matgb | David Davis resigns — Clegg does right thing

Entry tags:

David Davis resigns — Clegg does right thing

David Davis (Tory Shadow Home Secretary) has resigned on a point of principle and as I start writing this I hear that Clegg has announced the Lib Dems won't stand against him (ETA: confirmed at the Spectator).

Clegg is 100% correct

That was what I was going to suggest should happen, Labour were a distant third last time but as this is a single issue resignation in order to reinforce there is no mandate for the use of the Parliament Act, and Lib Dem party policy agrees completely with DD's stance, Clegg is correct to suggest no candidate. I believe that constitutionally the local party should be consulted, and I strongly hope that Haltemprice and Howden Lib Dems will not only acquiesce, but will also get out and back him on the campaign trail to strongly reinforce and fight on the issue.

Dodgy polls asking push questions show there is support for the 42 days measure, but an uninformed opinion based on a question that summarises the issue isn't enough.

I never thought I'd say this, but David Davis just went a long way up in my estimation.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Good Lord. People doing things on principle. I haven't seen the likes of this since, ooh, the invasion of Iraq.

There's no other interpretation, I listened to his statement on the radio, it's a single issue, he's made the strong point about the Parliament Act, etc.

My brain knows there are Tories with principles, I didn't realise just how strongly he was among them. They may not be my principles, but it's a bloody clever move.

I’ve had a lot of respect for David Davis over the last year or two. I worry that he’s doing this because he’s lost the argument in shadow cabinet on civil liberties.

H+H Lib Dems have been consulted.

Thx for link, and yes, that may be the case—nice way to force Cameron's hand though, Dave is probablytaking the poll at face value, about time the case was properly made.

I agree with you entirely. However, the slightly cynical part of my nature can't help but notice that this sort of thing would make a wonderful publicity stunt, especially since it looks like an entirely safe Torie seat that he has very little danger of losing.

Oh, definitely, but a stunt on the right issues, which matters. If the next GE is liberty vs state, I can think of no better way to get the media to finally wake up to the shift in the axes.

"I strongly hope that Haltemprice and Howden Lib Dems will not only acquiesce, but will also get out and back him on the campaign trail to strongly reinforce and fight on the issue."

I rather hope not. It isn't the job of the Liberal Democrats to campaign for Tory candidates, single issue or otherwise.

But they can make sure that voters are fully aware of what the actual issue is—so many people think it's just about "locking up terrists" and that they deserve it. Suspicion isn't enough, and people should know the other options, which the media is currently singularily failing to get across.

So any activist opposed to this legislation should make sure people voting know what it's about, regardless of party affiliation. But then, I never could do partizan could I?

Maybe if he stands as an independent, but not if he stands as a Conservative.

Are you in favor of 42 day detention or do you prefer punching puppies infront of small children?

On principle, the puppies. They're much easier to find.

It wasn't quite that bad:

The YouGov survey found that almost three quarters of the public (69 per cent) support raising the detention limit from 28 days to 42 days "in exceptional circumstances". A quarter (24 per cent) oppose the plans.

I can't find the full chart on the YouGov site, but I really want to see the full question and the full breakdown, the Telegraph report is pathetic.

Matt? Here's the pdf with the data. (http://www.yougov.com/uk/archives/pdf/Liberty%20results%2008%2003%2027%20(2).pdf)

*edit to make the link work*

...*reads through* Wait, that looks like old data. At least, I think so - poll from the end of March? Ah well, sorry!

Yeah, it's old data from Liberty, and it's an example of a push poll the other way, first question gives two options, help police or desire to look tough

The latter got the most support, as that can include people supportive of the policy and think the Govt should be tough. The rest of the answers are thus slightly suspect as a result.

But thx. I'm guessing the full sheet for the Telegraph poll will be out soon (they have to publish by British Polling Council rules).

I wish I knew where I was registered to vote. It was Haltemprice in 2005 but I don't live there now and I'm not sure I ever alerted anyone to that fact.

Bit of a shock, that.

You should get a form in the post each year asking to list all the eligible people in your household.

Ah right, yes. It's possible my housemate filled this in and didn't tell me. There's an argument for me being so daft I probably shouldn't vote, but hoorah for democracy.

At some point since, they'll have sent out a "Who is living in this house?" form to check. If you didn't reply (which, presumably, you wouldn't have, not living there), you'll have been taken off the roll. Or should have been, anyhow - paperwork is rubbish.

Student accommodation though, might be slightly different. But yes, we found in 2001 I was on the register in Torbay, but for a postal vote for my Salisbury address, very dodgy as I'd applied for it temporarily and said so on the temp application form. In '97...

You're allowed to be registered at more than one address as long as you have a reasonable claim to residence there, students are frequently registered twice. Voting in both places on the same day isn't allowed for the same level of election, but it is allowed for council in one, MP in t'other, etc.

So you may still be registered there, and if it's where you were living last October you can likely still vote there. If not, if you can claim residence you can get on the register as long as you do it quickly.

(BTW, you able to make any part of the weekend?)

No Bradford for me, sadly, I've got to save all my pennies for the blasted Edinburgh Festvial XD

Voting in both places on the same day isn't allowed for the same level of election,

Point of pedantry. If it's a by-election, you can.

I have to say I too am surprised and impressed by this move. I never thought DD was strong on civil liberties before. Hopefully this is going to set the tone of the conservatives on this issue for the next election. That would genuinely place clear blue water between them and NuLab on an important and often poorly covered issue.

Reading around all over the place, it seems the Conservatives are a lot more split than the public persona says.

This might be a crucial vote depending on how Labour plays it.

Damn, he's my MP. Does this mean I am going to have to... ah fuck, vote Tory?

Unless he runs as an independent, yes.

And also? Blog the campaign if you can, no way I can travel over there.

I really, really don't understand the motivation behind this. Give it two years, and (sadly, to my mind) the chances are he'd be home secretary. Sort it out then. Do this now, you take the heat off Labour, and put the spotlight on yourself and the party.

I can't see how any of his stated aims will benefit from this.

I dunno. Maybe I'm just preconditioned to find the idea there are Tories with principles laughable. But hey, all power to him if that's his genuine motivation.

Oh god, I can't believe I just said that.

You do know you just agreed with a Sun journalist?

What the hell is the world coming to...

Jesus wept. Can today get any worse?

Don't say that! It WILL if you say that!

I've always known there were principled Tories, just as there are principled NuLabourites and similar. They're rare, and I frequently disagree with them, but people like Alan Clark and even Widdecombe had principles—deluded, misguided and wrong a lot of the time, but they were there. Rachel's met him and is impressed. That's enough for me on this one.

Thing is, reading between the lines, he didn't trust Cameron (and his cronies) on the issue and wasn't sure he'd be HomeSec. He's acheived objective one and forced the Tory party to unite on the policy (Gove on QT is managing to appear strong on the issue even though we know he isn't in private).

Objective 2 is public debate properly—SB tells me it was being discussed in her pub today, that's almost unheard of for politics stuff.

Objective 3 is stop Brown using the Parlt Act once it falls in the Lords, which I think he can do. I think he's getting all three TBH.

Huge amounts of personal publicity and ensuring a massive personal vote in H&H are of course good side effects for him, but at the cost of his front bench position for some time. Cameron is apparently livid.

Yeah, I was being somewhat supercilious with that line; I don't really think that all tories are prima facie EVIL. Some of them are just misguided ;)

That said, who am I to talk? I'm clearly a latent tory; my first translation of "H&H" was "Horse and Hound" :(

Interesting comments though - I'm fascinated to see how this pans out over the next few weeks. If, as has been suggested, the pubic actually support 42 days, will that damage his support base? Or will people admire his principled stand and vote for him anyway?

Hadn't though of the Parliament Act possibility; I forget Brown has - potentially - til 2010.

One thing I wonder about this is who knew about it first - Clegg or Cameron? Because it seems that Davis might not have done it if we hadn't agreed to not stand, so did he tell Cameron about it before approaching Clegg, or was it the other way around and he presented it to Cameron as a fait accompli?

David Davis is crackers.

But Clegg is right.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

David Davis resigns — Clegg does right thing

Clegg is 100% correct

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Opinion poll question

Re: Opinion poll question

Re: Opinion poll question

Re: Opinion poll question

Re: Opinion poll question

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject