David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[littlebabyjesus]

Well now you just being silly aren't you.

The suggestion that any third party could possibly win at this stage is just ridiculous.

So why not go for the lesser of two evils?

All of a sudden thats the bad idea? As opposed to what? Some magical third party coming along and sweeping to victory?

We can't even fucking agree on a strategy to commit to the defense of our civil liberties without fighting about it, but you think some special party is just going to come along and somehow turn enough of us into their voters to win?

Now you just being delusional man.

They wouldn't need to win, necessarily, to advance the cause. Strangely, the good I could see coming from this (and Butchers will probably call me naive for saying it - I admit it is optimistic) is that it could push Labour back further to the left and pull them away from the dangerous authoritarianism of the last half dozen years.

 

[butchersapron]

So you shouldn't support a candidate's position, on a specific issue. Even when it coincides precisely with your own position and when the election itself is a battle ground for that very issue. Plus when it carries far greater leverage because of who's involved. Thus potentially making real progress in averting more authoritanism, stoking up the ID card debate again, etc, etc.

Never mind that, your Tory voters in that constituency aren't gonna vote for some last minute put up, who's supposedly gonna be more demonstrably pro civil liberties, than the guy who's jumping all round that platform right now, anyway.

DD will walk it whatever. Without the liberal VOTE TORY to support civil liberty lot, his 'campaign' is not in any danger. Why not use the opportunity to attack those inconsistent friends of liberty and argue in favour of real liberty. If you really want to get rid of 42 days - instead of arguing by deafult for 28 days.

 

[Dravinian]

It's you going on about voting. Dravinion's talking about getting up there and appearing under banners of pro civil liberties. While the media are looking that way. Not bloody canvassing for Davis.

I did actually say vote davis.

Cause I feel that kinda makes sense. you want to send a message to politicians that Civil Liberties matter and in a case where someone stands for Civil Liberties in such a public way the public can get behind them.

Politicians live for votes. If we can show them that Civil Liberties matter, we can force them to take note when those votes come up in Parliment.

At the moment they feel they are free to vote however they like, it doesn't matter to the electorate, cause according to the Opinion polls and the media, it doesn't.

We have to show it does.

 

[butchersapron]

It's you going on about voting. Dravinion's talking about getting up there and appearing under banners of pro civil liberties. While the media are looking that way. Not bloody canvassing for Davis.

Have alook at the banner he wants people to rally under

I can't stand the Conservatives....but I like my civil liberties.

Vote Davis

 

[xenon]

So VOTE TORY to keep LABOUR in. Fucking hell, it gets worse.

Why are you still talking about voting? None of us live there I presume. It's a Tory safe seat anyway. What is being suggested is capitlising on this scenario for the wider debate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I did actually say vote davis.

Cause I feel that kinda makes sense. you want to send a message to politicians that Civil Liberties matter and in a case where someone stands for Civil Liberties in such a public way the public can get behind them.

He's standing for 28 days, not 1 day, which is what I think it should be. This is an opportunity to say that.

 

[butchersapron]

I did actually say vote davis.

Cause I feel that kinda makes sense. you want to send a message to politicians that Civil Liberties matter and in a case where someone stands for Civil Liberties in such a public way the public can get behind them.

Politicians live for votes. If we can show them that Civil Liberties matter, we can force them to take note when those votes come up in Parliment.

At the moment they feel they are free to vote however they like, it doesn't matter to the electorate, cause according to the Opinion polls and the media, it doesn't.

We have to show it does.

If you want to send a mesage that civil liberties matter than call on people to vote against David '28 days' Davis. He's going to win whatever, so at least be consistent. A vote for Davis is a vote against civil liberties and a sign that you don't care about them.

 

[Dravinian]

DD will walk it whatever. Without the liberal VOTE TORY to support civil liberty lot, his 'campaign' is not in any danger. Why not use the opportunity to attack those inconsistent friends of liberty and argue in favour of real liberty. If you really want to get rid of 42 days - instead of arguing by deafult for 28 days.

Because you will not get the people to join you.

As I said earlier, we are bickering now and we all pretty much agree. We all support civil liberties, as far as I can tell, we all hate the conservatives, we all want to do something about it.

Yet we are still arguing.

You are trying to pin people under YOUR banner.

And who says that everyone agrees that 28 day IS bad? Some people might honestly think that 28 days is ok, but 42 is too many. You don't get to decide for everyone else.

At the moment, one man, a public figure has made the stand against 42 days, he has stood up and said, no that is a step too far.

That is more then what we have right now. If we support that, then maybe the next time 28 days comes up, someone might stand against that.

 

[butchersapron]

Why are you still talking about voting? None of us live there I presume. It's a Tory safe seat anyway. What is being suggested is capitlising on this scenario for the wider debate.

Because dravidian has suggested and BK has agreed that people like them and people like you should go up to yorkshire and tell people to VOTE TORY, and people like darios have supported the suggestion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Because you will not get the people to join you.

As I said earlier, we are bickering now and we all pretty much agree. We all support civil liberties, as far as I can tell, we all hate the conservatives, we all want to do something about it.

Yet we are still arguing.

You are trying to pin people under YOUR banner.

And who says that everyone agrees that 28 day IS bad? Some people might honestly think that 28 days is ok, but 42 is too many. You don't get to decide for everyone else.

At the moment, one man, a public figure has made the stand against 42 days, he has stood up and said, no that is a step too far.

That is more then what we have right now. If we support that, then maybe the next time 28 days comes up, someone might stand against that.

No, I don't think so. 28 days could become enshrined as the liberal position, and we could be stuck with it for decades.

I repeat though. I'm still glad Davis has done this, but I think on reflection that the best response is now to attack him for his support for a repressive 28 days.

 

[xenon]

DD will walk it whatever. Without the liberal VOTE TORY to support civil liberty lot, his 'campaign' is not in any danger. Why not use the opportunity to attack those inconsistent friends of liberty and argue in favour of real liberty. If you really want to get rid of 42 days - instead of arguing by deafult for 28 days.

OK good point. What would this in practise mean? Getting peple on the ground round there. Asking questions. Bringing up Davis or more widely the Tories record on such issues. You could drive a wedge between Davis an his party. Which would be interesting. I don't hold much hope of the mainstream media really testing his and by extention the Tories civil liberties position.

 

[butchersapron]

Because you will not get the people to join you.

As I said earlier, we are bickering now and we all pretty much agree. We all support civil liberties, as far as I can tell, we all hate the conservatives, we all want to do something about it.

Yet we are still arguing.

You are trying to pin people under YOUR banner.

And who says that everyone agrees that 28 day IS bad? Some people might honestly think that 28 days is ok, but 42 is too many. You don't get to decide for everyone else.

At the moment, one man, a public figure has made the stand against 42 days, he has stood up and said, no that is a step too far.

That is more then what we have right now. If we support that, then maybe the next time 28 days comes up, someone might stand against that.

You're the person who started this by suggesting that

I started a thread suggesting that people who are political active, SWP, No2ID cards etc etc should all descend on his constituency.

Make a show of it, show that while the media want to portray it as a political stunt and pointless, as labour and the Lib Dems want to step aside and make it a non-entity election, we should get together and smother his constituency with people just as a show of hands.

Simply as a single banner that everyone can stand behind, what other campaign have we got to get behind? Where else is there some big stand against 42 days? I ain't really seen shit that the media is interested in, and while Gordon 'that fuckwit' Brown wants to bang on about Polls we need to prove that some people in this country do not back him.

We don't want 42 day detention.

Even if we have to go with signs that say:

I can't stand the Conservatives....but I like my civil liberties.

Vote Davis

You're trying to get people under a banner. That's fine. I think that is a shit idea and have suggested what's wrong with that and put my own suggestions. My banner is sectarian though apparently. In fact having banners is if anyone but you hold them.

 

[butchersapron]

OK good point. What would this in practise mean? Getting peple on the ground round there. Asking questions. Bringing up Davis or more widely the Tories record on such issues. You could drive a wedge between Davis an his party. Which would be interesting. I don't hold much hope of the mainstream media really testing his and by extention the Tories civil liberties position.

Yes, that's exactly what it would contain. It would be far more effective than joining hands with a tory campiagn and pretending that we're all on the same side.

 

[Badger Kitten]

You can't agrue that people have been arguing about if for years and now they're suddenly talking about it as result of DD's opportunistic manouvere, certainly not when you're making the justification for SUPPORTING A TORY the need to keep the issue in the public eye. Too many contradictory claims at once.

And if you follow your logic there would never be any independent politics ever - it would all be conducted through the established parties. And the small fry would be silenced, Which you seem happy with. VOTE TORY for defence of some civil liberties and AGAINST a consistent pro-civil liberties candiates. 28 days not 42.

There is no consistent pro-civil liberties candidate, is there? So what is the point about accusing me of voting against such a person?

I was against 28 days, fyi. I support independent candidates but there are none in this matter. I wish all the Labour rebels had resigned on the principle and got voted back in as independents but they didn't. I wish that there was a Liberty Party but there isn't.

I can't vote because I am not in his constituency but I am happy that the very important issue of liberties is all over the news and the House and if DD does well, Cameron will have to commit to repealing shite laws, and being pro civil liberties and anti ID cards if he gets in, and he very likely will,

and that Labour will see the massive popular resentment about ID cards and detention and think again,

and that the whole lot of them will start fighting like ferrets and realise that in the real world,. real people are impressed and excited by principle and by fighting to stop ancient freedoms being nibbled away and carelessly given away.

And I disagree that it is an opportunistic manoeuvre. Cameron is furious. Brown is furious. DD has lost his front bench seat. The media and politicians are genuinely affronted that someone has broken the rules like this and made them all look like the venal unprincipled lot they are.

You can't support a Tory. Fine. You have made that point many times.
I can support a big kick up the arse for politicians and the media and the subject of our liberties being a Big Deal. I can see that the issue is drawing people of all political persuasions together because it is bigger than party politics.

I can get off my arse and help make this a success - or I can hold my nose and say, oh, I can't , it's a Tory. I've tried for the last few years and still they passed the law. They are trying to take me somewhere I do not want to go, and here is someone trying to block the path they are taking. I'll sit down next to them and try to block it too, I hope as many people as possible do the same, to make a big point, to say no.

I can wait forever for the perfect candidate, (and I wonder who it could ever be and if this perfect gentil knight will ever be pure enough for you Butchers), or I can get behind a cause which is live and relevant now. I've made my decision. It doesn't make me a Tory, only voting Tory and supporting Tory party policy makes me a Tory. I'm comfortable enough to know what I stand for to cope with what supporting one man on one issue means.

 

[butchersapron]

Another call to vote against civil liberties.

 

[xenon]

I did actually say vote davis.

Cause I feel that kinda makes sense. you want to send a message to politicians that Civil Liberties matter and in a case where someone stands for Civil Liberties in such a public way the public can get behind them.

Politicians live for votes. If we can show them that Civil Liberties matter, we can force them to take note when those votes come up in Parliment.

At the moment they feel they are free to vote however they like, it doesn't matter to the electorate, cause according to the Opinion polls and the media, it doesn't.

We have to show it does.

I'm not even sure you have to urge peple to vote Davis. As of right now, there's no one else there standing on the same platform. Anyone who agrees with him, or is a dyed in the whool Tory, will vote accordingly anyway. Just being there with banners, minus the "Vote Davis", bit will get a message across. Plus preserving political integraty. You suggested some sort of coalition presence under the civil liberties banner. Therefore explicitely allying that campaign to a Tory candidate is gonna weaken the position.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Fair enough BK - but forget the Davis crusade - he'll walk the election. Relying on one man to save our civil liberties isn't the answer - especially one with such a dubious record on the issue.

We should concentrate efforts on supporting Liberty or Amnesty International or something.

 

[xenon]

Yes, that's exactly what it would contain. It would be far more effective than joining hands with a tory campiagn and pretending that we're all on the same side.

I still welcome what Davis has done. But thinking more about it. I agree with what you're saying here. i.e. Keeping the issue in focuss. Not moving towards a Tory candidate.

 

[butchersapron]

Chakrabati has been calling on peope to VOTE TORY apparently.

 

[Dravinian]

You're the person who started this by suggesting that



You're trying to get people under a banner. That's fine. I think that is a shit idea and have suggested what's wrong with that and put my own suggestions. My banner is sectarian though apparently. In fact having banners is if anyone but you hold them.

So what wass your complaint about my suggestion, lets remind ourselves.

Because it doesn't go far enough for our civil liberties.

So your suggestion, that would be going further, yes?

So when I suggest that by going further you would be alienating some of the people who would have been happy to come along previously.

You go into some sarcastic bullshit mode about sectarianism?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Chakrabati has been calling on peope to VOTE TORY apparently.

She should stand herself on a real civil liberties platform.

 

[butchersapron]

So what wass your complaint about my suggestion, lets remind ourselves.

Because it doesn't go far enough for our civil liberties.

So your suggestion, that would be going further, yes?

So when I suggest that by going further you would be alienating some of the people who would have been happy to come along previously.

You go into some sarcastic bullshit mode about sectarianism?

Eh? I've made my objections perfectly clear.

 

[Dravinian]

I'm not even sure you have to urge peple to vote Davis. As of right now, there's no one else there standing on the same platform. Anyone who agrees with him, or is a dyed in the whool Tory, will vote accordingly anyway. Just being there with banners, minus the "Vote Davis", bit will get a message across. Plus preserving political integraty. You suggested some sort of coalition presence under the civil liberties banner. Therefore explicitely allying that campaign to a Tory candidate is gonna weaken the position.

I do make you right on that, but I did intend to present the idea that this is an issue that will motivate votes.

If I was presenting an idea like this for business I would look for a way to present it as a profit making excercise.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Another call to vote against civil liberties.

Oh, so you get to define civil liberties?

No. It is supporting the idea of one man walking out of Westminster to raise the issue of civil liberties. If we drew a venn diagram of your civil liberties and mine and his, we clearly would not have the same shapes covering the same area. But there is enough there of a cross over - ID cards, 42 days - for me.

It is an issue of civil liberties and making a fuss about them. That'll do for now. It's about trying to stop parliament from going over a cliff.

I don't agree with everyone I march with on demos or sign petitions with either. But I still march and I still sign.

You can't go near the big civil liberties challenger because he is a Tory, ok, that is your call. You see TORY I see CIVIL LIBERTIES PROTEST CAMPAIGN.

You back away, I move towards it. Both of us acting according to our consciences.

 

[Dravinian]

Eh? I've made my objections perfectly clear.

I know i laid them out above. I didn't try to misrepresent you.

I was just pointing out that your entire complaint is that my suggestion doesn't go far enough, I pointed out that by going further you will alienate some of the people.

A very reasonable thing to say, and a valid point.

You dismissed it with some bull about sectarianism. Like it wasn't a valid point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh, so you get to define civil liberties?

No. It is supporting the idea of one man walking out of Westminster to raise the issue of civil liberties. If we drew a venn diagram of your civil liberties and mine and his, we clearly would not have the same shapes covering the same area. But there is enough there of a cross over - ID cards, 42 days - for me.

He's not just against 42 days, he's for 28 days. And against gay rights, 24 weeks for abortion and all kinds of other things.

Being pleased that he's done this isn't the same as supporting him. I'd have been pleased if Blair had backed down on Iraq, but that wouldn't have turned me into a Blair supporter.

 

[Badger Kitten]

He's not just against 42 days, he's for 28 days. And against gay rights, 24 weeks for abortion and all kinds of other things.

I know. But he is senior and unignorable and heavyweight and trying to pull the machine onto a different course and make it start running a different way.

That's enough for now, the fine tuning can come later. Right now, it's about trying to apply brakes and shove spokes in the wheels of a big scary machine. It needs brute strength from a big beast.

I'm a pragmatist, me. Running alongside the machine for three years shouting 'O! Stop, do please stop! O think!' hasn't stopped the machine. Seeing a big blunt instrument deliberately insert itself into the wheels is causing it to grind and veer to the side. I am happy to apply more force to the process, every little helps.

 

[butchersapron]

Oh, so you get to define civil liberties?

No. It is supporting the idea of one man walking out of Westminster to raise the issue of civil liberties. If we drew a venn diagram of your civil liberties and mine and his, we clearly would not have the same shapes covering the same area. But there is enough there of a cross over - ID cards, 42 days - for me.

It is an issue of civil liberties and making a fuss about them. That'll do for now. It's about trying to stop parliament from going over a cliff.

I don't agree with everyone I march with on demos or sign petitions with either. But I still march and I still sign.

You can't go near the big civil liberties challenger because he is a Tory, ok, that is your call. You see TORY I see CIVIL LIBERTIES PROTEST CAMPAIGN.

You back away, I move towards it. Both of us acting according to our consciences.

And i say you're both being a mug and missing an opportunity. He's going to win. He's going to win whatever. So if you're supposed to be doing a pro-civil liberties campaign why not campaign on a genuine pro-civil liberties camapign instead of pretedingthat 28 days mighr justy be part of it (it isn't) -because, if the argument is that he's given us a public opportunity, you're arguing that we should flush it down the bog by supporting him. A wasted opportunity not one maximised.

 

[butchersapron]

I know. But he is senior and unignorable and heavyweight and trying to pull the machine onto a different course and make it start running a different way.

That's enough for now, the fine tuning can come later. Right now, it's about trying to apply brakes and shove spokes in the wheels of a big scary machine. It needs brute strength from a big beast.

No he's not.

And so not DD then. You seem almost in awe of the man.

 

[TAE]

David Davis is taking a stand for civil liberties. In that I will support him. This is the best opportunity I've seen to really address the issue in a long long time. Let's not waste it.