UK: 42 Day detention without charge

[Darat]

Sorry I'm just not seeing this as a "politician with principles". His party voted against the bill, he didn't have to leave his position on the front-bench to vote as he wanted, his seat is a very safe Tory seat, he's a headline Tory MP and so on.

Sorry I'm just not seeing this as a "politician with principles" resignation - indeed what principle lead to his resignation?


Oh and I see my MP is now shadow home secretary, and he's a right wing ideologue.

 

[geni]

Recriminations over the Leadership campaign are a possibility, though highly unlikely.

Not dirrectly but Davis is looking for the top job and this would be another step towards leader in waiting. He's got a pretty good position there. He's what Cameron isn't. Self made, state school background rather than eton background but pretty traditional conservative values.

 

[richardm]

Even if David Davis was a politician with principles - and I did find myself agreeing with much of what he said in his speech - I would be wary of extrapolating that to other members of his party.

 

[geni]

Labour are entirely free to put up a candidate and oppose David Davies,

In Haltemprice and Howden? Legaly yes but even under ideal conditions with the lib dems gone they would have a hard time breaking 15K (1997 total was 11K conditions don't come much more ideal).

who's actually taken a stand over a critically important issue. As such, he's to be applauded.

Take a stand? His biggest worry is that UKIP might not run and split off part of the BNP vote.

As for your silly slur against the Conservatives, it seems to me that they are the ones defending civil liberties,

1986 public order act. Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996.

like Habeas Corpus,

while the Labour Home Secretary is working to destroy them. Just one more reason this disgraceful government needs removing as quick as possible.

They are opposeing labour. Nothing more principled than that I'm afraid.

 

[Uzzy]

Sorry I'm just not seeing this as a "politician with principles". His party voted against the bill, he didn't have to leave his position on the front-bench to vote as he wanted, his seat is a very safe Tory seat, he's a headline Tory MP and so on.

Sorry I'm just not seeing this as a "politician with principles" resignation - indeed what principle lead to his resignation?

Oh and I see my MP is now shadow home secretary, and he's a right wing ideologue.

Because he resigned and now faces an election in which he could lose his job and his career in politics for quite some time. Further, he intends to fight the solely on the issue of civil liberties. Not on the record of the Labour government. Not on his record. But on the defence of civil liberties, which is always a hard sell. If, as the supporters of this bill have said, there is widespread support for locking people up for 42 days without charge, then he should have a tough time of it.

 

[richardm]

While I'm sure he's pretty confident he'll be re-elected, there is always an element of risk every time you ask the public for something, and I do take my hat off to Davis for this.

Apart from anything else it's also an effective way of getting the arguments properly out into the open. We'll probably hear of little else between now and the election.

 

[albion]

Because he resigned and now faces an election in which he could lose his job and his career in politics for quite some time. Further, he intends to fight the solely on the issue of civil liberties. Not on the record of the Labour government. Not on his record. But on the defence of civil liberties, which is always a hard sell. If, as the supporters of this bill have said, there is widespread support for locking people up for 42 days without charge, then he should have a tough time of it.

The chance of him losing his job is about the same as the Tories losing Henley. Slim to none.

 

[Uzzy]

Take a stand? His biggest worry is that UKIP might not run and split off part of the BNP vote.

And as I said, Labour are entirely free to put up a candidate against him, who would support the issue of lessening our civil liberties.

1986 public order act. Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989. Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996.

And did any of those acts deny people the fundamental right of Habeas Corpus?

They are opposeing labour. Nothing more principled than that I'm afraid.

Actually, I think that opposing a government that is destroying our civil liberties is quite principled.

Here's a question for you, geni. Do you support locking people up for 42 days without charge?

 

[Darat]

Because he resigned and now faces an election in which he could lose his job and his career in politics for quite some time.

...snip...

Of course there is a chance that he might not be re-elected, just as there is a chance I'll win the lottery this weekend. However it would be one of the most astonishing election results of all time if he wasn't re-elected.

Further, he intends to fight the solely on the issue of civil liberties. Not on the record of the Labour government. Not on his record. But on the defence of civil liberties, which is always a hard sell. If, as the supporters of this bill have said, there is widespread support for locking people up for 42 days without charge, then he should have a tough time of it.

Sorry this doesn't add-up, he's already voted against the bill and he's now removing himself from being able to directly influence debates in the house of commons, be briefed as a member of the SC and so on. How is what he is doing defending "civil liberties". The ballot paper will not say "If you are a Tory or Lib Demo supporter but do not support 42 days suspension vote for me but if not vote for Labour".

 

[Uzzy]

The chance of him losing his job is about the same as the Tories losing Henley. Slim to none.

Oh I agree. I live in the constituency next to his, so I know how popular the guy is up here. But there's always a chance of something happening, especially as he's running solely on the issue of civil liberties.

 

[Darat]

And as I said, Labour are entirely free to put up a candidate against him, who would support the issue of lessening our civil liberties.

...snip...

It is not a referendum.

 

[geni]

Because he resigned and now faces an election in which he could lose his job and his career in politics for quite some time.

How? Without the lib dems in the running if he actualy got photographed eating babies we would be welcomeing our first UKIP MP into parliment shortly afterwards.

Further, he intends to fight the solely on the issue of civil liberties. Not on the record of the Labour government. Not on his record. But on the defence of civil liberties, which is always a hard sell.

He could run on being a pig's bladder on a stick and win by a thumping margin. Haltemprice and Howden are not going to vote labour.

If, as the supporters of this bill have said, there is widespread support for locking people up for 42 days without charge, then he should have a tough time of it.

Against who? The only party that could ever have conviable taken the seat off him under any reasonable conditions are the lib dems and with them not running (and in any case they are far closer to being geniunely principled about civil liberties) he just has to avoid getting photographed eating babies.

 

[Uzzy]

Sorry this doesn't add-up, he's already voted against the bill and he's now removing himself from being able to directly influence debates in the house of commons, be briefed as a member of the SC and so on. How is what he is doing defending "civil liberties". The ballot paper will not say "If you are a Tory or Lib Demo supporter but do not support 42 days suspension vote for me but if not vote for Labour".

Because it's going to raise the issue of civil liberties and how they should be defended. It's going to, hopefully, keep the issue alive and get people actually talking about it. He's taken the issue to the people, at the very least of his constituency, who can now have a vote only on that issue.

 

[Darat]

Oh I agree. I live in the constituency next to his, so I know how popular the guy is up here. But there's always a chance of something happening, especially as he's running solely on the issue of civil liberties.

No he's not - he's running as one of the country's most prominent Tory politicians at a time when the Labour government is at its lowest support rating ever. You really think Tory supporters who do support 42 days are going to suddenly vote for a Labour candidate?

 

[richardm]

he's running solely on the issue of civil liberties.

Weeeeeell... let's face it the voters ain't going to magically forget everything else they dislike about the current government are they? The debates might focus on civil liberties but in the privacy of the voting booth people will inevitably remember all the other things that have annoyed them.

Edit: This thread's moving quite quickly, eh?

 

[Uzzy]

Again Geni. Do you support locking people away for 42 days without charge?

Darat. It's a by-election. If David Davis could call a referendum on the issue, perhaps he could. Instead, he did what he could to keep the issue alive, and he staked his job and his political career on the issue of civil liberties. If he could do more, I've no doubt that he would. But he's done what he can, and that's to be applauded. At least in my mind.

 

[volatile]

It is not a referendum.

Indeed, it can't be a referendum... even if he wins, it's too late to change anything at all, because the Commons vote has already been successful.

It's a stunt. A really, really clever stunt, and a genius piece of politics, but it's no less a stunt for that.

 

[albion]

Indeed, it can't be a referendum... even if he wins, it's too late to change anything at all, because the Commons vote has already been successful.

It's a stunt. A really, really clever stunt, and a genius piece of politics, but it's no less a stunt for that.

I noticed the Torygraph comparing him to Gladstone earlier Apparently people are more naive than I thought.

 

[Darat]

All I see is a political tactic, I see nothing that lends credence that this is about principles.

 

[volatile]

All I see is a political tactic, I see nothing that lends credence that this is about principles.

Well, to be fair on DD, I don't doubt his sincerity inasmuch as his stance on the issue is motivated by genuine concern for the implications of the Bill. It is about principles in that sense - even though he of course realises that this is showboating and not in any way actively useful.