welcomed by the public at large I would think, however the vote may go on the day.

And they were doing so well - DD in particular was nicely skewering Labour over the AQ docs that went missing.

There MUST be more behind this.

Is his constituency boundary being redrawn or something?

Hmm. Mildly Machavellian of him- I presume he has his eyes again on the party leadership, and of reclaiming the party from the rather soppy and valueless middle-ground into which Cameron has led it. Although I do greatly prefer Davis to Cameron, I’m not sure the consequences of such a move would be greatly beneficial to the party, in electoral terms.

I’m also opposed to the 42-days thing. But I’m not sure there;s anything that I should resign from over it.

Sorry to go all anti-Brownie, but - assuming this is why he resigned - is this not parliamentary democracy?

I suppose potentially it could split the Tories, with a “Real Conservatives” of Davis, Spink, UKIP types - if they went in for splits, that is. But they are generally too sensible (and power-hungry) for that sort of thing

Either he’s throwing a massive tantrum - or he’s up to something.

If it is true the LDs won’t stand against him, that would suggest some advanced plotting in the Commons tea-room…

But they are generally too sensible (and power-hungry) for that sort of thing

Um. I thought so too. Until today.

I mean, what? He threatens to run as a LibDem unless Cameron commits to repealing 42 days

WHAT IS GOING OOOONNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!?????

What happens if Labour say that, since the LDs aren’t running they’ll also not run against him? Thus leaving him up against maybe the Loony Party alone to valiently get re-elected?

Still, watch the Tory press spin this into a tale of a noble, heroic knight of the realm doing battle against the evil Red dragon.

The arrogance of the man is quite stunning. Yes there is always a political element to everything but to pretend the police chief’s and Lord Carlile are just completely lying and it’s all political, and think that line is a credible line to get away with, is quite extraordinary.

How on earth does doing a self agrandising PR stunt help your case that you are the principled politician in the room?

Bizarre.

Given that Davis and the Lib Dem got over 80% of the vote at the last election how the hell is he going to claim a “victory”?
Especially on a likely lower turnout.

If the public seem to back the plan, all the more reason for Davis to campaign strongly. David T should know that defending liberty requires leadership too - and that’s more than following opinion polls; which, of course, are not the same as elections.

If this is about principle, and the Tories have caved in some way, Davis should be supported on this issue and the Lib Dems are right not to stand against him. If someone has the balls to really keep fighting on this issue, then all liberals, libertarians and democrats, of all flavours, should back this campaign.

Sorry to go all anti-Brownie, but - assuming this is why he resigned - is this not parliamentary democracy?

I don’t understand why you think this is “anti-Brownie”?

Moreoever, I don’t understand why you would describe this as “parliamentary democracy” at all, given those who voted for him at the 2005 election did so premuably thinking they weren’t going to be asked to do the same again half-way through the electoral cycle.

On the face of it, this looks like “throwing your toys out of the pram” if it is anything at all.

Totally separately, I’ve just been watching live footage of David Cameron being berated by a slightly deranged member of the public over the NHS.

What a terrible day he is having.

The trouble is, as with Labour, there is an authoritarian and a libertarian strand in Tory thinking. Neither party can really be entirely trusted on the issue of civil liberties.

Saw David Davis on the telly yesterday - on Sky news. He was spot-on and very measured. The 42 day limit is, on balance, at least to me, seemingly unnecessarily draconian. I for one, have the suspicion it was promulgated by the Labour party largely out of popularist considerations. The Police of course almost always are inclined to more powers…it’s in their ‘DNA’.

Gordon should have lost that one; seemingly a case of party loyalty - in this particular instance - amongst Labour MPs - trumping good sense relating to the matter under consideration.

We really need a little LESS party loyalty and more dealing with the matters of the day in good-faith on their merits.

I am opposed to the 42 days because I can’t recall anyone bothering to lay out a convincing case along the straight-forward lines of: “We need this because firstly A, secondly B and thirdly, and most importantly, C.”

Oh they don’t need to. They just need to point out that some of the weaker objections to it are a bit weak. Apparently.

WHAT IS GOING OOOONNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!?????

Phone him and ask.

To show such disrespect for parliament is very damning for him.

The vote doesn’t go your way to you take your ball away, as Dennis Mcshane said.

Okay, I’ll rephrase. The Westminster method in which individuals elected ultimately have the power to withdraw their vote/position (and be told to naff off should their constituents so choose).

Davis was put in a fulcrum position by having to attack 42-days on some principle of habeus corpus when the Tories simply decided to oppose it in order to try and force an election. So, Davis was defending something I don’t really think the Conservatives support. However, his dilemma was that he either didn’t actually support it for what he thought were the right reasons or that the leadership let him know it was a ploy they would overturn or modify the law when they get in.

So, Davis rails against 42 days and when the Tories get in he will somehow have to justifyt why they are modifying it without scrapping it.

My guess that tough right-winger Davis decided to bail out of that position. Then he can rightly have a go at the Govt erosion of civil liberties in micro-chipping bins.

Nolw, had he resigned as a protest at the Government kow-towing to Islamist opinion while abandoning the Church then I would have thought that to be genuinely opinionated and a great opportunity for his by-election victory to be a referendum.

Try adding it to your ticket David!

Hmm, I don’t see how strongly opposing a ban on foxhunting is supposed to be incompatible with supporting fundamental British freedoms.

Davis has generally been excellent on this issue but he’s being an idiot here.

The problems with trying to make the byelection a referendum on 42 days detention are

1. The public seems to side with the government on this issue so he’ll most likely lose and hand the government a huge progaganda victory.
2. Even if he wins he can’t prove that people were really voting on that particular issue or that his constituency is representative of the country as a whole.

Spanish Fry - my thoughts exactly. Labour should just refuse to play.

Wardy: Oh, I wasn’t in favour of banning fox hunting. Its just that there is a certain sort of Tory conception of fundamental freedoms: where fox hunting is right up there at the top, along with denying equal rights to gays.

Oh please let Clegg and Cameron come to their senses. What we need is an official Conservative candidate and an official LibDem and Davis will be out on his ear!

In any case surely someone in the local LibDems will put up, albeit unofficially, whatever Clegg says: impossible to imagine that bunch of bearded muesli eaters letting a Tory go unchallenged.

So, David Davis is resigning in protest at the 42-day detention-without-charge thingummy.

Good for him.

Hopefully all opponents of the measure - regardless of their political stripes - can put aside their other differences and unite to keep awareness of the issue alive and to do as much as possible to see the measure consigned to the dustbin of illiberal history.

I’m sure there’s an element of vanity in all this (what politician isn’t vain?) but seeing as I oppose the measure I applaud his actions.

Actually, come to think of it, other than foxhunting what is there?

Davis came across slightly unhinged in his resignation statement to my mind. I still don’t properly understand or see his motives, or can fathom what has happened behind-the-scenes.

What would it prove if he was re-elected, even with an increased majority? It was already a Tory seat, and now the Lib Dems aren’t standing against him. What difference would it make to the passage of the bill through parliament if he’s elected as a single-issue candidate?

I find the whole thing baffling.

Either way, Broon must be rubbing his hands with glee. With the razor-thin (DUP-sized) margin with which the government won last night’s vote, I thought Labour were in for a few rough days. Now it looks like the Conservatives could well be suffering the worse of the fall-out.

Doubt anyone saw this coming. Nick Robinson looked gobsmacked.

David T

Simply attacking David Davis’s positions on abortion and gay rights does not really address issue. Irrespective of his positions on gay rights etc (and foxhunting … oh please, you are trotting out a cliched Labour argument that even you don’t believe in), there is a real debate about privacy, detention and all the issues he mentions. Fighting a byelection about it may be unusual, but it is legitimate. You might want to engage in that debate yourself rather than coming out with stock partisan arguments.

What a nutter ! Just goes to show how the paranoid opponents of the 42 days have been driven mad by this issue.

One thing here tho is that I reckon Cameron would never have rescinded 42 days or put it in the manifesto. Davis was on the radio yesterday having to be mealy mouthed on this. He obviously couldn’t handle that.

But what a stupid stunt even so.

Rather amazed that anyone here thinks it’d possibly be a good idea to get a backroom fix-up in allowing davis to stand unopposed by any serious party rather than letting the voters have a proper choice on the ballot.

This 42 day detention is just the beginning of an Orwellian nightmare.

The same surveillance techniques used for counter-terrorism are now used by local Council and petty bureaucrats to spy on law abiding citizens. The 42 day detention will be used by these same inept jobsworths to lock up people evading Council tax, TV licence, dropping apple cores on pavements, or overfilling a wheelie bin.

We should support David Davis on this issue.

Foxhunting is not about fundamental rights and freedoms anyway. You take a position either side of that debate, and still have legitimate concerns about civil liberties. It’s quite immaterial to this debate.

Pssst, Benji/Nick, there was a little debate about this last night in that thing called the House of commons.

You and your Tory pals lost.

David Davis has turned that loss into a crisis for the Tories.

Good for him.

I think foxhunting is about fundamental freedoms. I oppose it.

I just don’t think its such a big deal.

Jon D, there will be a vote at the general election. This is a stunt. That’s why the Lib dems aren’t standing. No point in Labour falling for it.

“The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protests and so-called hate laws which stifle debate, while those who serve violence get off scot-free.”

What are the hate laws that stifle debate?

If you want to club together for my deposit, I’ll contest his seat as a single issue 42-day supporter. I’ve even got a pale beige linen suit in the wardrobe.

hahaha. Why not!

Anyway, looking at this from a Labour point of view (I was, back in the mists of time, a loyal Labour supporter) this is just another fine mess they have got themselves into. They decided to make a big thing of this detention thing, and the PM decided to stake his reputation on it. That malarkey was entirely unnecessary, and they have just made a rod for their own back.

The public may or may not support the measure, but its certainly not a bread and butter issue; in times of economic woe, skyrocketing utility bills etc, its not such a clever move campaigning on these issues.

Go for it Brownie !

What are Nick Cohen’s views on this I wonder ?

Is there a Euston Manifesto line ?

It’s hardly fair either. Davis knows that Labour have always been a distant third in his seat at the best of times.

Imagine if every MP in a safe seat did a deal in this way to hold a byelection against the third party in their constituency? It would make parliamentary democracy a complete farse.

This should outrage democratically minded people.

It seems David Davis actually believes in something. Remember when you once did, without the cynicism, without the calculations, the fear of not being an insider who could get the sophisticated jokes? I bet that was many many years ago for many of the people who have written above. The people here who are saying ‘what’s going on?’ and that they don’t get why he has done it, just confirm why politics is in the shit state it is in and our current government is so mediocre.

Apparently UKIP and the Labour Party are both briefing that they will not stand.

Put up Brownie and get Hizb ut Tahrir to campaign for Davis against 42 Days.
Shoo in.

He certainly believes in wanting to be the leader of the Conservative party.

He will be anoying thorn for Cameron to deal with when he returns to the backbenchers.

How is Davis going to resign? I thought MPs had to apply, if they wanted to resign mid-term, for sinecure offices which debarred them from standing again. In addition, applications for the chiltern hundreds and things like that have to be approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Do any of this blog’s legal minds know if Davis actually can resign in the way he intends to, and stand again?

David Davis has turned that loss into a crisis for the Tories.

Crisis for McBean, you mean. Davis comes across as principled. Unlike that grubby incompetant cunt Broon.

David T should have said to Brownie that he is praising his courageous personal decision.

Not anymore he doesn’t, Morgoth. Egomania has known nothing like this before.

Davis Davis’ campaign for leadership was a nastly affair. It turned a lot of Tories off him.

Basically, he was sure he was going to win. His pitch was basically “You better declare your support for me, because I’m going to win, and if you don’t, it won’t be forgotten when I’m Party Leader and then PM”

So a lot of MPs ‘declared’ for him

Then, later, a lot of MP’s switched to Cameron.

Davis was NOT liked at all among MPs. He is also obviously a bit of a dullard, which doesn’t appeal to a party which wanted a sparky Blair-like figure to lead them to victory.

Well, Davis has just gone UP in my estimation. And what Morgoth said.

(maybe he will be selected as leader of the British People’s Alliance?)

(Dave Davis, not Morgoth: incidently, there’s a train named after the former - or, more likely, a namesake of his - on the line I commute into town on)

It seems David Davis actually believes in something

Are you talking about his opposition to gay rights, or something else?

Anyway, this 42 day detention debate in the Commons was just to cover up the House of Lords debating the EU (Amendment) Bill whether to have a Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80611-0002.htm#080611100000006

Did anyone else notice that yesterday?

I think foxhunting is about fundamental freedoms. I oppose it.

Strange. You think hunting a fox is a fundamental freedom. Yeah, damnit, things are getting tough since the fundamental freedoms to bear bait, fight dogs, and hunt with bows were curtailed!

I don’t support foxhunting because I think its unnecessary and goes against modern notions of animal welfare. However, I respect the other side side who say it is necessary and make a limited case for its retention. Of course it has some sort of cultural meaning to some people. But I rather regard those who posit that foxhunting is about fundamental freedoms as on the extreme end of the scale.

Its a pity UKIP aren’t standing, they are in favour of 42 days and might even have won (or a least embarassed Davis).

Cameron must be desparately hoping they don’t stand.

I tell you what should also outrage democratically minded people Mike, how the 42 days detention thing got passed thanks to backroom horse trading and Gordon Brown reaching into his pork barrel.

Davis has taken a principled stand on this issue and those of us who believe in civil liberties, personal privacy and the freedom not to be locked up without trial should support him. It’s an opportunity for the whole gamut from 42 days to CCTV to be debated in public. That would appear to me, to be democracy in action.

Meanwhile, on a semi-related note, Compass have started eating their own over 42 days…

http://www.compassonline.org.uk/article.asp?n=2155

I look forward to many many fine op-eds in the coming days as the noble minds of the media try to explain just what the hell it all means.

Venichka, you’ve made a number of stupid statements in the last 24 hours.

Well, Davis has just gone UP in my estimation

For playing fast-and-loose with the demcoratic process? What if all 306 MPs who opposed 42-days took the same line?

If we were to genuinely have a round of single-issue, referendum style by-elections centred on 42 days, Labour would finish with a majority of about 300.

I mean, I’m game if you are?

Oh, and there are precedents here. A load of Ulster Unionists did it in the 80s in protest at the anglo-irish agreement and one of them hilariously lost his seat to the SDLP in the ensuing byelection.

(Dave Davis, not Morgoth: incidently, there’s a train named after the former - or, more likely, a namesake of his - on the line I commute into town on)

You commute in on the Sauron line?

That explains a lot…

Oh, I’m pretty sure David Davis did a spell in the Artists Rifles (21 SAS).

Is it possiible that Davis really does care this much about the 42 days issue?

It is a very strange story…

Phil, actually Brown was pretty good on saying there were no deals today, despite repeated questioning in every form of words possible, and the DUP seem to back him up, so it seems clear there was no hard deal. As has been discussed, many opposed it for political reasons themselves. Look at Davis!

A win is a win is a win is a win. Parliament has spoken.

For playing fast-and-loose with the demcoratic process?

I love the way Brownie is currently describing anything he disagrees with as “playing fast-and-loose with the democratic process”.

Actually I don’t. Its annoying as fuck.

If McBean doesn’t stand a candidate against David, it will be seen as yet another example of his cowardice. First, he was too scared of having a general election. Now he’s too scared of a parlimentary by-election.

If McBean does stand a candidate and when that hapless sod gets thumped, there’s more pressure on McBean, ala Nantwich.

The net effect of this is to rachet up to even higher levels, in the public eye, the (accurate) image of McBean as an unprincipled grubby little squatter undeserving of his current position and location.

Breaking news - lots of grinning Labour MPs spotted around Westminister.

This is London… London calling… Listen, we’ve decided it’d be expedient if we didn’t put up a candidate in the byelection.
Yeah we’re sure your voters and activists will understand and come flocking back when we tell you we’re ready to let them. caio.

Can somebody turn Mike off on the way out?

Breaking news - lots of grinning Labour MPs spotted around Westminister.

This is the same Mike who has a track record of making genuflecting-Labour-bullshit up?

Actually I don’t. Its annoying as fuck.

I’m, reassured to know my efforts are not in vain.

If McBean doesn’t stand a candidate against David, it will be seen as yet another example of his cowardice. First, he was too scared of having a general election. Now he’s too scared of a parlimentary by-election.

Imagine that, eh? The government not calling an election when the opposition wants it to, and then refusing to contest a seat in a totally contrived election in a safe Tory constituency?

Still, you may not any valid points, but we’ll never get tired of that “McBean” thing.

You McTwat.

For playing fast-and-loose with the demcoratic process

Parliament has spoken, he is not challenging that vote. The debate of course continues, and the byelection is one means of continuing the debate.

What if all 306 MPs who opposed 42-days took the same line?

Well they are not going to, and even if they did it would not usurp the vote of parliament.

Davis’s actions may be unusual, but they are legitimate.

Actually, on more reflection, as well as being principled, this is a brilliant tactical move. The Conservatives (for whom I, by and large, have currently little affection for, because they are still too authoritarian and reactionary for my liking) come out of this as principled, and Brown comes out of this as a cowardly gurning gobshite on his way out.

And by the way, I totally oppose the 42-day detention scheme because, as just about everyone expert in the field has said, it is not needed and it is dangerously authoritarian.

Jon D seems to think Labour activists in the said constituency are too stupid to understand what’s going on.

Why don’t you phone them and tell them what David Davis and the Lib Dems are doing, and see if you think they agree it’s worth helping him?

Brownie reminds me of Heseltine circa 1996 claiming that John Major would get a 60-seat majority in the next election.

Utterly delusional and mad.

Morgoth, do you seriously think it’s good for the Conservatives to have a split at the top, with a leader humiliated and made to look weak, on an issue that they are on the wrong side of public opinion?

You must really hate David Cameron.

Phil, actually Brown was pretty good on saying there were no deals today, despite repeated questioning in every form of words possible, and the DUP seem to back him up, so it seems clear there was no hard deal.

Ah, of course. If Gordon Brown says there was no deal, and the DUP says there wasn’t, well, of course there wasn’t. Perish the thought!

Of course, that was not the only pork involved.

What a fine speech
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450899.stm

The end of this dangerously authoritarian, intrusive, disrespectful, bullying government is thankfully in sight

Davis’s actions may be unusual, but they are legitimate.

Of course they’re legitimate in the sense he’s not committing a crime, but I suggest that most people who turn up at a polling station on general election day do so believing they won’t asked to come out to vote again on the whim of the winning candidate.

Actually, on more reflection, as well as being principled, this is a brilliant tactical move. The Conservatives (for whom I, by and large, have currently little affection for, because they are still too authoritarian and reactionary for my liking) come out of this as principled, and Brown comes out of this as a cowardly gurning gobshite on his way out.

Morogth, you are aware that Davies appears to have done this without the blessing of the parliamentary party or his leader? We don’t know about the constituency party.

Cameron, the leader of the party for whom you have no special affection, obviously doesn’t share your analysis that this is such a “brilliant tactical move”.

Split? Haha.

The only people split nowadays is the Labour Party.

Every week now the question is asked is “how big will be Labour rebellion be this week?”

History from 1995 is repeating itself.

Now I know why Blair was so smug from 1995 onwards.

It says something when, compared to the current crowd of muppets in power, John Major looks competant.

I also find it deeply hypocritical of the Labourite-Bore Mike to bleat on about public opinion when he’s spent the last few years ridiculing it at every turn over the EU Constitution and the Death Penalty.

Brownie reminds me of Heseltine circa 1996 claiming that John Major would get a 60-seat majority in the next election.

Except I’m predicting a hung parliament. See the thread below.

The end of this dangerously authoritarian, intrusive, disrespectful, bullying government is thankfully in sight

What self-indulgent twaddle.

I appreciate that not everybody has access to the media at the moment but nevertheless it’s at times like this one gets a feel for other people’s political judgment.

people who turn up at a polling station on general election day do so believing they won’t asked to come out to vote again on the whim of the winning candidate.

Yes, but being asked to vote again is hardly “playing fast and loose with the democratic process”. Which was your original absurd assertion. Anyone can stand against Davis and make any argument they want.

Split? Haha. The only people split nowadays is the Labour Party.

Pssst, check out the news.

Morogth, you are aware that Davies appears to have done this without the blessing of the parliamentary party or his leader? We don’t know about the constituency party.

Oh, perish the thought that someone might have principles and an independent mind, eh?

Not everyone is content with McBean’s hand up their arse, Alistair Darling-style.

I hereby declare officially this is the exact moment that Brownie jumped the shark.

Can anyone remember if Davis supported the extension to 28 days? I think he did, didn’t he?

Excellent. After that grotesque result last night, I needed some cheering up. Whilst I find his stance admirable (and utterly baffling - I can’t believe any Tory genuinely opposes 42 days, least of all Davis), he’s going to end up a national joke. And I think he’s about to cost the Tories the next election. At the very least, he’s shown Cameron’s talk about reversing this is nothing more than rhetoric. And look at how quickly Cameron replaced him (and described this as a “courageous personal decision” - Parliamentary code for “completely insane”).

I love it when people who value civil liberties are smeared as being “self indulgent” or not in touch with the views of normal people or whatever. Next time Brownie’s getting worked up about some very minor member of the irrelevant far left who has crazy views on Israel or the jews I’ll know exactly what to say.

oops, I was wrong. You can apply for the Manor of Northsted or the Chiltern hundreds; if the Chancellor of the Exchequer approves, and they always do, you have resigned; you can then resign from that and get re-elected, just like the Ulster Unionists did when they resigned en-masse a few years ago. Funny how they keep cropping up in this debate.

Given Davis can resign, I think he will now attract support from wheelie-bin hating, id-card loathing, student-politics despising people everywhere and will be perfectly covered when he calls for targeted security measures that particularly affect the muslim community or oil-price rioters or whoever else comes onto his radar in a few years time. I also can’t help some trace of sympathy with Venichka though, Labour member though I am.

And look at how quickly Cameron replaced him

That is I believe, a statutory requirement, IIRC.

Venichka is more peculiar than Benji is many - he supports McCain and Livingstone at the same time, like Seamus Milne and Ken Livingstone, and now yearns for the Tories. Strange fella.

Taken at face value Davis has to be right about the cumulative effect of a number of so-called security measures, besides the 42 days detention without charge, there are the “secret” cornoners’ courts (coverups in other words), the national id database, cctv cameras everywhere, right to peaceful protest being curtailed. On the content of his statement I have to agree with everything he said. And so I imagine would the rest of HP’ers. So why resign?

I imagine because he is not allowed to go on the attack over these issue by Cameron because Cameron will not commit to Tories rolling back these infringements of our civil liberties if and when they get to power.

Face it, at the end of the day the Tories are fundamentally just as authoritarian and centralist as new Labour. This is what is so depressing about modern politics in the eUK.

The real question is why Brown wanted to force this change through in the first place, who was making the fuss and hasn’t he better things to make a stand on? (And what did he promise the Ulster MPs in exchange for their support).

Unless there’s some rule within the Tory Party, there was absolutely no reason to replace him this quickly. Even the actual Home Secretary wouldn’t need to be replaced this quickly, much less the Shadow one. If Cameron had any respect for what Davis had done, he would at least have waited until tomorrow, and could have comfortably waited until Monday. Announcing Grieve in his own reaction speech was utterly ruthless - vicious even.

Indeed, it makes me wonder if Cameron had intended to sack him, and Davis got his resignation in first to steal a march.

Its really quite amusing watching Brownie try to make the case that having a democratic election is, er, playing fast and loose with the democratic process. I am not sure even the Labour Party in its present parlous state will make such an absurd argument. Dear me, the electors of Haltemprice and Howden have to vote again, shocking stuff!

I DO NOT like Seumas Milne, as I made clear, I agree with one piece that he wrote, much to my surprise.

This, and if its accompanied with a “no” vote in Ireland - will be quite a day for liberty on these isles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/speeches

“This is the text of the speech delivered by the shadow home secretary, announcing his resignation as an MP over 42-day detention” - courtesy of CiF.

I think it is a brilliant move and I will be donating to his campaign. It is vitally important that our liberties are defended from the database state, overwhelming surveillance, detention without trial and increased executive interference in judicial matters. I don’t care about his other beliefs or about party politics. For me, this is a crucial issue about defining the limits of state power. The government lost the argument in parliament, even if it won the vote by bringing on board Iain Paisley’s bunch of crooks and a couple of Tory misfits and bribed a few MPs from mining constituencies with the promise of compensation for miners. Last night’s vote was outrageous. This is meant to be the mother of parliaments, not the Italian Chamber of Deputies.

It’s really quite funny watching Benji and others trying to pretend this PR stunt by a Tory MP going through a mid life crisis (stay tuned for that - it comes from Tory MPs themselves), the day after parliament has voted on an issue, where the lib dems have chosen not to stand, is a democratic situation.

Labour may not take part in this stunt either and leave it to parliament to decide - shocking stuff, Benji!

“I imagine because he is not allowed to go on the attack over these issue by Cameron because Cameron will not commit to Tories rolling back these infringements of our civil liberties if and when they get to power.”

But if this was Davis’s view (he did support the extension to 28 days, so his principles are flexible) then surely he would have either resigned from the shadow cabinet and taken his fight to the backbenches without resigning as an MP, or resigned as an MP and stood as a ‘Anti 42 but pro 28 days’ independent?

I imagine because he is not allowed to go on the attack over these issue by Cameron because Cameron will not commit to Tories rolling back these infringements of our civil liberties if and when they get to power.

Although depending on the coverage Davis gets between now and the by-election, and on the result and the general mood among the public, the Tories could be testing the water here to see whether there might be an advantage in committing to roll back these infringements of our civil liberties if and when they get to power.

Not as funny as watching Mike & Brownie make tits of themselves.

I also can’t help some trace of sympathy with Venichka

That’s one way of putting it. I wonder if his shrink feels the same?

Mrs Ben wrote: Face it, at the end of the day the Tories are fundamentally just as authoritarian and centralist as new Labour. This is what is so depressing about modern politics in the eUK.
Sadly, so very spot-on Mrs Ben!

I love it when people who value civil liberties are smeared as being “self indulgent” or not in touch with the views of normal people or whatever. Next time Brownie’s getting worked up about some very minor member of the irrelevant far left who has crazy views on Israel or the jews I’ll know exactly what to say.

Firstly, I used self-indulgent to describe Ven’s pleasure that the government might fall (which implicitly means a Tory government). If you’re vaguely of the left and/or a social democrat of any hue, this is self-indulgence if the term has any meaning at all.

As for your second point, I think you have me confused with someone else (apologies to DavidT :-)).

I have just watched an interview in which Cameron said this was a personal decision by Davis and he would be canvassing for him.

So I am now pretty sure that Cameron has no intention of repealing any of Nu Labour’s authoritarian measures and has told Davis not to campaign for a reversal of them. So Davis has said “Sod youl I will campaign on my own then”.

Assuming this, I don’t see why being a person of principles and standing up for them is reason for HPer’s like Brownie to sneer.

I’m not used to agreeing with Mrs Ben, but indeed.

i don’t have a shrink. I spit upon the false religion of psychoanalysis and all its offshoots

Well, I’m not of the left nor a social-democrat….a good example of self-indulgence would be the stance of David T over the London mayoral election…

In fact, I’d go further and say this is a positively brilliant move, as the by-election campaign will be a referendum on Labour-Party authoritarianism in general, which the country is utterly sick and tired of.

We’re all so oppressed under New Labour with their CCTV cameras and their ID card; how dare they protect the civil liberties of people on public transport. Lets all lie about how bad it is and make ourselves feel really good about opposing it.

For me this stunt symbolises the moral bankrupcy of much of civil liberty ideologues. They’re not really interested in the real world and will support any Tory crank or far left loon against the government. I haven’t really liked Brown much until now - and still don’t really - but I’m so proud that he has stood firm on this and is not caving into the whinging little Benjis and co.

By supporting Davis many of you have blown your cover. Not so principled and liberal now, are we.

This has brought down two birds with one stone.

Tories are deeply worried about terror trials that are coming up and how it will look. And god forbid what it will do for them if there is a terror attack this summer, they say.

For me this stunt symbolises the moral bankrupcy of much of civil liberty ideologues.

That would sound better in the original German, Mike.

Its really quite amusing watching Brownie try to make the case that having a democratic election…

Sorry, “having” a democratic election? He is contriving one into existence. He, Davies, has decided that NOW is the time to have one in HIS constituency becasue HE feels like it. Unless he is dead and we simply haven’t been told yet, he has no business doing any of this. He is in parliament to serve, not to dictate to his electorate when they have to vote, on his whim.

Tories are deeply worried about terror trials that are coming up and how it will look.

What fucking planet are you on, Mike? I mean, come on, stop smoking that weed, seriously. Its bad for your health and your sanity.

“I think it is a brilliant move and I will be donating to his campaign.”

Which issues can he raise in a by election which he could not raise as Shadow Home Secretary?
Those who argue he’s making a pricipled decision seem to be saying that he’ll be more effective as a by election candidate than member of the Shadow Cabinet and a Privy Counsellor.

“I am now pretty sure that Cameron has no intention of repealing any of Nu Labour’s authoritarian measures and has told Davis not to campaign for a reversal of them.”

That may be true. In which case, Davis may be attempting to influence the policy agenda of a future Conservative government by making such a bold stand to ensure that his party draws a line in the relationship between the state and the citizen. It is a mini-referendum. If the public supports the government, it has the chance to eject an opposition MP who is standing solely on this issue.

I don’t believe Davis is suffering from some psychological problems or a mid-life crisis or even going on an ego-trip. If Labour goes on this kind of personal attack, then in the public’s mind they will lose the argument entirely. My bet is that Labour will not contest the election in order to sideline the issues Davis is trying to campaign on, but I don’t think it will do them any good.

Here’s Davis Davis voting for 28 days.

So as Matthew in the comments puts it, Davis Davis is an “Anti 42 but Pro 28 days Civil Libertarian Crusader”

He, Davies, has decided that NOW is the time to have one in HIS constituency becasue HE feels like it. Unless he is dead and we simply haven’t been told yet, he has no business doing any of this.

Funnily enough, in Brownie-world (think a dull monochrome East-Germany cica 1985) the only people who get compulsory life sentences, with no prospect of release, aren’t murderers, but rather MPs.

He is in parliament to serve, not to dictate to his electorate when they have to vote, on his whim.

Who was that other MP that resigned recently? Anthony….Blair wasn’t he called?

why did David Davies resign?

the short answer is politics

the longer answer is his career and the chances of running Tory party

background, David Davies was never probably going to obtain a higher position than Home Secretary (or shadow) in a future Tory government, thus he has either to accept that, moved to the backbenches or resign

timing of any resignation needs to be precise to maximise his earning potential

so in this particular case he can’t lose

if he wins the by-election his standing in the Tory party is increased and he’d be in line for Chancellor or Foreign Secretary jobs

if he loses he simply goes off to numerous directorships under the aura of “a principled man”, and many companies will want to employ him because of his closeness to the Tory party and their future electoral fortunes

it is a very smart move, a very political move

Well, I’m not of the left nor a social-democrat

Then I retract “self-indulgent” and level “Tory” in its stead. I don’t know what else to call someone who is desperate for the fall of a Labor government (and therfore implicitly eager for a Conservative replacement) because for some people, that would have implications way beyond the extension of detention without trial. They don’t all have broadband connections and either the time or the inclination to take part in online pissing contests like this one even when they do, but they exist and anyone who isn’t a Tory calling for this government to fall might want to consider that.

I would hope.

Morgoth, I mean why do libertarians never look at an issue on it’s merits? Civil liberties are great, but why not check out the individual issue rather than approaching these things in an anti all government ideology type way, where the state is always the bad guy. Decent people are sick of this. And when the facts don’t fit, you lie through your teeth, like Benji, and preach hatred of democracy.

Dan, it’s what Tory MPs are saying. When you see him interviewed you will see why. The man is in quite a state; he looks on the verge of a break down. A real crank.

This could be a David Icke moment.

Perfect time for a “not Lab, Lib or Tory but not for Terror” independent to stand and expose Dave’s posturing for what it is.

Anyone?

Anyway, I don’t why I am getting into this. This really isn’t as big a story as it seems. Yes it’s bad for the Tories but I’m more convinced now that it’s a personal crisis/tragedy. There we go.

Who was that other MP that resigned recently? Anthony….Blair wasn’t he called?

Even you aren’t this thick. Blair forewarned his electorate before the voted for him in 2005 and it is every MP’s prerogative - just like it is for a butcher and baker - to resign from politics if that is what they wish. Davies is simply interrupting his tenure as an MP for purely self-indulgent, politically expedient (he thinks) reasons.

if he wins the by-election his standing in the Tory party is increased and he’d be in line for Chancellor or Foreign Secretary jobs

Not so long as Cameron remains leader, he won’t. If you think Cameron and the party big-wigs are anything other than apoplectic over this, then you’re deluded.

No, I’m not a Tory (although I have been quite open about voting for them in 1997, and indeed for Norris in 2000) - but I am a believer in democracy (and, no, I don’t mean direct democracy on a hold-a-referendum-Swiss-or-Californian-style on every issue basis either):

It has become increasingly clear over recent months (at least) that this lot have been in too long, and are inclined to exceed their legitimate authority wherever they can (yes, like the last Conservative government did, in fact possibly for the final ten years of their reign - they really ought to have been kicked out in 92, not 97) - although frankly that authoritarianism has been there since day one, expressed in all manner of trivial, interfering, ways, going where government ought not to go.

Enough

In time Labour may well prove the relatively least objectionable alternative again (not least if the Tories go mad again like they did c. 1995-2004).

I wouldn’t go so far as to say Davis’ little stunt is playing fast and loose with the democratic process, but resigning your seat in a fit of pique, in order to trigger an unnecessary by-election and grab attention, shows a certain disregard for the Parliamentary process. Can you imagine what would become of the place if MPs did this every time they lost a vote?

The mature and responsible thing would be to accept you lost and continue to make your case to the public, and then your own party in the hope that they come to power and reverse the measure.

This really seems little more than ill-thought-out attention seeking.

where the state is always the bad guy. Decent people are sick of this.

Mike, you don’t have a fucking clue about what “decent people” think.

“Decent” people are sick and tired of having to pay extortionate car tax straight into the pockets of Broon. And sick of the back teeth of soaring petrol prices, most of which goes into the pockets of Broon. having their council tax double and triple, again because of Broon. Having to put up with council inspectors exorting more and more money out of their hard earned wages due to their bins not being correctly aligned on the path or being too full. Or of crime soaring because Broon has decided that ticking boxes is more important than actually catching criminals. They are sick and tired of Broon always deciding that the solution is more tax and more power to the state. They are sick and tired of Broon single-handedly wiping out their pensions. They are sick and tired of having to fill in hundreds of pages of forms just to get some of their own money back (tax credits). They are sick and tired of going into debt because that selfish incompetant elephant-jowled cowardly fuckwit currently ensconsed in No 10 is grabbing more and more and more money and wasting it on quangos.

The cost to the country of Broon’s quangos is now roughly equivalent to the total amount raised in income tax.

You are an utter joke, Mike.

Labour is going to get a hammering at the next election that will make 1997 look like a stroll in the park.

“it’s what Tory MPs are saying. When you see him interviewed you will see why. The man is in quite a state; he looks on the verge of a break down. A real crank.”

This is a bit silly. I saw him on television and he seemed calm and reasoned. He has not shown any cranky behaviour in the past. Arguing that he has gone insane is really stupid, since there is the very serious issue of civil liberties at stake. For people like me Davis has created a space for debate and a real test of public opinion that would not be possible in a general election. I hope that Labour takes it seriously and defends its argument in this by-election. If the government is confident that the public is behind it on this issue, then this single-issue election will secure them an extra seat in parliament. If it portrays Davis as a lunatic and/or runs away from this by-election, it will be seen as cowardly and unprincipled by some of those who may otherwise support Labour. Davis’ move carries a high risk, but if he pulls it off it will be a master-stroke.

While his decision is without precedent, there was no precedent for John Major’s decision to put his leadership up for re-election back in 1995 or a precedent for the planned transfer of the Labour leadership from Blair to Brown. Politics is like that. You try to find precedents for events and there are none.

Britain has never had this American style libertarianism where we’re all supposed to have a gun under our beds in case ‘the government’ turns on us. We’re a more collectivist society.

Well, I’m not of the left nor a social-democrat….a good example of self-indulgence would be the stance of David T over the London mayoral election…

Indeed, where partisanship and rather juvenile anti Tory hysteria seemed in much evidence in these here parts. Not really that much difference between Labour and Tory these days since the very distinct swing of New Labour to the right on economics under Blair, combine with loosing the barking mad Kinnokesque defense policy - which actually made Labour electable.

After that grotesque result last night, I needed some cheering up

Ooh wasn’t it a disgrace: Brushing aside the winner brazenly lying on his CV about his university record, as a mere pecadillo which everyone practises… Oh.

We’ve had the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, Mike.

Up until this nasty snivelling bunch of Stasi-wannabes squatting in No. 10 overturned them.

Morgoth, you would be considered a fruitloop on LGF. Seriously, what are you doing here?

Dan

For people like me Davis has created a space for debate and a real test of public opinion that would not be possible in a general election.

Huh? What are you talking about?

The way for Davis Davis to fight this issue is within his own party. He could - for example - stand against Cameron for the leadership of his party. He did that before. He lost.

Davis is already an MP - and was a Shadow Minister - for a party which was opposed to 42 days. He has a decent majority. Running again, as a Tory, for a party with this policy, proves nothing.

I hope that Labour takes it seriously and defends its argument in this by-election.

I don’t think that Labour - or any party - should participate in attempts to manufacture bogus by elections, in order to present them as “referendums”.

In any case, even if Davis wins, which no doubt he will, in what way does this amount to a referendum on 42 days? Davis can assert that it is, but that doesn’t make it so. Voters will have voted for him for a large number of reasons: the main one being that they want a Tory as an MP.

And we still do, Morgoth.

1. To those who say this is such a great democratic stand then why did he have to ask his main opposition party in his constituency to stand aside before he would do it? How is that democracy?

2. Should all frontbenches do this every time they lose a vote?

Morgoth, if you believe all of those other issues are important, which indeed they are, then why do you think it’s good for David Davis to spend the summer doing this single issue stunt that most people disagree with him about?

Breaking news: wife of 21/7 plotter gets 15 years at Old Baily.

The new Shadow Home Secretary, Dominic Grieve, has confirmed that the Tories, if elected, would repeal 42 days.

So…

If this was the Tories position all along, then why did Davis bother resigning?

Unless… Davis was told by Cameron that he’d not commit to the repeal of 42 days. In which case, Davis has just publicly administered a Chinese burn to the arm of his party leader.

Nice going!

David T and Brownie - excellent points in this thread. Good men.

And we still do, Morgoth.

Like fuck you do.

You’re a shower of unprincipled bastards who only belive in two things:

1) Staying in Power.

2) Grabbing more and more money.

Seriously, what are you doing here?

Oh look, Commissar Brownie is positively quivering with rage that I don’t agree with him that under the Glorious Aegis of Gordon Brown and the People’s Technocratic Republic of New Labour that Tractor Production is up for the 13th quarter in row.

You and Mike really are delusional fruitloops aren’t you?

He is in parliament to serve, not to dictate to his electorate when they have to vote, on his whim.

Absolutely. That’s Brown’s job.

Ooh wasn’t it a disgrace: Brushing aside the winner brazenly lying on his CV about his university record, as a mere pecadillo which everyone practises… Oh.

Actually, that one too. I was really quite annoyed by that, because I’d been rooting for him for most of the series, as, apart from te ex-army one (who was clearly useless without someone to give him orders) he was the only who wasn’t a snide, self-serving, two-faced twat. Then he turned out to be a complete liar. And even when he was caught, he tried to wriggle out of it - “oh, well, I suppose I was wrong then”. No, you won’t wrong, you didn’t sincerely believe you went there for two years, you knew full fucking well what the truth was, you lied through your lying teeth you liar. It was like Tony Blair all over again.

David T: When a government stiches together a majority by bribing the Democratic Unionist Party (if David Davis is a crank, then what is Paisley’s bunch?) and some party rebels in order to assault our civil liberties (a move that has no electoral mandate as it was not in the Labour manifesto), then it is necessary to “manufacture” by-elections so that there is a genuine democratic debate. There was nothing democratic about the way in which the government won this vote, but the implications are far-reaching. Like many people, I want an open, public debate on the limits of state power and this is one of the few opportunities to do this for parliament is truly hopeless. If Labour party members want to portray people like me as lunatics, then I am prepared to join the Conservative Party. I feel very, very strongly on this.

If Labour party members want to portray people like me as lunatics,

Brownie and Mike have just spent the entire thread doing so.

Morgoth:

Oh look, Commissar Brownie is positively quivering with rage that I don’t agree with him that under the Glorious Aegis of Gordon Brown and the People’s Technocratic Republic of New Labour that Tractor Production is up for the 13th quarter in row.

You and Mike really are delusional fruitloops aren’t you?

I honestly can’t believe that you had the gall to follow that absurd paragraph by calling anyone else a delusional fruitloop!

it’s a very interesting debate, but we’ve been here before, not that everyone will remember

1971 Internment was introduced in the Six counties, it went on for about four years, locking people up without trial.

After that grotesque result last night, I needed some cheering up

Ooh wasn’t it a disgrace: Brushing aside the winner brazenly lying on his CV about his university record, as a mere pecadillo which everyone practises… Oh.

It was a foregone conclusion after Sir Alan found out that he supported Tottenham. Sugar himself used to own Spurs, and one of the interviewers from the previous week (Paul Kelmsley) was until recently on the board of directors, and is widely regarded as a potential successor to Daniel Levy (the current chairman).

It was a clear example of a Spurs mafia. Plus his competitor was a scouser (I think), and they roundly beat Spurs in the last game of last season.

Here’s the start of Davis’ speech.

The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden - Haltemprice is derived from a medieval proverb meaning noble endeavour. Up until yesterday I took a view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because for centuries of forebears we defended the freedom of people. Well, we did, up until yesterday. This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta, a document that guarantees the fundamental element of British freedom, habeas corpus. The right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. But yesterday this house allowed the state to lock up potentially innocent citizens for up to six weeks without charge.

Err… but he voted for four weeks without charge.

And now he’s making some kind of principled stand, quoting Magna Carta.

What is this about?

“Which issues can he raise in a by election which he could not raise as Shadow Home Secretary?”

Presumably all the issues he raised in his resignation speech because Cameron is not prepared to roll them back as Tory policy. Incidentally I just read an interesting account in the Times.

It said that Davis wanted to go for broke on this one and that he was opposed by George Osborn and Michael Gove who were worried it might make the Tories look “soft on crime”. Cameron gave Davis the green light as Davis felt he could round up enough support outside parliament and votes inside to squeak it through.

Then of course the recriminations started as the Tories have now lost the vote and some are concerned this may make them seem soft on terrorism after all. All the time the public is in favour of 42 day detention, Dave C will hesitate opposing it. With the vote lost the word has gone out I imagine, not to oppose it in the Lords.

In the end the DUPs were bought off, by some deal/s which will “no doubt” turn out to “have been Labour policy all along”, and the Times said they only revealed their hand with ten minutes to go.

Amid rumours that the deal was to allow N Ireland to retain internally the profits of the sale of army bases etc, Alex Salmond is reported to be looking with interest at the potential precedent set in relation to Faslane for example.

I have watched David Davis on tv just now. He wanted to make his statement in the House but the speaker wouldn’t let him so he made it to the press. He didn’t strike me as a man of the verge of a nervous breakdown, I think that is just wishful thinking.

Yet again I ask, though, can someon explain to me the rationale for 42 days. All I have gathered is that Gordo decided he wanted to make it a test of his authority.

I honestly can’t believe that you had the gall to follow that absurd paragraph by calling anyone else a delusional fruitloop!

Sarcasm, my dear fellow. Try it sometime. It may be the lowest form of wit, but its the highest form of insult.

Dave C will hesitate opposing it. With the vote lost the word has gone out I imagine, not to oppose it in the Lords.

Dominic Grieve has just started that the Conservatives will repeal 42 days if they win power.

The time has come to make a stand. Someone has to say ‘enough’.

So - the time has come to draw a line in the sand.

And that line lies somewhere between 28 and 42 days detention without charge.

Not quite sure where exactly.

Or why.

Get back to me on that.

All this animosity between you guys over this issue, can’t we just find a middle ground an accept that Brown, Cameron and Davis are doing what they are doing because of cynical opportunism, and Mike and Brownie are playing their usual roles as Nu Labours useful idiots.

If Labour party members want to portray people like me as lunatics, then I am prepared to join the Conservative Party.

Where lunatics are welcome. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.

Commissar Brownie is positively quivering with rage

Yeah, cause I mean the government won the vote, you are scoring a 9 on the apoplexometer and Davies has just knifed his leader in the back. I’m furious.

I’m going to disengage, now, Morgoth. You bear all the hallmarks of one of those paranoid Montana recluses who hole themselves up in shacks packing more heat than the 101st Airborne because the “guv’ment” are out to get them.

Frankly, you’re a little scary. In combination with your clinical insanity, this makes you best avoided.

On topic, I can’t believe anyone can seriously argue that what Davies has done is a good idea, unless they support Brown’s Labour.

I mean, I was against 42 days, and the assault on civil liberties among other things like the creeping privatisation of public services has me seriously wondering whether or not to vote Labour at the next election.

But this by-election, in a safe Tory seat, with the 2nd biggest party, is going to prove what exactly? Even if Labour stand, they aren’t going to be campaigning on this single issue, they’re not going to let Davies dictate the areas of campaigning. And if the public of the constituency concerned decide they don’t want a single issue vote, they could make Davies and the Tory party look even more stupid than they already do.

I was hoping there would be a referendum on European issue to cause a hilarious implosion in the Tory party, but they’re doing it on their own!

Like many people, I want an open, public debate on the limits of state power and this is one of the few opportunities to do this for parliament is truly hopeless. If Labour party members want to portray people like me as lunatics, then I am prepared to join the Conservative Party. I feel very, very strongly on this.

OK then.

I am not a fetishist about the timing of charging. I do think that the onus is on the police and prosecution to justify, before a judge, why a person’s continued detention is required. I would like the test to get harder, the longer a person is detained. I think there should be a long stop date, but as things stand, I don’t have a firm view as to how long that should be. 90 days seemed very long. 42 days seemed a bit long. If the Government had made a strong argument for 42 days - explaiing precisely, and in detail, why it was neded - I could have been persuaded. But they didn’t so I wasn’t. Nevertheless, the more important issue for me is judicial oversight, and the test for continued detention that must be applied. I’d be much more unhappy, for example, with even 14 days, if there wasn’t proper judicial oversight.

Ultimately, however, what my view turns on, is whether there is a strong argument for 42 days. If the argument is that it takes 42 days to collect evidence, which may originate in other countries, or appears in difficult to crack computer files, or whatever the justification is, I’d like it spelled out properly, so that I can reach my own conclusions.

Which might, in fact, be that 42 days is precisely what is needed, in order to prevent acts of mass murder occuring on my doorstep.

All I have gathered is that Gordo decided he wanted to make it a test of his authority.

Is that really the case? Don’t you think he would have chosen a vote where victory was more assured to do that? If he’d lost last night, that was pretty much game up for him.

From my perspective, others saw this as the opportunity to try to bring Brown down rather than him gambling his political future. They were testing his authority. They thought victory was in their grasp which makes a close defeat all the more difficult to swallow.

Does anyone seriously believe that the bulk of the parliamentary Conservative party genuinely opposes 42-day detention? I’ll eat my fucking hat if that’s true.

Oops, should be 2nd biggest party not standing…

“Where lunatics are welcome. Don’t let the door hit your arse on the way out.”

So pleasant. And to think that I joined Labour, campaigned for Blair’s election victory in 1997 and served on a party executive committee, only to be told to fuck off when I think Labour has gone far too far in intruding into our liberties. This kind of arrogance is typical of a party that has been in power too long. I’d gladly join the Tories, frankly. I’m sick of the opportunities this government has wasted, the way in which it has treated even Labour party members with contempt, its sheer arrogance in believing it should be able to micro-manage our personal lives, its casual disregard for our individual liberties, etc. Perhaps the Tories would behave just the same after a couple of terms in office, but I fear the kind of policy trends under Brown, which go well beyond anything the Tories attempted in their 18 years in office.

I’m going to disengage, now, Morgoth

Because you don’t have, and never had have, any arguments for 42 days. You’ve not even tried.

In fact, all you’ve done in this thread is insult the sanity of anyone who disagrees with you.

Did Davis clear his resignation with his Local Conservative Association before he made his announcement? If not, is there any chance that another candidate will be adopted by them to stand in his place? He could then stand as in Independent Conservative. That would be fun. All that he has done so far is to push the Parliamentary majority for 42 days up to 10. But he can take heart, its not so bad being an ex-MP as he can always concentrate on running a blog.

The more I think about Davis’ move, the more I can’t see any sense in it. The Lords is likely to vote this down so there’s going to be at least some ping pong before the government can force it through. If Davis really does care about liberty (as I still can’t believe anyone who was a Tory MP in the 80s and 90s possibly can), he is in a prime position as a Shadow Home Secretary to continue the fight against 42 days and all the other iniquitous, authoritarian bollocks in this Bill, and if not successfully defeat it then at least perhaps improve it (more and better safeguards, more compensation). So, I can’t help but think there’s more to it.

All he’s doing is ensuring that when this next gets voted on in the Commons, the govt. majority will be (at least) 11 rather than 9. That is the only thing he will achieve.

erm… majority of 10, rather.

Michael White:

“The shadow minister I quoted earlier has just rung back. “I think the Davis ego-button has been pressed and that he has bounced David Cameron into this,” said the dismayed MP.

“The Lib Dems are not standing, Labour may decide not to stand either. Then David would be left fighting Ukip, the Monster Raving Loony party and the BNP. He’d be fighting against nothing and the election would descend into farce.”

He may be right.”

Hope so.

Michael White:

“The shadow minister I quoted earlier has just rung back. “I think the Davis ego-button has been pressed and that he has bounced David Cameron into this,” said the dismayed MP.

“The Lib Dems are not standing, Labour may decide not to stand either. Then David would be left fighting Ukip, the Monster Raving Loony party and the BNP. He’d be fighting against nothing and the election would descend into farce.”

He may be right.”

Hope so.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/06/michael_white_genuine_surprise.html

“A highly individual decision” = “He is a lunatic”

I don’t think that is fair. I think people who do highly individual things, or are highly individual people, are not necessarily lunatics - nor do I think its fair to say Grieve was saying that.

Is it possible to debate these issues without actually personally insulting your opponents?

“But this by-election, in a safe Tory seat, with the 2nd biggest party, is going to prove what exactly?”

Crewe and Nantwich proved there is no such thing as a safe seat if a party can capture overwhelming public support, and Labour had a far greater majority there than Davis has in his seat. The government says it has public support and it can demonstrate it in this by-election by defeating Davis.

I’d be much more unhappy, for example, with even 14 days, if there wasn’t proper judicial oversight.

David, you might find Hindle’s article in yesterday’s Guardian interesting on this and related matters. He’s basically saying that the present arrangments are more illiberal. The link is in my “The answer is….42″ post below.

Is it possible to debate these issues without actually personally insulting your opponents?

Fuck off you cretin.

But he can take heart, its not so bad being an ex-MP as he can always concentrate on running a blog

hahahaha!

I don’t think that is fair. I think people who do highly individual things, or are highly individual people, are not necessarily lunatics - nor do I think its fair to say Grieve was saying that.

People who do highly individual things are not necessarily lunatics, by any means. But in the Westminster Village, this sort of language is code. Like “tired and emotional” for “drunk”, describing a decision as a “courageous personal” or “highly individual” one, is a sure sign that the speaker thinks its barmy and wants to disassociate himself from it as much as he can without appearing unseemingly.

I certainly agree with some of Davis concerns, regarding civil liberties. Of course his actions do seem a bit odd, and I think ego might be fairer explanation, rather than childish namecalling.

It would be pretty much unprecedented for a Government in this state to win a by-election in a safe opposition seat. The ball is entirely in Labour’s court. If they don’t think they can win, they can just not stand and let the whole thing descend into farce. If they think they can win, they can campaign about the full spectrum of issues and let the Tories look like single issue cranks.

OT, but related: The US Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision tells King George Jr. that he could not hold foreign detainees forever at Guantanamo Bay without recourse to civilian courts in the US, i.e. the right to Habeas Corpus. See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/12/supremecourt/main4175226.shtml & http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/12/102835/929/358/534586
for details

Note: The Colonel Jessup referred to in the Daily Kos post was Jack Nicholson’s ranting “You can’t handle the truth” Guantanamo Bay Commander in the movie, “A Few Good Men” which was made back when the US Marines were the only ones at Guantanamo. Expect the right wingers to momentary at least forget their obession with smearing Obama to go postively raving foaming at the mouth mad at this decision.

And to think that I joined Labour, campaigned for Blair’s election victory in 1997 and served on a party executive committee, only to be told to fuck off when I think Labour has gone far too far in intruding into our liberties. This kind of arrogance is typical of a party that has been in power too long.

I write for a blog in my spare time; I’m not from Central Office. Don’t be so precious.

BTW, I never called you a “lunatic” or told you to “fuck off”, so I’ve no idea where your “if this is what party members say to someone like me” stuff came from.

Because you don’t have, and never had have, any arguments for 42 days. You’ve not even tried.

Morgoth, leaving aside the futility of trying to have a rationale debate with cuckoo like you, if you would remove the tin-foil hat that’s slipped down over your eyes for just two minutes, you’d see a post below entitled “The answer is…..42″. I notice you have yet to comment on that thread, which might explain why your allegation above is a steaming pile of horseshit.

“If the argument is that it takes 42 days to collect evidence, which may originate in other countries, or appears in difficult to crack computer files, or whatever the justification is, I’d like it spelled out properly, so that I can reach my own conclusions.”

That, in a globule, is my position too.

There was a good summary of the arguments for 42 days from Peter Clarke in the Telegraph last week. As Garry Hindle pointed out in the Guardian, the level of judicial oversight and parliamentary review of the power is such that this is far from a ‘threat to democracy’ or other nonsense that is being bandied about.

David Davis’ resignation is a stunt, nothing more. You only have to look at the Tories’ positions on other terror-related issues to see that protecting ancient freedoms is not the guiding principle behind their policies.

“They are sick and tired of going into debt because that selfish incompetant elephant-jowled cowardly fuckwit currently ensconsed in No 10 is grabbing more and more and more money and wasting it on quangos.”

“Oh look, Commissar Brownie is positively quivering with rage that I don’t agree with him that under the Glorious Aegis of Gordon Brown and the People’s Technocratic Republic of New Labour that Tractor Production is up for the 13th quarter in row.”

Morgoth is on fire today. Credit where its due.

If the argument is that it takes 42 days to collect evidence, which may originate in other countries, or appears in difficult to crack computer files, or whatever the justification is, I’d like it spelled out properly, so that I can reach my own conclusions.

Some of the figures you are after were in Gordon Brown’s article in the Times:

Look at the scale and complexity of today’s terrorist plots and you will understand why the amount of time required before charges can be brought has increased. In 2001 police investigating the last big IRA case had to analyse just one computer and a few floppy disks. The suspects used their own names and never went beyond Ireland and the UK.

By 2004 the police investigating the al-Qaeda plotter Dhiren Barot had to seize 270 computers, 2,000 disks, and more than 8,000 other exhibits. There were seven co-conspirators, and the investigation stretched across three continents. In the 2006 alleged airline bomb plot, the complexity had grown again - 400 computers, 8,000 disks and more than 25,000 exhibits.

The police find themselves investigating multiple identities and passports, numerous mobile phone and e-mail accounts, and contacts stretching across the world. Simply establishing the true identity of a suspect may itself take days. Often hundreds of hours of video footage have to be viewed, layers of computer encryptions deciphered and overseas authorities persuaded to co-operate.

I’m not trying to do the government’s PR for them; just to point out that the information and the arguments are out there. See, for instance, Jacqui Smith’s speech here. The basic idea, to have the debate now, rather than in the immediate aftermath of an attack, seems sensible, as does the idea to create this potential power in anticipation of more complex and difficult investigations in the future. I don’t think it breaches basic democratic values; on the contrary, the level of oversight emphasises those values when compared to how this would be done in non-democratic states.

Incidentally, now I’ve got some time to comment, how much control do you have over your Google ads, because you’re advertising some pretty dodgy things, including plenty of scams…

You mean this?

Need the Power of Prayer? Trust OurPrayer Ministry’s caring volunteers with your prayer request

Dave Rich: I don’t think Davis is seeking this by-election simply over the specifics of one bill, but the gradual erosion of civil liberties by a steady stream of legislation on terrorism, ID cards and the national database (when the government has a poor track record on looking after our personal information - my bank account and address details were among those lost in the child benefits fiasco), high levels of useless surveillance, snooping by councils, etc. This authoritarian trend is not something most people are willing to tolerate, even if they may support detention without charge. It also lacks a mandate. Most of this illiberal legislation was not in the Labour manifesto and Gordon Brown does not have a mandate either within his own party or among the wider electorate.

Yeah, that kind of thing. As a scientist, I more noticed the diet and water fuel scams.

DavidT,

Do you think that the time limit should be dictated purely by the length of time the police can make a case for, or do you think that as a matter of principle there should be an absolute limit which is non-negotiable?

I notice you have yet to comment on that thread,

Neither has David Davis. Or indeed Gordon Brown.

Since when is fawning to order over Brownite propaganda qualification to hold a reasoned opinion on a subject?

“It seems that Labour MPs had voted to curtail our freedoms even further in order to save their political skins. We shouldn’t be surprised as most of them had either no backbone or been very unprincipled. They backed Gordon Brown without a contest…. now they must prepare to face the ultimate public backlash…”

http://armchairnews.co.uk/2008/06/12/fallout-from-42-day-detention-vote/

The Tory Leadership Election is on, I see. One of the morally and socially conservative, Eurosceptical, Unionist remnant, or at least someone as near thereto as could possibly be permitted within the Shadow Cabinet, has finally had enough (at least fifty years late, but never mind), and is quite clearly mounting a challenge.

Almost everything on Davis’s entirely correct list of assaults on liberty was pioneered by the Tories’ immediate previous Leader when he was Home Secretary, and it is inconceivable that the Cameroons really would repeal any of it.

The Conservative Party’s refusal to fund his by-election campaign says it all, as does Cameron’s stitch up of no candidates from the Lib Dems (certainly) or Labour (probably, and in that case in breach of its own Constitution) in order to deny Davis his victory.

If Labour really won’t be putting up, then one of you commentariat supporters of 42 days should do so as an Independent. What are you afraid of?

As Dominic Grieve is the new Shadow Home Secretary (whilst also remaining Shadow Attorney General) will David Davis be given a post again if he is re-elected? And which one? Will Gordon Brown think this is his chance to turn the tide in his favour? Like Davis, he is in the mood to believe anything.

“It seems that Labour MPs had voted to curtail our freedoms even further in order to save their political skins.”

Is there any way of knowing which ones changed their minds in the last couple of weeks? Has anyone got a list that can be published?

Labour will not stand a candidate.

i’m interested in this part of Davis’ resignation speech.

“so-called hate laws which stifle debate”

If Davis wants to overturn these laws, and runs on that in the by election then the Lib Dems will end up tactically supporting repeal of what?
Gay rights legislation?
Race Relations Acts?

I’ve a suspicion that Clegg may have been taken in.

On civil liberties, I remember that Davis strongly opposed 24 hour drinking too.

Do you think that the time limit should be dictated purely by the length of time the police can make a case for, or do you think that as a matter of principle there should be an absolute limit which is non-negotiable?

I think that as a matter of principle, there should be an absolute limit which is non-negotiable. What that limit is, though, is something I’m yet to be convinced on

Dave Rich:

Yes, I’ve read the “scale and complexity” arguments. However, my wife’s professional experience of the approach of the prosecuting authorities in cases involving computer evidence, is that:

- there’s often a lack of urgency and diligence in analysing computer evidence
- the prosecuting authorities are not particularly well resourced.

So, what I’d like to see is an explanation of why the evidence gathering process cannot be properly resourced, and properly organised: as an alternative to 42 days. If it can’t be, then it can’t be: and I can be convinced.

What I don’t want, though, is for people to be help in prison - at huge public expense - because the CPS hasn’t hired a sufficient number of competent computer experts, and because whoever it is who is in charge of budgeting, thinks that its no great issue if somebody sits in prison for a couple of extra weeks, so that they don’t have to hire another IT specialist out of this year’s budget.

That’s my concern.

PS - what an honour it is to have David Lindsay commenting in this thread!

Alawys a pleasure.

There is an underlying point here. People go into politics because they believe that the State should do certain things. When the State delivered education and health care, and ran things like railways and mines, then it felt no need to introduce ID cards, or to bang people up for six weeks without even so much as charging them, or to keep vast databases on them, or to watch them all the time. For that matter, no such needs were felt when the Police patrolled the streets on foot.

But now, having arbitrarily decided that they will not do such sensible and necessary things as delivering education and health care, or running railways and mines, or ensuring that the Police patrol the streets on foot, how are the political and administrative classes to occupy their time? Why, by introducing ID cards, and banging people up for six weeks without even so much as charging them, and keeping vast databases on them, and watching them all the time, of course.

That, and waging pointless wars.

Now, is there going to be a hawk candidate or not? Don’t Davis’s constituents have the right to vote for such a person if they want to? And wouldn’t they want to? Or have I missed something?

“David Davis’ resignation is a stunt, nothing more.”

A stunt for what ends exactly?

It’s funny how the New Labour hardcore supporters denounce David Davis extraordinary, personal decision as some kind of stunt to make Brown or New Labour look stupid. As if a ’stunt’ was needed.

On civil liberties, I remember that Davis strongly opposed 24 hour drinking too.

What a hypocrite he must be! He’s against 42 days without charge AND against 24 hour drinking! I despair!….

Of the course the real DISGRACE here, is the way that the votes have been bought for Brown. I say ‘bought’ but it just seems like pure bribery in many cases.

And people have the audacity to denounce Davies…

David Lindsay,
Why don’t you put up Neil Clark against Davis?

And as C4 just reminded us, he called for hanging to come back.

Yes, very liberal.

I thought that people went into politics so that a sinister CPGB Straight Left faction could destroy Britain by being less beastly to gays, or something?

Marvin: Of course, putting your views to the electorate in an election is bizarre, eccentric and insane, whereas buying up support in the Commons to win a vote is a normal part of parliamentary democracy that should be accepted.

Marvin, it’s David Davis that’s said he is waging a war for civil liberties. In that context these inconsistencies are very relevent.

I don’t remember licensing for public venues to be able to sell alcohol 24/7 as being one of Great Britain’s hard earned civil liberties. But then I was probably pissed, so I may have missed that one….

Davis was referring to this Big Brother approach to national security. I think he’s been reasonably consistent in this area.

All day drinking was a cherished and traditional civil liberty, until the late 19th century

“The trouble is, as with Labour, there is an authoritarian and a libertarian strand in Tory thinking. Neither party can really be entirely trusted on the issue of civil liberties.”

“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.” Orwell, 4 December 1948

What has disturbed me about the posts and threads on the 42 day topic here is the swaggering glee that has acclaimed the government’s shabby victory. Even if you thought the 42 days was necessary - and I don’t - it should be greeted as a necessary evil, like conscription in time of war, not with opening the champagne and gloating victory dances.

There seems to be a confusion here between supporting a historic range of civil liberties (which granted has varied slightly from age to age) - and which are now being continually eroded by New Labour using modern technology - and with being a libertarian which means basically favouring minimal state intervention in any area.

I would describe myself as a life long supporter of civil liberties - which I think should be outside party politics - but certainly not as a Libertarian.

If you’re referring to my quote, Mrs Ben, I think it unlikely that Orwell meant “libertarian” in the very modern sense of minimal taxes, pay for your own roads etc but in your sense of civil liberties.

iain dale has his own take on it - see “David Davis’s walk into the unknown” on http://iaindale.blogspot.com/

He knows David Davis personally and believes he has acted out of personal conviction. He thought he would narrowly win the vote until the DUP turned coats and that this is the only way he can feel free to speak out against the erosion of our civil liberties.

You may think it is a moot point whether it is 28 days or 42 days but Davis apparently feels 42 days, coming on top of other changes previously referred to, which erode our civil liberties, is the last straw and that the parliamentary parties cannot be trusted as mps are so readily bought and sold. So he wants to continue the fight outside the Shadow cabinet and to be elected to do so specifically.

Read iain dale and see what you think.

Dinosaur socialists lamenting the fact that, instead of working down state-run mines, many people now work in comfy offices where they have IT access enabling them to argue about politics on the internet never strike me as people who’d actually volunteer to work down those mines. I’m pretty sure they prefer their comfy offices. They’re the mining 101st keyboarders.

“And here are some other examples of the fundamental British freedoms that matter to Davis. He wants to curtail abortion rights.”

Do you mean he supports the freedom of the British Fetus to come to term, as opposed to allowing British women to be allowed to abort upto the first drawing of breath?

KB Player - no I wasn’t referring to your quote but to difference between civil liberties and the Libertarian view of politics which is more prevelant in the States and basically means the state should keep out of pretty much everything. I think Orwell was basically right and sadly the authoritarians have the upper hand in both parties today.

The Telegraph is currently reporting that Cameron was waivering on total support for opposition to the campaign against 42 days, after losing the Commons vote and the opinion polls generally.

“In a Commons meeting in the wake of the result, Mr Davis and Mr Cameron are understood to have disagreed about how strongly the Tories should continue to resist the 42-day move.

“Some of Mr Cameron’s inner circle are known to worry that opposing the new terror law puts the party on the wrong side of popular opinion.

“Mr Davis’ move panicked the Cameron inner circle and cast a shadow over an annual summer party Mr Cameron held for senior MPs at his London home on Wednesday night. As in previous years, Mr Davis had not been invited to the gathering.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2118091/David-Davis’s-42-day-detention-resignation-’may-backfire’.html

So Dominic Grieve may have announced the Tories will continue to oppose 42 days but that may not be a whole hearted opposition. Will they actually repeal it? And what about all the other measures Davis has objected to in his statement?

For myself if I had to construct a league table, than I am more concerned about ID cards, a the National database with all our data on it and the power of local government snoopers have over our lives these days.

What I wonder is the civil liberties sticking point of other HPers who don’t object to the 42 days? Maybe some of you don’t object to any of it and are closet authoritarians.

David T

None of your wife’s observations surprise me. I have also heard the argument, on a previous occasion when the time limit was extended, that it needed to be done because Paddington Green police station does not have enough interview rooms and all the terrorist suspects use the same lawyer, so it takes too long to question them all. Personally, I am not too concerned by the extention to 42 days because of the level of oversight that will apply to each decision, and the fact that it will only affect very few people.

Marvin

I am not a “New Labour hardcore supporter”. I have never been a member of any political party. I was just alluding to the fact that David Davis was shadow home secretary for a party which advocates the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir, so his lament for the loss of basic liberties rings pretty hollow for me. I’m not saying HT shouldn’t be banned; just that you can’t, on the one hand, advocate their banning, and on the other, complain about “so-called hate laws which stifle debate”.

No-body but Cameron gets anything out of this idiocy.

Davis ends up looking like a twerp whether he wins or loses his by-election, and especially if he isn’t opposed. But he has also left the door wide open to an opportunist challenge from any Independant who wants to campaign on the issue of the Lisbon Constitution instead, because no-one can control what the priorities of the electorate are.

Failing that, the voters get a chance to be centre stage by, er, not bothering to vote.

The journalists end up having to interview eachother again.

But Cameron gets rid of a maverick who has never been much of a team player, and he doesn’t even need to knife Davis the back. It would almost have been worth his while to provoke Davis by pretending he wouldn’t repeal the 42 day detention…..

But those few people will be innocent

Anyhow, Cameron will have to do Davis over somehow,now

I think Cameron wanted Davis on board.
He was a rare non Public Schoolboy for one thing

“it’s David Davis that’s said he is waging a war for civil liberties. In that context these inconsistencies are very relevent.”

Why don’t you stand against him then? Why won’t Labour state that it will take on Davis?

I would describe myself as a life long supporter of civil liberties - which I think should be outside party politics - but certainly not as a Libertarian.

Yes, I would say exactly the same.

Davis argued for and voted for an extension to 14 days. That means he’s had much more impact on extending the allowed time than any of us will ever have.

That’s not necessarily wrong - maybe he changed his mind, or maybe he really believes 14 days is too short, 28 days is right, and 42 days is a point on which to resign his seat and stand again againt no-one.

But what I think many find odd is when he bangs on about the Magna Carta being violated as if that document said something like ‘Ye man should not be held wivout tryal for fortie two days, but twentie one is a bit shorte, so twenty eight is righte”

Whoops, “Davis argued for and voted for an extension to 14 days” should read “28 days”

But those few people will be innocent

Maybe, maybe not. In fact the new level of judicial oversight, with the need to demonstrate progress in the investigation, should mean that the longer someone is held, the more evidence there is that they are guilty, or at least worth putting on trial. That’s if it works properly, which is another thing altogether, as you said above.

David L - Please welcome Ven and DocMartyn as possible candidates for your formidable coalition of ‘Britons’

Morgoth - Your end of history involves a system of privatisied re-education camps and a Bolshevik style assualt of liberty of conscious. 42 days is small fry in comparison.

I’m far more worried about what the Tories would do with such extended powers in the event of a ongoing terror campaign. The judicial oversight might well fly out of the window and produce law making that make the dangerous dogs act look like the works of Solon.

The debate over 42 days has been poor, really poor. Neither side has been luminated with any real insight or analysis. The main plus is that some robust legal mechanisms have at least been included in 42 that were absent in 90. Similarly Broon’s ‘totalitarianism’ is so laughably incompetent as to make even internment toothless. My worry is that a government with an ideological axe to grind will use this tools with real venom. Thus my fear about the Tories

Matthew,

You’ve given me one of those coffee on the keyboard moments. Comedy genius.

Of course, I’m sure you appreciate that I’ll be passing this off as my own in the days to come?

Brownie, sure, but look up the original and get the spellings right…

This guy has gone all Churchillian over 42 days, making a big song and dance about rights and liberties.

Meanwhile, we continue to have a family court system which siezes children from their parents, puts them into childrens homes or hands them over for adoption, and it all has to be kept under wraps. Parents objections may not be aired in public, and grandparents have so say whatsoever. And neither parents or grandparents ever hear from those children again. Neither can they ever be reassured that their children are even still alive. They no longer have any legal right to know that.

You can lose much more than 42 days of your life.

Monty,

You’re right, of course. The Family Courts system is a fucking disgrace. As an estranged father myself in the past, I have some limited first-hand experience and more second-hand knowledge.

I’ve done half-a-post on this in the past, but it really deserves more.

What Davis has done is, politically speaking, the equivalent of the Vietnamese monks setting themselves on fire or those Japanese right-wingers who committed hari-kari in front of the TV cameras. Well, he’s certainly made his point and got everyone’s attention.

And I suppose if he has managed to bounce Cameron and Grieve into promising to repeal it, then it’s a victory of sorts - less hollow than Brown’s last night certainly. But it’s hard not to think he’s massively overplayed his hand and given Cameron an unlooked for benefit in terms of internal Tory politics. (Imagine how things would have been for Blair if Gordon Brown had flounced out of the shadow cabinet in 1996).

It’s worth adding that Davis is dead right on this issue - and wrong on almost every other. But the fact that we’re talking about him rather than the issues does suggest his judgment was faulty here.

David,
Your biggest concern is Judicial oversight, which is not surprising because of the business you are in.
My concern is the oversight of the people - when that is absent, as in the secret trials euphemistically known as the ‘family’ court, then there is nothing approaching Justice. At what point is there public scrutiny of the ‘Judicial oversight’ of long pre-charge detentions?
Another concern is that the lengthy pre charge detention may be used as a way of massaging statistics - after all, if you are given more time in which to be sure of your case before charging then you will get less of those embarassing cases when a case is thrown out by a jury because it has been so poorly put together.

i hope labour don’t contest it. too much work for so little gain. lets sleep through boris johnson and david davis. it will sure save us some money.

Apparently the BNP and UKIP have decided not to contest the byelection.

Let’s see if McBean is even more cowardly than everyone knows he is.

Don’t do as Morgoth would like = coward

Since when is fawning to order over Brownite propaganda qualification to hold a reasoned opinion on a subject?

No. You alleged that I’d offered no positive argument for 42 days. It’s true that I initially contented myself with pointing out that at least some of the opposing argument was illogical and/or ill-considered. However, in the thread I directed you to I did indeed lay out what I understand to be the case for 42 days, a thread that as I noted, you had yet to comment on and I therefore assume have yet to read (hence your ignorance about which arguments I have and have not offered).

You respond that you don’t need to read that thread in order to “hold a reasoned opnion”. WTF?

This is why discussing anything with you is utterly pointless.

But you and Hindle don’t actually provide any substantive (or any) reason for detention without charge for 42 days. All Hindle (and by extension yourself) are arguing are that the police are too incompetent to be able to gather enough evidence in 28 days. So why not go for 31 days? Or 41? Or 43? Or 90 days? Or even 10 years? Or life?

There have been no cases where 28 days were not enough. Indeed, countless police officers and intelligence officials have stated that 28 days isn’t needed.

You have provided, as I stated, the square root of fuck all reasons for 42 days. Instead, all we have got on this thread is macho posing by yourself and Mike, acting like Tony Soprano wannabes ready to put concrete boots on anyone who dares disagree with Commissar Brownie and the Brownite Jackbooted Thugs who have hard-ons for extending the state’s powers in previously unimaginable outside of an Orwellian nightmare’s way.

Liberty, if anything, is the right to tell Brownie that he’s a nasty little authoritarian thug who would have probably felt more at home in the Stasi as an Erich Honniker groupie. Or the BNP.

Liberty, if anything, is the right to tell Brownie that he’s a nasty little authoritarian thug who would have probably felt more at home in the Stasi as an Erich Honniker groupie. Or the BNP.

That’s very unfair. Even the BNP opposes 42 days (and is backing Davis’ self-serving stunt), so apparently even they aren’t as right-wing as the govt.

Morgoth, I don’t take you particularly seriously (many people don’t take me particularly seriously either so don’t feel to bad about it), but what is pointless machoism is all in the eye of the beholder. You often come into these comments boxes to make pointlessly extreme statements about Islam to stir things up a bit, and often tell people to fuck off who disagree with you - that can be seen as macho grandstanding.

The fact is there is a real debate about this issue - most police chefs and terror experts on one side, including liberal democratic Lord Carlile who had looked into this for many years, and the rest of you on the other side. Both sides are also using this to score party points at the same time - a lot of the opposition from people like yourself is motivated by hatred of Brown.

We don’t want hanging back in this country.

What the…?

Yes, it looks like it’s going to be a good bit of panto.

The government should get on with running the country.

But you and Hindle don’t actually provide any substantive (or any) reason for detention without charge for 42 days.

Morogth, the reason is the fear that the nature of the threat we face means 28 days may not be enough. Neither you nor I can state categorically that 28 days has so far been adequate. We can’t know whether those people charged at 28 days were charged then because the police wanted t ogive themselves as much time as possible to acquire the necessary evidence, or becasue they were up against it to the very last minute in their efforts to find evidence. I think there have been 3 cases where people detained for 28 days were subsequently released with charge and/or had the charges dropped. Maybe they were innocent, or maybe they were not and the 28 days maximum kicked in before the police got what they needed. You don’t know and neither do I, although I accpet the general point that we are not facing a barrage of cases where the need to go beyond 28 days is self-evident. This is more about having the arrangements in place for what most experts agree will the even more complex cases in the years to come. Better this way than making up the law on the hoof when faced with a live issue.

Now, you and others can feel free to dismiss this argument if you wish. Good for you. But there’s a difference between saying you’re not convicned by an argument and claiming an argument hasn’t been made. You’re asserting the latter, the only explanation for which is that you’re a liar or an illiterate.

BTW, do you have any idea how hilarious it is to read you accuse others of “macho posturing”?

You wrote the fucking book.

the reason is the fear that the nature of the threat we face means 28 days may not be enough.

42 days may not be enough! 420 days may not be enough! 10 years may not be enough! Which is it?

You blowing smoke out of your arse now, aren’t you? You’re handing massive unlimited powers to the state for no good reason at all. You have not come up with a single reason justifying the extension. Even the police themselves say that it is not necessary and is, pardon the pun, unwarranted.

All that’s missing from your type is the black shirt.

Even the police themselves say that it is not necessary

Except they don’t, of course - the vast majority of the police support it.

Yes, funny though. Ho, ho.

You have not come up with a single reason justifying the extension.

In your opinion, and that is fine. I don’t expect everyone to be convicned. But your argument is more or less that those supporting 42-day detention have said, “We need 42-day detention” and nothing else. This is nonsense. I have already conceded there is not a pressisng need for 42 days today. This is not the same as your guess that there have been no cases where 28 was insufficient, but you are right that our criminal justice system would not have collapsed in a heap if the vote had gone the other way on Wednesday. But most experts do agree that it’s only a matter of time before the 28 days thing starts to smack us in the face. And given the legal situation is that detention for terror offences is actually fixed at 14 days, with 28 days exceptional and 42 days more exceptional still - with a welter of provisions that safeguard individual rights - many of us feel that now is the right time to go to 42 days, rather than wait until we’re facing a horse that has bolted.

It’s not at all surprising to me that intelligent people might disagree with me on this, but you prefer to suggest that I’m a modern day Stasi.

I mean, do you want a rational debate or not?

He’s not serious; check out his response to innocent women getting beaten up in the ‘Scum’ (appropriate) thread.

Except they don’t, of course - the vast majority of the police support it.

That’s utter bollocks, Mike.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article4075989.ece
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/761126/do-the-professionals-want-42day-detention.thtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2094954/MI5-has-not-called-for-42-day-detention,-Jacqui-Smith-admits.html

I mean, do you want a rational debate or not?

Its hard to enter into a rational debate with a Tony Soprano wannabe who tells long-term Labour Patty members to “fuck right off” whenever they disagree with him. The only rational debate you’re interested in is with the end of your cock.

You’re citing stories about unnamed police sources saying the legislation has been watered down too much - hardly backs up your case.

You know very well that the vast majority of police chiefs and terror experts supported this measure.

Now, go back to mocking innocent women who are beaten up by masked men, you brave little anti Nazi.

You know very well that the vast majority of police chiefs and terror experts supported this measure.

That’s total bollocks. Did you even read the links I posted? M15 have said they don’t want it. Pilice Chiefs the country over have said they don’t need it. Former Prime Ministers have come out unprecendently and said they don’t want it.

The only people who do want it are you, Commissar Brownie, McBean, McNulty and Lord Stevens. Wannabe-Stasi Authortarian shits, the lot of you.

M15 specifically denied that report. It’s not their job to ask for things. The police chiefs who deal with terror say it is necessary.

The police chiefs who deal with terror say it is necessary.

They don’t, as the links above point out.

They certainly do and nobody disputed this. The reports you site are from papers that opposed 42 days and were stirring it up for Brown by selectively quoting and omitting the facts. Listen to Lord Carlile who is tasked with speaking to the experts.

If you really didn’t know this then no wonder you are so against it.

Apart from your gross misrepresentation of both the police and security services, what the feck is this all about:

Former Prime Ministers have come out unprecendently and said they don’t want it.

?

What is unprecedented about a former PM from one party sepaking out against a policy put forward by the government of another?

Its hard to enter into a rational debate with a Tony Soprano wannabe who tells long-term Labour Patty members to “fuck right off” whenever they disagree with him.

Lying again, Morgoth. The only person I’ve told to “fuck off” on this thread is Benji. ‘Dan’ seemed to think someone had told him to “fuck right off”, but check the thread - it wasn’t me.

Are you capable of a single comment where you don’t reveal yourself to be a bigot or a liar?

The only people who do want it are you, Commissar Brownie, McBean, McNulty and Lord Stevens. Wannabe-Stasi Authortarian shits, the lot of you.

No doubt the “Wannabe-Stasi Authortarian shits” covers the 65% of the public who support it.

Cretin.

I hope that you are happy to have found your intellectual and social level as supporters of Kelvin MacKenzie. I for one am certainly very happy for you.

I’m married to a Scouser, went to college in Liverpool and support the club. I’d vote for a fruitloop like you before I voted for that prick.

Well, then, you have to support Davis.

Amazingly enough, I don’t live in Haltemprice or Howden, and even if I did, I’m not compelled to vote for anyone.