David Davis

[david mcgee]

How much does his mindless political posturing cost the Country?

 

The Liberals have already said they wont stand, the Labour party should do likewise.

 

Leave the numptie to stand against the raving loonies and page 3 girls.

[I P Knightley]

How much does his mindless political posturing cost the Country?

 

The Liberals have already said they wont stand, the Labour party should do likewise.

 

Leave the numptie to stand against the raving loonies and page 3 girls.

 

Not sure it's mindless. He probably has quite a good perspective on yesterday's vote and the incentive for the 9 DUPs to back Broon.

 

Yes, there's an unwanted financial cost to the country in having a by-election but how much has it cost getting the 42-day motion through?

 

Maybe we could find a candidate from within the JKB ranks to stand on an SNP ticket?

[Stuart Lyon]

DD money wasting Tory barsteward. A Tory defending civil liberties don't make me laugh. Ask the miners, steelworkers, dockers and builders who's civil liberties were overlooked in the 70s and earl 80s what the think of this cheap publicity stunt.

[systemx]

How much does his mindless political posturing cost the Country?

 

The Liberals have already said they wont stand, the Labour party should do likewise.

 

Leave the numptie to stand against the raving loonies and page 3 girls.

 

Must agree with you there,as the Libs are the 2nd place party in this middle-class seat Labour should call his bluff and not stand.The public generally don,t like politicians who force bye-elections and if opinion polls are to be believed the public are massively in favour of the 42 day measures.Davis has left Cameron looking stupid having discussed his resignation with Clegg and only telling his leader when the deed was done.

 

He should be made to pay all costs himself.

[The Doctor]

I don't think for a minute that Davis' stand has anything to do with his integrity over the issue of locking people up for 7 weeks without bringing a charge against them, habeus corpus, Magna Carta or the erosion of civil liberties, however it has everything to do with political point scoring against both Brown and Cameron.

 

It's incidental therefore that I agree with the words that came out of his mouth. This latest bill ratifying the incarceration of innocent people, people against whom we cannot even formulate a basis for a charge of lawbreaking, for 7 weeks, is an absolute nonsense.

 

We have seen how new terror laws have been abused, to spy and snoop on people for trivial (in comparison) matters, we have also seen, yet again today, how inept this government is in maintaining the most basic levels of secrecy and security.

 

I wouldn't trust them to take care of my fish when I was holiday.

 

It'll be interesting if this labour government actually contests Davis' by election on the agenda of how they deal with the threat of terror. I can see labour accusing the tories of being 'soft on terror' (it's the kind of soundbite they love) and the tories asking who it was who emptied The Maze?

[Jambo66]

How much does his mindless political posturing cost the Country?

 

The Liberals have already said they wont stand, the Labour party should do likewise.

 

Leave the numptie to stand against the raving loonies and page 3 girls.

 

I don't think it is mindless political posturing. It could very well be about him positioning himself in the Tory party, but I doubt that too. He already has a very strong position there. He is 59 and can only ever become Tory leader if they lose the next election in 2 years time. If that happens, it is almost inconceivable that the Tory party would elect him leader and run the risk of going into the next general election with a 66 year old leader.

 

As for the Labour party, they have to contest the seat. DD has said he will campaign on the 42 day issue. The only major party with a different view to DD is the Labour party. If they don't contest, then that will be tantamount to conceding that their position is wrong.

 

What will be very interesting is to see what sort of majority DD can get and on what sort of turnout. At the 2005 general election the result was:-

 

David Davis Conservative 22,792 47.5 +4.3

Jon Neal Liberal Democrat 17,676 36.8 -2.1

Edward Hart Labour 6,104 12.7 -3.0

Jonathan Mainprize British National Party 798 1.7 +1.7

Philip Lane UK Independence Party 659 1.4 -0.8

Majority 5,116 10.7

 

I suspect the majority of Lib Dems will simply stay at home - I cannot see any of them actually voting Tory (or Labour for that matter). If the Labour vote holds up, then that is probably the best result they can hope for. If it collapses, then Labour could be heading for complete meltdown at the next general election. (In the 1993 Canadian General election the governing Conservatives were reduced from a healthy majority to having just 2 seats, so it can happen.)

 

For what it's worth, I actually believe that DD has resigned as a matter of principle - the first politician to do so since Robin Cook. I only wish we had more politicians willing to take principled stands on matters of great national importance.

 

If nothing else, this does mean that the 42 day issue will remain on the news for the next 4 or 5 weeks. For someone who plainly cares deeply about the issue, that in itself will be something DD regards as very worthwhile.

[Therapist]

Disappointed to note Mr Davis' petulant action, particularly as it will be seen as evidence of a divided Conservative party at a time when they were doing rather well against the shambolic Brown regime.

 

If he was going to resign, it would have been far better if he did it on the basis that 42 days wasn't enough.

[Walter Kidd]

Beginning to show their true colours at last. Andy Coulson will have choked on his latte at this mornings news.

[Carl Spackler]

The liberals have said they aren't standing because they agree with DD and don't want to stand against him on this issue. They have said they will contest the seat at the next General Election.

 

What DD's motivations are I don't know but I agree with him on the issue. Enough is enough.

[bigbadbill]

Why is Davis standing for election to the House of Commons if he thinks that the only time it does its job properly is when it concurs with his point of view? The Labour Party would do well to withdraw from this farce and give this man's vanity as little credence as possible.

In addition, as another poster has pointed out, his own party's record on human rights in the eighties is a disgrace.

[Toggie88]

Could be a good political stunt if Labour stand - he'll just look ridiculous if they don't though.

 

I think Davis's thought process must have went on the lines of:

By-election on solely 42 days

Voters will vote Torie regardless

Tories win

Davis claims a victory against 42 days

Labour Party votes drop

Another kick-in for Brown

Gets Davis media attention

Keeps 42 days in the media for longer.

 

Ofcourse, if Labour don't stand he'll look like tit, get him negative attention, PR victory for Brown.

[Stuart Lyon]

What about the Tories that voted for the motion - the lovely Anne Widdecombe for one? And aren't the DUP a political party who also voted for it. I would like the Labour 'rebels' to canvas their constituents for there views on the proposal.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

Could be a good political stunt if Labour stand - he'll just look ridiculous if they don't though.

 

I think Davis's thought process must have went on the lines of:

By-election on solely 42 days

Voters will vote Torie regardless

Tories win

Davis claims a victory against 42 days

Labour Party votes drop

Another kick-in for Brown

Gets Davis media attention

Keeps 42 days in the media for longer.

 

Ofcourse, if Labour don't stand he'll look like tit, get him negative attention, PR victory for Brown.

 

 

There will also be a very low turnout and lots of people will vote for "None of the above"

 

Davis has lost all credibility, his political career hangs on a shoogly peg

[Sheriff Fatman]

If he was going to resign, it would have been far better if he did it on the basis that 42 days wasn't enough.

 

Yeah he should resign because something the police didn't want, MI5 didn't want. the prosecutors didn't want, rips to shreads 800 years of legal protections and will in all probability never be used isn't enough. That sounds sensible.

[jambos are go!]

Very strange decision. I think it may be aimed at trying to ensure an incoming Tory Government reverses the 42 days and other intrusions into civil liberties. Maybe he thought they were more lukewarm and tactical in their opposition than convinced. In Government they might put it on the backburner Astonishing that he told/consulted the leader of the Lib Dems before he just told the leader of the Tories. Good news for labour if the tories split and another case of political fortunes being changed by 'events, dear boy, events' as Harold MacMillan famously put it.

[Toggie88]

Very strange decision. I think it may be aimed at trying to ensure an incoming Tory Government reverses the 42 days and other intrusions into civil liberties. Maybe he thought they were more lukewarm and tactical in their opposition than convinced. In Government they might put it on the backburner Astonishing that he told/consulted the leader of the Lib Dems before he just told the leader of the Tories. Good news for labour if the tories split and another case of political fortunes being changed by 'events, dear boy, events' as Harold MacMillan famously put it.

 

Gearing up for a Con/Lib coallition if we have a hung Parliament?

[Cobblers]

I don't think someone who resigns as an MP should be allowed to stand for the same constituency for the By-election.

[Deek]

Gearing up for a Con/Lib coallition if we have a hung Parliament?

 

You are having a laugh Toggie. The conservatives will stroll the next election.

 

As for DD, I simply cant see what he is up to. What is he hoping to achieve?

 

This will backfire on him big time and any future in the top level of politics has surely gone.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

It says a lot for the way politics have gone in the UK that people are looking into the "real meaning" behind this. Personally, I think Davis has done this on principle and for no other reason. By all accounts, he was spending over 20 hours a day preparing to fight this measure and obviously holds deeply held convictions over it. Obviously, though, it is all a 'game'.

 

It's said that we get the politicians we deserve. Some of the comments on this thread prove that.

 

Incidentally, a by-election costs around 80k. All it will take is for 2 people locked up for 42 days to claim their 3k costs per day and the defeat of this stupid idea will have been paid for.

 

Good luck to him, I say.

 

Oh and BTW, just because he's a Tory doesn't mean he doesn't have principles. Much as Labour devotees might like to portray the whole Conservative party as wannabe Alan B'Stard's, I think it's obvious that the B'Stard's these days are on the government benches at the minute.

[coppercrutch]

Who knows why he did this. Only the man himself.

 

However this man was part of the SAS. In that regard he has more respect from myself than any poster on this site who seems to think they could rule this country from the comfort of a football chat board....

 

Good day keyboard WANNABE warriors.

 

[Jambo66]

What about the Tories that voted for the motion - the lovely Anne Widdecombe for one? And aren't the DUP a political party who also voted for it. I would like the Labour 'rebels' to canvas their constituents for there views on the proposal.

 

That is an interesting phrase to use as it suggests she was not the only one. In fact she was the only one. On the other hand 305 Labour MPs and 9 Ulster Unionists voted in favour of the proposal. Ulster Unionists seem to have completely changed their mind on internment since the last time it was voted on - strange. I wonder what they have been promised.

 

36 Labour MPs had the courage to stand up to Brown and his cronies. When this measure comes back to the House having been comprehensively slaughtered in the House of Lords, hopefully their example will persuade a few more to stand up for their principles instead for the busted flush that is this government.

[Jam Tarts 1874]

It seems that if Kelvin MacKenzie stands against Davis he will divide the tories even further. MacKenzie is a well known right-winger and racist, many tories will feel he represents their veiws on terrorism.

 

The tory party members in their constituencies wanted the 42 days, privately many tory MPs wanted to vote for 42 days but were heavily whipped.

 

The legislation may not have to go through the House of Lords, their is a rarely used parliamentary loophole which the Government may use.

 

I do not feel my civil liberty is under threat because I am a law abiding citizen. It's not as if the police are randomly rounding people up is it? Try living in the real world!

[Jambo66]

It seems that if Kelvin MacKenzie stands against Davis he will divide the tories even further. MacKenzie is a well known right-winger and racist, many tories will feel he represents their veiws on terrorism.

 

The tory party members in their constituencies wanted the 42 days, privately many tory MPs wanted to vote for 42 days but were heavily whipped.

 

The legislation may not have to go through the House of Lords, their is a rarely used parliamentary loophole which the Government may use.

 

I do not feel my civil liberty is under threat because I am a law abiding citizen. It's not as if the police are randomly rounding people up is it? Try living in the real world!

 

It is a little ridiculous to suggest that Tories might decide to vote for someone you allege is a right winger and a racist. Tories vote for Tories, right wing racists vote for the BNP.

 

There is absolutely no evidence at all that the Tories were heavily whipped over this vote. Indeed, Ann Widdecombe has publicly stated that no one tried to get her to vote against the proposal. The Whips were involved, but virtually every report talks about one or two Tories having doubts.

 

The 42 day detention proposal was not in the Labour party manifesto. They will be on very dodgy ground indeed if they try to use the Parliament Act to force this one through. They could invoke it, but the government's main problem is that it will have to get through the Commons twice more before they can even contemplate using it.

 

I am a law abiding citizen and I do feel my civil liberty is under very serious threat. In fact, my civil liberty has already been significantly eroded by this government.

 

1 million entirely innocent citizens of this country have DNA samples held by the state. What for? There is a CCTV camera for every 14 people - that is over 4m CCTV cameras. Do all us innocent citizens need to be spied on so much? The government is determined to introduce ID cards and centrally store vast amounts of personal information as a result. What for, if not to keep tabs on all of us? Will they want to insert microchips into us next?

 

When exactly do you think they will have gone too far?

 

And don't forget Walter Wolfgang who was ejected from the Labour Party conference for heckling and then prevented from returning by the police using anti-terrorism laws. But don't worry, the police and this government will never use 42 day detention against an innocent like you or me.

[The People's Chimp]

I find it incredible that a tory can even be contemplated as a defender of civil liberties.

 

It's simply more proof that the Labour party sold its soul a long time ago.

 

Nowhere to turn?

[coppercrutch]

It is a little ridiculous to suggest that Tories might decide to vote for someone you allege is a right winger and a racist. Tories vote for Tories, right wing racists vote for the BNP.

 

There is absolutely no evidence at all that the Tories were heavily whipped over this vote. Indeed, Ann Widdecombe has publicly stated that no one tried to get her to vote against the proposal. The Whips were involved, but virtually every report talks about one or two Tories having doubts.

 

The 42 day detention proposal was not in the Labour party manifesto. They will be on very dodgy ground indeed if they try to use the Parliament Act to force this one through. They could invoke it, but the government's main problem is that it will have to get through the Commons twice more before they can even contemplate using it.

 

I am a law abiding citizen and I do feel my civil liberty is under very serious threat. In fact, my civil liberty has already been significantly eroded by this government.

 

1 million entirely innocent citizens of this country have DNA samples held by the state. What for? There is a CCTV camera for every 14 people - that is over 4m CCTV cameras. Do all us innocent citizens need to be spied on so much? The government is determined to introduce ID cards and centrally store vast amounts of personal information as a result. What for, if not to keep tabs on all of us? Will they want to insert microchips into us next?

 

When exactly do you think they will have gone too far?

 

And don't forget Walter Wolfgang who was ejected from the Labour Party conference for heckling and then prevented from returning by the police using anti-terrorism laws. But don't worry, the police and this government will never use 42 day detention against an innocent like you or me.

 

 

I totally agree. So many people are so naive about this all. "I don't have to worry, I don't do anything wrong, they won't come after me".

 

That is not the point. The important thing is they CAN come after you if they so wish. Something you believe in now may become 'bad' in the not too distant future. Nobody knows.

 

Look at the 60's in the states with Communism. People being spied on simply because they once went to Moscow on holiday or booked a Lenin book out of the library !!

 

That could, and no doubt is probably happening here.

 

Personally I think if you are NOT worried by this you must be mental.

[Stuart Lyon]

Hands-up all the mentallists! Paranoia seems to be rife unless the worriers have something to hide! Cupboards and skeletons come to mind.

[doctor jambo]

The crux of the matter is

is it fair to lift someone from the street and keep them locked up for up to 42 days without having sufficient evidence to charge them?

that could mean no evidence - at all

I wouldn't want compensation

What could compensate for 6 weeks away from wife and kids

Losing your job

Losing your reputation

Other anti terrorist laws have been used to , as already pointed out, gag protesting pensioners, as well as stop people carrying out protests outside downing street- previously a democratic right in this country

These laws have been abused previously - the track record in using them against terrorists is , frankly, poor.

Since 7/7 ourpolice have shot 2 innocent men- killing one

Terrorists have killed, erm, none- and that is without this detention extension

We are all innocent until proven guilty- why does the government want to introduce a measure that would mean a presumption of guilt?

dangerous, dangerous ground to tread

[coppercrutch]

Hands-up all the mentallists! Paranoia seems to be rife unless the worriers have something to hide! Cupboards and skeletons come to mind.

 

If you are not worried about the following then fine. You could add China to that list and even they have only 37 days..........

 

 

[coppercrutch]

The crux of the matter is

is it fair to lift someone from the street and keep them locked up for up to 42 days without having sufficient evidence to charge them?

that could mean no evidence - at all

I wouldn't want compensation

What could compensate for 6 weeks away from wife and kids

Losing your job

Losing your reputation

Other anti terrorist laws have been used to , as already pointed out, gag protesting pensioners, as well as stop people carrying out protests outside downing street- previously a democratic right in this country

These laws have been abused previously - the track record in using them against terrorists is , frankly, poor.

Since 7/7 ourpolice have shot 2 innocent men- killing one

Terrorists have killed, erm, none- and that is without this detention extension

We are all innocent until proven guilty- why does the government want to introduce a measure that would mean a presumption of guilt?

dangerous, dangerous ground to tread

 

So they can do what they want, when they want.

 

I think the word 'scary' summarises the situation better then 'dangerous'.....

[Deek]

The crux of the matter is,is it fair to lift someone from the street and keep them locked up for up to 42 days without having sufficient evidence to charge them?

 

I would say only in exceptional circumstances. In my opinion 14 days would normally be sufficient.

 

Other anti terrorist laws have been used to , as already pointed out, gag protesting pensioners, as well as stop people carrying out protests outside downing street- previously a democratic right in this country

 

You can still protest in Whitehall but only with permission.

 

 

These laws have been abused previously - the track record in using them against terrorists is , frankly, poor.

Since 7/7 ourpolice have shot 2 innocent men- killing one

Terrorists have killed, erm, none- and that is without this detention extension

 

To be fair, many Islamic extremists have been arrested convicted and sentenced in this period, using the legislation prior to the 42 day vote. Can you give examples of its abuse, I can give many examples of convictions for people who wanted to commit mass murder.

 

We are all innocent until proven guilty- why does the government want to introduce a measure that would mean a presumption of guilt?

dangerous, dangerous ground to tread

 

I dont see how it is a presumption of guilt. The presumption must be reasonable suspicion. I do agree though that to hold for such a long period in by far the vast majority of investigations would be unnecessary.

[Cisc0 K1d]

If used correctly I'm not against the 42 days but I don't know all the details or the real terror threat so I'm happy for the government to make an informed decision.

 

The thing I find annoying is the way the vote was won, the idea of whips getting MP's to tow the party line regardless of their own judgement having read the bill and listened to the arguements plus the fact that votes from the DUP were bought by backroom deals seems to me to be completely undemocratic.

[Rick Grimes]

right issue, wrong decision.

[Sheriff Fatman]

To be fair, many Islamic extremists have been arrested convicted and sentenced in this period, using the legislation prior to the 42 day vote.

 

You mean the grand total of 6 that have been kept without charge using the 28 day increase. 3 of whom were eventually released as they were found to have not been involved in any terrorist activity of any sort. None of whom were kept uncharged for the whole 28 days, so the 42 days extention would have been completely pointless in any case that has yet to come up.

[Sheriff Fatman]

If used correctly I'm not against the 42 days but I don't know all the details or the real terror threat so I'm happy for the government to make an informed decision.

 

Informed by who. The police didn't want it, MI5 didn't want it, the prosecution service didn't want it, so it must have been an informed decision based on what their election agents tell them will win a couple of votes.

[John Findlay]

It says a lot for the way politics have gone in the UK that people are looking into the "real meaning" behind this. Personally, I think Davis has done this on principle and for no other reason. By all accounts, he was spending over 20 hours a day preparing to fight this measure and obviously holds deeply held convictions over it. Obviously, though, it is all a 'game'.

 

It's said that we get the politicians we deserve. Some of the comments on this thread prove that.

 

Incidentally, a by-election costs around 80k. All it will take is for 2 people locked up for 42 days to claim their 3k costs per day and the defeat of this stupid idea will have been paid for.

 

Good luck to him, I say.

 

Oh and BTW, just because he's a Tory doesn't mean he doesn't have principles. Much as Labour devotees might like to portray the whole Conservative party as wannabe Alan B'Stard's, I think it's obvious that the B'Stard's these days are on the government benches at the minute.

 

 

 

You could be right Geoff. I think he resigned with Cameron's blessing. At last we are getting some real politics.

 

 

 

John

[Deevers]

right issue, wrong decision.

 

Probably agree with you on that point - however maybe it's not the wrong decision - most people in this country are sick fed up with politicians doing as they please and trampling over the rights of ordinary citizens. Davis is trying to make a real point here, but I fear that the "establishment" will set out to rubbish him.

 

We're spied on, taken from granted and have even the right to free speech removed. Today's Labour Britain is heading towards totalitarianism at alarming speed. Maybe, just maybe this stand on a point of principal will be the start of the fight back.

 

 

As for Kelvin Mackenzie and the Sun looking to stand against Davis - that really takes the biscuit - no principals and absolutely no morals for either.

[Deek]

You mean the grand total of 6 that have been kept without charge using the 28 day increase. 3 of whom were eventually released as they were found to have not been involved in any terrorist activity of any sort. None of whom were kept uncharged for the whole 28 days, so the 42 days extention would have been completely pointless in any case that has yet to come up.

 

I think you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick here.

 

Go back and read my posts.

[Romanov Stole My Pension]

What a silly name

[upthehill]

I've met DD a few times, he really really does believe our civil liberties are under extreme threat, and our country is changing/has changed for the worse.

 

I happen to agree with him. We have/had many great freedom giving laws in this country that protected us from dictatorships, and they are being squandered.

 

It's still a really unusual course of action! But at least it's interesting.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I agree with him that the 42 days are wrong.

 

However I still think he is a typical slimey polititian trying to use a situation to his advantage.

 

He knows fine well that there isn't a chance in hell that he will lose the by election, especially with the Lib Dems not standing (Glegg is really starting to make me think twice about how I vote). He is gambling that he will gain popularity within the Conservatives so much that Cameron will have to bring him back into the shadow cabinet as a hero and give him a head start in any future leadership vote.

 

I hope Murdoch's candidate gives him a bloody nose (but doesn't win), it will serve him right, but for all his saying he will be standing on a single issue, he knows perfectly well that he will get the majority of conservative votes because he is a conservative MP.

[coppercrutch]

I agree with him that the 42 days are wrong.

 

However I still think he is a typical slimey polititian trying to use a situation to his advantage.

 

He knows fine well that there isn't a chance in hell that he will lose the by election, especially with the Lib Dems not standing (Glegg is really starting to make me think twice about how I vote). He is gambling that he will gain popularity within the Conservatives so much that Cameron will have to bring him back into the shadow cabinet as a hero and give him a head start in any future leadership vote.

 

I hope Murdoch's candidate gives him a bloody nose (but doesn't win), it will serve him right, but for all his saying he will be standing on a single issue, he knows perfectly well that he will get the majority of conservative votes because he is a conservative MP.

 

This country is goosed if we have people thinking like that. Murdoch is a media weasel. You really like the idea that a newspaper owner is putting people up for parliament ?!!

 

This country really is goosed...

[Sheriff Fatman]

This country is goosed if we have people thinking like that. Murdoch is a media weasel. You really like the idea that a newspaper owner is putting people up for parliament ?!!

 

This country really is goosed...

 

No i don't really like the idea. I just don't like slimey polititians using issues like civil liberties to further their careers. The issue is far more important than Davis's transparent attempt to up his chances of becoming the Conservative leader at some point in the future.

[coppercrutch]

No i don't really like the idea. I just don't like slimey polititians using issues like civil liberties to further their careers. The issue is far more important than Davis's transparent attempt to up his chances of becoming the Conservative leader at some point in the future.

 

But the thing is I have never met the man. I imagine you have not either ?

 

The only person on this thread who has met him believes he has done this for the right reasons. That is good enough for me unless someone else can come up with better ?

 

I will give the guy the benefit of the doubt. The issues he is talking about are very serious indeed. At the very least his actions are raising the issues that need to be talked about. No harm in that.

[Sheriff Fatman]

But the thing is I have never met the man. I imagine you have not either ?

 

The only person on this thread who has met him believes he has done this for the right reasons. That is good enough for me unless someone else can come up with better ?

 

I will give the guy the benefit of the doubt. The issues he is talking about are very serious indeed. At the very least his actions are raising the issues that need to be talked about. No harm in that.

 

I listened to him on the radio and nothing he said convinced me that he was anything other than an opportunist. If he is so concerened about civil liberties like the other poster implies, why did he vote for the 28 day extention?

 

Meeting a person a couple of times gives you no more insight into their motives than listening to them on the radio or looking at their past voting record.

[maltese jambo]

How much does his mindless political posturing cost the Country?

 

The Liberals have already said they wont stand, the Labour party should do likewise.

 

Leave the numptie to stand against the raving loonies and page 3 girls.

 

I'm much more worried how much we're paying to have to 'buy off' support for this crumbling government whenever they want to instigate their next scam/tax/joke law.

 

Call an election Mr. Brown... we're itching to consign you and your party to history.

 

Well done David Davis....at least someone in power is willing to make some sort of stand against this obscene law.

[shaun.lawson]

It says a lot for the way politics have gone in the UK that people are looking into the "real meaning" behind this. Personally, I think Davis has done this on principle and for no other reason. By all accounts, he was spending over 20 hours a day preparing to fight this measure and obviously holds deeply held convictions over it. Obviously, though, it is all a 'game'.

 

It's said that we get the politicians we deserve. Some of the comments on this thread prove that.

 

Incidentally, a by-election costs around 80k. All it will take is for 2 people locked up for 42 days to claim their 3k costs per day and the defeat of this stupid idea will have been paid for.

 

Good luck to him, I say.

 

Oh and BTW, just because he's a Tory doesn't mean he doesn't have principles. Much as Labour devotees might like to portray the whole Conservative party as wannabe Alan B'Stard's, I think it's obvious that the B'Stard's these days are on the government benches at the minute.

 

I agree. I'm convinced this has been a personal decision motivated entirely by principle - and more power to his elbow for taking it. And why? Because the government is now so shabby, so desperate, that it allowed the votes for this measure, which continues the creeping erosion of civil liberties the UK has long held enshrined in law, so caving in and doing exactly what the terrorists want us to do, to be bought.

 

Democracy? Don't make me laugh. Habeas corpus, and the principles of being innocent until proven guilty as well as being free to go in the absence of the police bringing forth a charge are as critical to what it is to be British as anything I can possibly think of. But the government didn't win a principled debate on the subject: instead, in order to survive, they effectively waved brown envelopes in front of unionist MPs and allowed them to name their price. Bear in mind that I write this as someone on the centre-left, with traditionally very little time for the Tories, and even less for David Davis - but hallelujah that someone has had the balls to stand up and tell it for what it is.

 

Not that it's stopped all manner of cynical, and frankly, ridiculous interpretations of his behaviour. Apparently, it's all part of some clever game: he's 'posturing' for power. Eh? The guy is 59 years old: his chance to lead his party has gone. If the Tories lose the next election, they'll just jump to George Osborne instead: Davis has no chance. Moreover, since when has it been more 'right wing' to so openly oppose such an authoritarian measure: a measure Cameron and all but one of his fellow MPs opposed anyway?!

 

Cameron's not best pleased because it's taken the spotlight off Brown and his not waving but drowing embarrassment of an administration. But in the long run, I don't think it'll do the Tories any harm: they can portray themselves as the ones being principled over this, and Labour as guilty of the grossest expediency. Good luck to Davis: and I hope he sweeps away Kelvin "Hull's a bit of a shocker" McKenzie as a broom does dust.

[shaun.lawson]

I find it incredible that a tory can even be contemplated as a defender of civil liberties.

 

It's simply more proof that the Labour party sold its soul a long time ago.

 

Nowhere to turn?

 

I know where you're coming from mate - but I don't think it's strange. However much they've changed, Labour's core support still comes from the working class; and working class people tend to live in poorer areas, with more crime. So in order to secure their support, Labour have to prove how 'tough' they are: hence the alarming authoritarian streak within this government.

 

Meanwhile, I've long stated that I'd entirely respect a Conservative Party which, as well as trying to limit state involvement in the economy, took the same stance with people's individual lives too. Frankly, you either believe in freedom of the individual, or you don't - yet until recently, it'd generally been those on the right who acted as though they could tell us how to live our lives, be it in attitudes to drugs, sexuality, crime, or many other things about which they hectored but simply didn't understand. Now, I really think things are starting to change: there are more and more signs that Cameron's Conservatives are attempting to take a far more grown up, holistic approach to these issues, and championing the right of the individual to live free from persecution by the state unless said individual is charged within a set period of time makes perfect sense in this regard.

[CompleteIdiot]

Disappointed to note Mr Davis' petulant action, particularly as it will be seen as evidence of a divided Conservative party at a time when they were doing rather well against the shambolic Brown regime.

 

If he was going to resign, it would have been far better if he did it on the basis that 42 days wasn't enough.

 

All BNP locked up for 20 years without trial. Seems fair for all those racist dicks.

 

What have you to fear? MOD EDIT

[Coco]

I hope that the Conservatives stand for the next election on a platform of overturning the legislation on the vast majority of impositions on civil liberties carried out by Blair/Brown in the past 11 years.

[maltese jambo]

I agree. I'm convinced this has been a personal decision motivated entirely by principle - and more power to his elbow for taking it. And why? Because the government is now so shabby, so desperate, that it allowed the votes for this measure, which continues the creeping erosion of civil liberties the UK has long held enshrined in law, so caving in and doing exactly what the terrorists want us to do, to be bought.

 

Democracy? Don't make me laugh. Habeas corpus, and the principles of being innocent until proven guilty as well as being free to go in the absence of the police bringing forth a charge are as critical to what it is to be British as anything I can possibly think of. But the government didn't win a principled debate on the subject: instead, in order to survive, they effectively waved brown envelopes in front of unionist MPs and allowed them to name their price. Bear in mind that I write this as someone on the centre-left, with traditionally very little time for the Tories, and even less for David Davis - but hallelujah that someone has had the balls to stand up and tell it for what it is.

 

Not that it's stopped all manner of cynical, and frankly, ridiculous interpretations of his behaviour. Apparently, it's all part of some clever game: he's 'posturing' for power. Eh? The guy is 59 years old: his chance to lead his party has gone. If the Tories lose the next election, they'll just jump to George Osborne instead: Davis has no chance. Moreover, since when has it been more 'right wing' to so openly oppose such an authoritarian measure: a measure Cameron and all but one of his fellow MPs opposed anyway?!

 

Cameron's not best pleased because it's taken the spotlight off Brown and his not waving but drowing embarrassment of an administration. But in the long run, I don't think it'll do the Tories any harm: they can portray themselves as the ones being principled over this, and Labour as guilty of the grossest expediency. Good luck to Davis: and I hope he sweeps away Kelvin "Hull's a bit of a shocker" McKenzie as a broom does dust.

 

That man is odious....'oh i think its great since im innocent and have nothing to hide'.....thats the whole point you f%$k even if you are innocent you can still be locked away for absolutly no reason whatsoever for forty days.