David Davis resigns as MP over civil liberties

[littlebabyjesus]

Nope, thats not it.



So? how does that support your contention that theres no constitution? You may not like the British Constitution but closing your eyes and pretending that there isnt one is just infantile.

You are confusing constitution with convention. A potentially dangerous thing to do.

 

[biff curtains]

As Belushi has pointed out, this is a risk free publicity stunt by Davis. If Labour have any sense whatsoever they won't stand a candidate against him, if they do then they're bigger mup[pets than I thought.

 

[agricola]

The Tories have no intention of standing anyone against him.

I cant believe so many are falling for this hook, line and sinker.

I think most people recognize this is a stunt, the point is that this is a stunt that needed to be done. 42 days, ID cards and the changes to the coroners system are very, very bad pieces of legislation and they should be vehemently opposed.

 

[butchersapron]

As Belushi has pointed out, this is a risk free publicity stunt by Davis. If Labour have any sense whatsoever they won't stand a candidate against him, if they do then they're bigger mup[pets than I thought.

If they don't they get hammerd for being cowards and on the run etc This is why it's such agood a no-lose political trick.

 

[Melinda]

The analysis of this move on ITV lunch time news and SKY news has been WOEFUL.

God Im embarassed for them. It shows how awful the standard of political journalism is on commercial channels- with a few obvious exceptions- The Channel 4 Team.

 

[marty21]

The Tories have no intention of standing anyone against him.

I cant believe so many are falling for this hook, line and sinker.

it's a politcial stunt - nothing more - labour are likely to spin it that way, in fact, they're better off not running anyone in the by election - that way they can argue that they didn't wish to participate in a farcial by-election - and whatever votes he gets are meaningless

 

[bouncer_the_dog]

Good speech DD...

 

[Belushi]

You are confusing constitution with convention. A potentially dangerous thing to do.

Nope, conventions are only part of the British Constitution.

 

[butchersapron]

I think most people recognize this is a stunt, the point is that this is a stunt that needed to be done. 42 days, ID cards and the changes to the coroners system are very, very bad pieces of legislation and they should be vehemently opposed.

No it's not. It will do precisely nothing about those issues, whilst looking like it is.

 

[Belushi]

it's a politcial stunt - nothing more - labour are likely to spin it that way, in fact, they're better off not running anyone in the by election - that way they can argue that they didn't wish to participate in a farcial by-election - and whatever votes he gets are meaningless

Yup, that would be the most sensible tactic from Labours point of view.

 

[laptop]

Hmm. 2005 election:

						vote	%
David Davis, Conservative  			22,792  47.5
Jon Neal, Liberal Democrat 			17,676 	36.8
Edward Hart, Labour 				6,104 	12.7
Jonathan Mainprize, British National Party 	798 	1.7
Philip Lane, UK Independence Party 		659 	1.4

So if he has neither a LibDem nor an Official Tory standing against him, the odds on NuLabour being driven down to single figures are quite good...

 

[CyberRose]

Well you've read my posts, why dont you now try comprehending them?

Probably because I didn't read any of your other posts!

I just posted and saw your post and assumed you were talking about this one seat...

Anyway, it's still a publicity stunt to boost support for the Tory party, if people can't see that and actually support this Tory cunt then I'm afraid there's not a lot of hope for this country in the next general election and the economic crisis we find ourselves in...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nope, conventions are only part of the British Constitution.

No. Government acts in the name of the monarch. Everything below that is convention.

 

[untethered]

The UK's constitution? This is it: the monarch decides what happens.

Oh the irony.

And there's Mr Davis talking about Magna Carta and habeas corpus.

 

[Dillinger4]

No. Government acts in the name of the monarch. Everything below that is convention.

Unfortunately it just isn't that simple.

 

[Belushi]

No. Government acts in the name of the monarch. Everything below that is convention.

It really isnt you know.

 

[Dillinger4]

Oh the irony.

And there's Mr Davis talking about Magna Carta and habeas corpus.

 

[Belushi]

Oh the irony.

And there's Mr Davis talking about Magna Carta and habeas corpus.

Innit

 

[marty21]

Hmm. 2005 election:

						vote	%
David Davis, Conservative  			22,792  47.5
Jon Neal, Liberal Democrat 			17,676 	36.8
Edward Hart, Labour 				6,104 	12.7
Jonathan Mainprize, British National Party 	798 	1.7
Philip Lane, UK Independence Party 		659 	1.4

So if he has neither a LibDem nor an Official Tory standing against him, the odds on NuLabour being driven down to single figures are quite good...

another reason not to stand - they have no chance of winning that seat - even with a popular government - why take a lashing

 

[rogue_lettuce]

No. Government acts in the name of the monarch. Everything below that is convention.

Survey says...

No.

It's called an uncodified constitution. It's still there though.

 

[biff curtains]

"Jonathan Mainprize, British National Party"

I like the name.

 

[magneze]

Ok ... so it's a stunt ... but it's a hell of a lot better than doing bugger all IMO. Keeps the issue at the forefront where it should be until it's thrown out.

 

[agricola]

No it's not. It will do precisely nothing about those issues, whilst looking like it is.

Butchers we have the situation where - according to polls - a majority of people think 42 days is a good idea. Most people apparently also think ID cards are a good idea. More exposure of why neither of these things are a good idea, why they are in fact very dangerous ideas, needs to take place.

 

[untethered]

Side issue: I'm sure they've reseached this, but as I understand it MPs can't resign. They take one of two nominal posts officially not consistent with being an MP ("THe Chiltern Hundreds" and another one) which gets them the sack. So he gets the sack, then gets himself selected as the Tory candidate for the bye election. However, you hold the Chiltern hundreds until the next resignee comes along, so in order to allow him to stand, someone else must have to resign. As I understand it.

The two "procedural devices" are the stewardships of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northwich, both Crown offices. There's nothing to stop the holder of one of those offices resigning it and the post becoming vacant.

 

[magneze]

Butchers we have the situation where - according to polls - a majority of people think 42 days is a good idea. Most people apparently also think ID cards are a good idea. More exposure of why neither of these things are a good idea, why they are in fact very dangerous ideas, needs to take place.

Yes

 

[butchersapron]

Butchers we have the situation where - according to polls - a majority of people think 42 days is a good idea. Most people apparently also think ID cards are a good idea. More exposure of why neither of these things are a good idea, why they are in fact very dangerous ideas, needs to take place.

I agree with that, fine no problem. My argument is that this is an opportunistic tactical manouvere on the back of that. It's not going to expose more people to anything other than a very clever tory move. It's not going help debate on the issue. Debate that is actually too late anyway.

 

[untethered]

Survey says...

No.

It's called an uncodified constitution. It's still there though.

Indeed. The UK has a constitution and it's written down, just not codified into a single document.

In part, you can find it in The English Constitution by Walter Bagehot. The title's a bit of a giveaway.

 

[untethered]

I agree with that, fine no problem. My argument is that this is an opportunistic tactical manouvere on the back of that. It's not going to expose more people to anything other than a very clever tory move. It's not going help debate on the issue. Debate that is actually too late anyway.

Too late? Laws can be changed, so can governments. This looks like a significant step towards the election of a government that will repeal this particular law.

 

[butchersapron]

Ok ... so it's a stunt ... but it's a hell of a lot better than doing bugger all IMO. Keeps the issue at the forefront where it should be until it's thrown out.

No it keeps the tories and the anti-brown/anti-labour stuff at the forefront. Whose it going to be thrown out by anyway?

 

[marty21]

I agree with that, fine no problem. My argument is that this is an opportunistic tactical manouvere on the back of that. It's not going to expose more people to anything other than a very clever tory move. It's not going help debate on the issue. Debate that is actually too late anyway.

it's not quite too late - the lords will have fun with this one - and even though they can't actually stop the legislation, they can fanny about and delay it