UK: 42 Day detention without charge

[richardm]

I noticed the Torygraph comparing him to Gladstone

What, he spends the nights walking the streets of London trying to "convert" prostitutes? Tch. Tory MPs, eh?

 

[richardm]

Can anyone recall an MP doing anything like this before, or is this a new tactic?

 

[Darat]

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.

Sorry but I do doubt his sincerity. For a start he's a politician....

His voting record does not support a view that he is a passionate supporter of civil liberties, there have even been other bills and amendments that he has voted on that would have or did reduce people's civil liberties.

My opinion at the moment is still that this is politically motivated action not one driven by principles.

 

[geni]

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.

The issues are irrelivant. They would need a swing of over 20% on their 97 election results. A 20% swing from a 1997 high watermark isn't going to happen ever.

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

No the considervatives had already racked that one up in 1971 (reversed by Wilson in 75).

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

So you must love Dennis skinner.

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

While last time I looked through the Geneva Conventions it was to see if they had anything to say about intellectual property I think they allowed for such detention.

However outside the provisions of those conventions no.

 

[Darat]

Can anyone recall an MP doing anything like this before, or is this a new tactic?

None that I can recall in this type of situation i.e. his party voting for what he believes in and him not being forced to vote for something he states is against his principles.

 

[Darat]

Just musing I wonder if Labour's best reaction to this would be to also field no candidate?

 

[geni]

Because it's going to raise the issue of civil liberties and how they should be defended.

Lib dems have been doing that for years (if only because it is about the only thing they can agree on). Doing it for real on the less popular issues. Do you congatulate them?

It's going to, hopefully, keep the issue alive and get people actually talking about it.

Doubtful. Labour don't run we get a week's fuss and then does he really want to debate with respect and the BNP?

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.

Um no they can't. They can vote on who of the candidates running they want to represent them no more no less.

 

[volatile]

Just musing I wonder if Labour's best reaction to this would be to also field no candidate?

Of course. Then there's no defeat for the poor local councillor who gets thrust into standing, there's no-one for Davis to argue with, and it's all a complete fizzle. I'm guessing this won't happen, though.

Also, it will be that great Daily Mail bugbear, the "waste of taxpayer's money" (although given Quentin Lett's behaviour at the Briefing this morning, it'll be interesting to see where their editorial line on this comes to rest - they're anti-Brown, but also rabidly "anti-terrorist".)

 

[Darat]

...snip... (although given Quentin Lett's behaviour at the Briefing this morning, it'll be interesting to see where their editorial line on this comes to rest - they're anti-Brown, but also rabidly "anti-terrorist".)

Don't worry they are rather experienced at holding contradictory views at the same time!

 

[richardm]

Just musing I wonder if Labour's best reaction to this would be to also field no candidate?

That's a difficult one. On the one hand it would avoid a thrashing in the vote. But on the other, it could be viewed as the party tacitly agreeing with Davis' position, which would make the PM look very dangerously exposed.

They could try to position non-fielding as "not playing these silly games" but that would also be a difficult one to make sound convincing.

 

[volatile]

His voting record does not support a view that he is a passionate supporter of civil liberties, there have even been other bills and amendments that he has voted on that would have or did reduce people's civil liberties.

My opinion at the moment is still that this is politically motivated action not one driven by principles.

I think it can be both, but I take your point. It's pretty cynical politically (but as I said, pretty clever), but I'm sure 42 days really is a push too far for him, even given his previous record.

It's a shrewd move, especially if the government field a candidate. Davis can't lose, really - which just makes it look like the government are out of touch with the population even when it seems that, in this case at least, they might in fact not be. It's a great way of diffusing any gains Labour might have gotten from appearing tough on terrorism.

It's sneaky, and anti-Democratic, and ineffectual, but it's genius politics.

 

[geni]

Just musing I wonder if Labour's best reaction to this would be to also field no candidate?

Tricky. It would have to be played aloung with some quite careful PR work but yes if pulled off well it could limit damage or even hurt the conservatives.

 

[Uzzy]

No the considervatives had already racked that one up in 1971 (reversed by Wilson in 75).

It was a bad move then, and it's a bad move now.

While last time I looked through the Geneva Conventions it was to see if they had anything to say about intellectual property I think they allowed for such detention.

However outside the provisions of those conventions no.

Interesting. So you don't support locking people up for 42 days outside of a time of war. So write to those 315 MP's who decided to go against the fundamental principle of Habeas Corpus. Most of whom were Labour MP's.

Lib dems have been doing that for years (if only because it is about the only thing they can agree on). Doing it for real on the less popular issues. Do you congatulate them?

Indeed I do. Civil Liberties are something that need defending at all times by passionate people. People who are willing to put things on the line for them, like David Davis has done.

Just musing I wonder if Labour's best reaction to this would be to also field no candidate?

Probably. But hey, Labour are cowards, so it's likely they will just go for arguing that the people support it, but not actually give people a chance to have a say on the issue.

I'm curious Darat, what would you consider to be an act of principle over this matter?

 

[geni]

Of course. Then there's no defeat for the poor local councillor who gets thrust into standing, there's no-one for Davis to argue with, and it's all a complete fizzle. I'm guessing this won't happen, though.

"Labour sources also said they were unlikely to put up a candidate against Davis, describing his actions as a "stunt"."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/12/daviddavis.conservatives?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews

Also, it will be that great Daily Mail bugbear, the "waste of taxpayer's money"

But funny. BNP, respect, UKIP, national front even and David Davis trying to give the appearence of a serious political point in the middle of that lot. Hmm there must be some Natural Law Party people left somewhere.

 

[albion]

Also, it will be that great Daily Mail bugbear, the "waste of taxpayer's money" (although given Quentin Lett's behaviour at the Briefing this morning, it'll be interesting to see where their editorial line on this comes to rest - they're anti-Brown, but also rabidly "anti-terrorist".)

My guess is that they will conflate this with a number of their perennial boogeymen: Political correctness gone mad, nanny-state, probably even some immigrant bashing and if they have time, something about house-prices. Thus they'll lionise Davis as a great crusader against the evils of PC while ignoring that they themselves support these measures.

 

[geni]

It was a bad move then, and it's a bad move now.

Umm well yes I think that one was rather spotted. Still took a labour leader to undo it.

Interesting. So you don't support locking people up for 42 days outside of a time of war. So write to those 315 MP's who decided to go against the fundamental principle of Habeas Corpus. Most of whom were Labour MP's.

Under the UK system of democracy your opinion is at most relivant to 1 MP.

Indeed I do. Civil Liberties are something that need defending at all times by passionate people. People who are willing to put things on the line for them, like David Davis has done.

What has he put on the line?

Probably. But hey, Labour are cowards, so it's likely they will just go for arguing that the people support it, but not actually give people a chance to have a say on the issue.

It is fairly normaly under the british system not to hold a referendum on everything. While some countries have tried that option it tends to cause problems.

I'm curious Darat, what would you consider to be an act of principle over this matter?

Technicaly resigning and finding someone with a very solid civil liberties background candidate to stand in your place would qualify. Something with a lower level of self and party promotion perhaps.

 

[volatile]

My guess is that they will conflate this with a number of their perennial boogeymen: Political correctness gone mad, nanny-state, probably even some immigrant bashing and if they have time, something about house-prices. Thus they'll lionise Davis as a great crusader against the evils of PC while ignoring that they themselves support these measures.

I'm looking forward to next week's Private Eye already...

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Davis is -as I understand it- a libertarian without a libertarian party.

The media are already spinning rumours that this is the start of the new 'Brown-Blair' conflict, yet within the conservative party with DavidD and DavidC. The latter is a social conservative and the latter a conservative liberatarian.

 

[DoubtingStephen]

One woman (who was actually against the 42 day proposal) said

"28 days is more than long enough to create evidence".

Er...

Ooops, what a giveaway.

 

[albion]

Davis is -as I understand it- a libertarian without a libertarian party.

The media are already spinning rumours that this is the start of the new 'Brown-Blair' conflict, yet within the conservative party with DavidD and DavidC. The latter is a social conservative and the latter a conservative liberatarian.

Davis is a social conservative not a Libertarian. The only one in the top tier of the Tory Party who could even remotely be described as a Libertarian is Alan Duncan. Davis was against the repeal of section 28, pro-death penalty, pro drug laws, anti-europe etc. A classic Thatcherite in other words.