David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[butchersapron]

Now you're talking!

Fantastic. What would be even funnier would be if Labour didn't stand, and all we had was DD and a Real Anti-42 Days candidate.

BNP have stood here before - interesting to see how they jump on this. I could see a signficant intervention by them given a few conditions.

 

[danny la rouge]

self appointed "leftists / anarchists"

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who had their philosophy appointed by someone else.

"What are you, then?"
"Socialist."
"Right. Self appointed?"
"No, I was appointed by Tony Benn. You?"
"A committee of anarcho syndicalists appointed me."

 

[danny la rouge]

BNP have stood here before - interesting to see how they jump on this. I could see a signficant intervention by them given a few conditions.

I've heard they've announced they're not standing. Is that not confirmed?

 

[butchersapron]

I've heard they've announced they're not standing. Is that not confirmed?

I hope so, i've not heard that though.

 

[danny la rouge]

I hope so, i've not heard that though.

It's on BBC Online now:

The BNP, which came fourth in the seat in the 2005 general election, says it will not stand against Mr Davis as it agrees with his stance on terror detention.

BBC

 

[butchersapron]

It's on BBC Online now:

BBC

The field opens... a vast expanse...hannah rises from the grave...it's there for the taking comrades....

 

[danny la rouge]

The field opens... a vast expanse...hannah rises from the grave...it's there for the taking comrades....

<Ahem>

I believe I was saying that...

 

[butchersapron]

<Ahem>

I believe I was saying that...

Not loudly enough danny my boy, not loudly enough

 

[danny la rouge]

It's the way I write; it reads like a mumble.

 

[butchersapron]

This was a good thread for P&P.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who had their philosophy appointed by someone else.

"What are you, then?"
"Socialist."
"Right. Self appointed?"
"No, I was appointed by Tony Benn. You?"
"A committee of anarcho syndicalists appointed me."

Fair point. Bad choice of words. Perhaps I could have said "precious" or "fetishist".

 

[laptop]

This was a good thread for P&P.

'sfunny, I was just thinking "...and can someone lock Galloway and Nineham up for the next six weeks?"

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

This was a good thread for P&P.

Its not over yet.

I am so inspired this event. Its liberating to know that we have strong allies against tyranny on a completely different side of the conventional spectrum.

 

[danny la rouge]

Fair point. Bad choice of words. Perhaps I could have said "precious" or "fetishist".

Oh, right. I see.

I can't remember if it was this thread or another, but I said I agreed with every word Davis said on the steps of parliament today. I do.

I'm not sure he does, though. And what I think is that it doesn't really matter whether he does or not, just so long as the press go along with it for a bit, because then we can use the stage. Not to campaign for Davis, but to divert the attention back onto the issues.

If we campaign for Davis, it becomes the David Davis Circus, just as the 42 day vote was the Brown's Leadership Story. It might become the David David story anyway, but for the time being there's a stage there. --->

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Oh, right. I see.

I can't remember if it was this thread or another, but I said I agreed with every word Davis said on the steps of parliament today. I do.

I'm not sure he does, though. And what I think is that it doesn't really matter whether he does or not, just so long as the press go along with it for a bit, because then we can use the stage. Not to campaign for Davis, but to divert the attention back onto the issues.

If we campaign for Davis, it becomes the David Davis Circus, just as the 42 day vote was the Brown's Leadership Story. It might become the David David story anyway, but for the time being there's a stage there. --->

I do take him at his word because he has a track record of vigourous opposition to ID cards. He is superb on the topic. He alerted me to the EU dimension to the scheme via Project Stork and the Prum Treaty. This is a superstate (and actually global - see US Real ID act) database, a true menace that we will need to unite in defiance against with all sorts of people we wouldnt normally work with.

I dont trust the tories per se on civil liberties remotely. They work to the same ultimate authoritarian agenda as Labour. But I trust him personally and this is clearly a personal decision.

That doesnt mean we should join the DD circus and campaign for him and his right wing tosspot party. But we must take advantage of the oppourtunity to work on this issue.

I dont know if The Greens are fielding a candidate yet, but we could do so on a philosophical case of outgunning both tory parties on civil liberties.

The Libdem standdown is a real fascinating piece to this drama. That must be Clegg (who says he will go to prison rather than have an ID card) seeing the importance of the issue. Thats great news too.

Any Machieavellians in The Greens (and they are legion) may see this as a big opportunity. Then we run the risk of being called spoilers, but that as you elude is no bad thing seeing as he is a tory shit after all

Our local No2ID organiser is a Libdem. That's great with me. We have have anarchists, libertarians, greens, socialists, many non aligned. We've had UKIP. I dont care. I draw the line at the BNP obviously (we had one in the very early days. He didnt declare but he was bona fide fash and he didnt come back)

I dont know what people need to convince them of the hideous menace of the tyranny that is being set up. The commons have passed 6 weeks detention without charge. Their stated policy is to fingerprint and eyescan us all in the most monitored population on the planet.

Ive been slated lots of times on this site for citing the NWO. Tough tits, they can slate me all I like. I have seen enough evidence, we are up against it and need to wake the fuck up instead of bickering amongst one another.

This isnt a rant aimed at you btw DLR - just a general bunch of thoughts.

 

[danny la rouge]

That doesnt mean we should join the DD circus and campaign for him.

No, we shouldn't.

 

[nightbreed]

He could face opposition from the Sun newspaper, whose former editor Kelvin MacKenzie said he may stand, backed by Rupert Murdoch, if Labour did not field a candidate.

BBC says there could be a Murdoch candidate if Labour does not stand.

Nice!!

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Well done and fair play to him. What a shame the left has been unable to produce anyone capable of this - thus leaving the mantle of ""defender of liberties" to a tory. What a shocking indictemnt of the state of the left today and the times we live in.

you'll be standing against him as a left wing candidate then i take it?

otherwsie aren't you just as guilty in the left as a propper leftwing socialist.

get on with it then we don't expect to see you posting on here when you in the propper left wing are caapbile of standing for an election on civil liberties...

oh what you're not going to?

well there's a step forward for the propper left wing, or is it that actualy you are even less effectvie than the common or garden left wing you berate so much...

let us know your campagine details won't you...

 

[liampreston]

This thread has been fascinating, and the whole story certainly is somewhat "new" for British politics.

The cynical side of the reactions are perfectly understandable. I suspect DD has not had some "moment of madness", but saw the continued chipping away by Labour and found the cheap/tawdry fashion with which they won the 42 day vote and decided "enough was enough". It is possible for someone who supported 28 days to look at the 42 day argument and go "No, actually, that won't do"

The only issue now, of course, if the by-election itself. Labour should stand if they support 42 days, but I suspect they will "play politics" and piss on his chips by not standing. If Kelvin McKenzie stands, then I guess that's the pro-42 day candidate Labour really don't want, but it's their issue now, they have to decide on a candidate, if any.

The far-left agree with DD on this one (well, insofar as 42 days is too much, I know all detention without trail is somewhat beyond acceptance by people on this site, on the whole), so the unusual by-election has certainly brought together strange bedfellows. But this is how politics works sometimes. I suppose someone of the left COULD stand as a "Actually, 42 days is crap but so is all other State controlled oppression" ticket, if there's someone willing enough to make that stand.

The broad church against the Labour government's civil liberties policies is brilliant if you step back and realise that, without much serious agreement, people and aprties have come together, and perhaps that is "beyond politics", which is good for us all.

Haltemprice and Howden has never been so exicting a constituency before..

 

[danny la rouge]

Tony Benn's letter to the Guardian this morning:

In a democracy members of parliament are accountable to the people from whom their authority comes and to whom they are ultimately accountable.

Apart from the broad political choices that have to be made in a general election, issues sometimes arise where it is right and proper that MPs should take the opportunity of consulting their own constituents formally on major questions.

Legislation that would allow people to he imprisoned on suspicion without charge for 42 days repeals Magna Carta, and could easily be extended to cover anyone whom it was claimed might threaten national security.

The parliamentary vote in support of this was only won after the whips had imposed the most rigid three-line whip upon Labour MPs who, in a free vote, would almost certainly have defeated it.

David Davis's decision to take this issue back to his own constituents and ask for their support for his stand against this law is absolutely right.

Cynicism about politics is now widespread, and the Haltemprice byelection, fought on the question of civil liberties, will restore public confidence in parliament, which increasingly seems separated from the people it was elected to serve.
Tony Benn
London

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/13/terrorism

 

[JTG]

BNP have stood here before - interesting to see how they jump on this. I could see a signficant intervention by them given a few conditions.

I read they weren't standing because they agree with DD on 42 days

I'm on the same side as the Tories and BNP

 

[JTG]

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who had their philosophy appointed by someone else.

"What are you, then?"
"Socialist."
"Right. Self appointed?"
"No, I was appointed by Tony Benn. You?"
"A committee of anarcho syndicalists appointed me."

Excellent

I'm not a 'self appointed' anarchist anyway, I'm a 'so called' anarchist

The difference is small though, it's those 'alleged' anarchists I have a problem with

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm sending this email to every radio station I can think of:

Tony Benn has said: "Legislation that would allow people to he imprisoned on suspicion without charge for 42 days repeals Magna Carta, and could easily be extended to cover anyone whom it was claimed might threaten national security".

He is absolutely right. The UK government has crossed a line never crossed before since the formation of Britain. The fundamental relationship between the state and the individual, for 800 years based on the foundation stone of habeas corpus, has been changed. The social contract has been ripped up. By using fear of terrorism, fundamental truths of justice held for centuries have been cast aside.

I hope we can now seriously debate these issues without the story being Brown's leadership. That is a short term matter, which will be of no import in time. The real issues - Magna Carta, habeas corpus - could affect us for centuries. There is a dividing line between justice and tyranny, and this is it.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not a 'self appointed' anarchist anyway, I'm a 'so called' anarchist

Oh, I was one of those for a time. Once I was a "paint-by-numbers" anarchist. I enjoyed that. My favourite was a "sub Marxian economic determinist". I think I'm still one of them.

 

[John Quays]

Right, first post in this thread, don't worry, I've read the lot up to here.

I can't remember exactly who said what etc, but one thing does, obviously stand out. The stand-off beween butchersapron and anyone saying it's a good thing that Davis is doing in spite of his regrettable political affiliation.

What I feel is missing in butchersapron's reading of Davis' motives is the wider appreciation that everything any politician does, ever, is necessarily motivated by his role in the two-party battle.

So Davis is no different, so what? He may well have spotted the main chance and decided to deal further wounds to ailing New Labour whilst advancing his own career etc etc but you either accept that the choice of battleground (i.e. civil liberties here) is significant and can influence his colleagues, the media, the way us punters think etc, or you just dismiss it as a stunt and drop back into the default position whereby they're all the same anyway, in it for themselves. And so on. The conclusion being, almost Prisoner-like, that the content and substance of everything that goes on in the old Chamber is entirely subordinate to the party duel. Try telling that to the innocent fella locked up for 42 days (or 28, I accept entirely the point about Davis' principles being questionable on this one).

That is of course an entirely defensible position on the other hand... I just haven't got the sense that it's butchersapron's one.

Oh yeah, and 'cheers, Louis MacNeice' is very irritating at the end of every post. That's my other point.

 

[Stoat Boy]

For me the biggest shock has been how the media have reacted to this story. I can only put it down to the worlds of Westminster and the London Media being so detached from the notion of anybody doing anything based on their principles that its a case of them just not being able to comprehend that Davies has done what he has because he has a genuine belief.

And Davies is an outsider. Unlike most of them in politics or the media he comes from a working class background, have experience of the 'real' world and seems to be somebody for whom genuine notions of what it means to be British, and I concede that its always open for debate, actually do really impact on how he acts and thinks.

 

[newbie]

I'm on the same side as the Tories and BNP

that's the fundamental problem with a Labour government, that the terrain available for major battles is defined by the Tory parliamentary opposition and can only be used on their terms.

 

[ChrisSouth]

Is this the same David Davis who voted against the repeal of one of the most draconian pieces of legislation dreamed up the by 'libertarian' Tories? The repeal of the discriminatory and oppressive Clause 28?

I'm not convinced by his integrity one jot.

 

[Belushi]

Yesteraday i thought this was a cunning stroke by the Conservatives to force another Nantwich on Brown, forgetting that Labour dont have to stand in the by election

Now it looks like Davies only opponent is going to be Kelvin fucking Mackenzie

 

[John Quays]

Is this the same David Davis who voted against the repeal of one of the most draconian pieces of legislation dreamed up the by 'libertarian' Tories? The repeal of the discriminatory and oppressive Clause 28?

I'm not convinced by his integrity one jot.

No indeed, nor are many on this thread. Question is, does a lack of integrity torpedo the substance of anything any MPs say? I'm not sure, because in a sense they're all hypocrites the minute they represent a party and have the slightest view that differs from the party line, or even the majority view of their voters, their constituents. To this day I find it tough to accept that party whips are permitted to exist.

You're right though, his support for 28 days (presumably for reasons of political expediency) shouldn't be forgotten in all the hype surrounding his latest announcement.