David Davies to Resign?
12 June 2008, 02:12 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lewis - why dont you read this
Amazon.co.uk: The Bumper Book of Government Waste 2008: Brown's Squandered Billions: Matthew Elliott, Lee Rotherham: Books
Amazon.co.uk: The Bumper Book of Government Waste 2008: Brown's Squandered Billions: Matthew Elliott, Lee Rotherham: Books
12 June 2008, 02:18 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
watch his speech, highly principled and full of integrity
BBC NEWS | Politics | David Davis to resign as MP
BBC NEWS | Politics | David Davis to resign as MP
Give over, you would be screaming blue murder if a labour cabinet member did this.
12 June 2008, 02:44 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical that the Nu Labour voting cynics scoff at the idea that anybody would actually have principles. Completely morally bankrupt.
It’s about time that somebody stood up against the Stalinist Superstate that Nu Labour are busily putting in place. I wish him all the best.
It’s about time that somebody stood up against the Stalinist Superstate that Nu Labour are busily putting in place. I wish him all the best.
12 June 2008, 02:53 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Typical that the Nu Labour voting cynics scoff at the idea that anybody would actually have principles. Completely morally bankrupt.
It’s about time that somebody stood up against the Stalinist Superstate that Nu Labour are busily putting in place. I wish him all the best.
It’s about time that somebody stood up against the Stalinist Superstate that Nu Labour are busily putting in place. I wish him all the best.
What is the principle though?
That people should be held without charge, or that people should be held without charge for up to 42 days? I don't understand. What are the alternatives, would 1 day be too long or maybe 41?
As for the normally anti-Labour BS you spout, you may have noticed that this issue has Labour and Tory's supporters (middle of the roaders like me) on the same side of the arguement.
12 June 2008, 03:18 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Davis is on record as saying that he was not convinced of any need beyond 28 days. And that he only went for 28 days on the basis of the then Home Secretary (Charles Clark) tellling him that it was absolutely necessary (Plus the 28 days ad the backing of everyone, like the DPP etc).
12 June 2008, 03:22 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Davis is on record as saying that he was not convinced of any need beyond 28 days. And that he only went for 28 days on the basis of the then Home Secretary (Charles Clark) tellling him that it was absolutely necessary (Plus the 28 days ad the backing of everyone, like the DPP etc).
The consensus on here appears to be that 28 days is OK but 42 isn't. If that's true then it's not about principles it's about detail
12 June 2008, 03:50 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing is, when the DPP, the police, MI5 and everyone else is saying "we need 28 days", then it is difficult to argue against it. (personally I had issues about even 14 days, but there we go).
Now, in the end, the Tories voted with the government on 28 days, but refused to go any further than that (hence the 90 day vote was defeated), and I think that's a valid stand to take.
With 42 days, the counter terrorism and various other concerned bodies are split down the middle. Which leads me to think that we don't need it.
I don't think it is inconsistant to be accepting of 28 days but against 42 days.
At the end of the day, I don't even think it was abotu the need for 42 days in the end.
Brown was in such a weak state after the 10 p debacle, that he refused to back down over 42 days. He couldn;t be seen to do another U-turn, and he couldn't lose the vote.
In the end he twisted arms, made promises did everything he could to win, to the extent of watering down the 42 days policy so much that it is effectively useless.
What leaves a really bitter taste in my mouth is that Labour MPs that up until last week were dead against the 42 day extension, allowed themselves to be bought off.
Taking an extreme exmaple, if I was an MP, therse is nothing that could be offered to me, that would make me vote for , say, the reintroduction of the death penalty. Not a safe seat, not something for my constituants, nothing. Why? because you have to vote on what you think is right, not on what you have been, effectively bribed to think.
I genuinely beleived, that Labour MPs especially, would be above that. And I feel completely disillusioned by the fact that they clearly aren't.
12 June 2008, 04:00 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I would agree with that.
The thing is, when the DPP, the police, MI5 and everyone else is saying "we need 28 days", then it is difficult to argue against it. (personally I had issues about even 14 days, but there we go).
Now, in the end, the Tories voted with the government on 28 days, but refused to go any further than that (hence the 90 day vote was defeated), and I think that's a valid stand to take.
With 42 days, the counter terrorism and various other concerned bodies are split down the middle. Which leads me to think that we don't need it.
I don't think it is inconsistant to be accepting of 28 days but against 42 days.
At the end of the day, I don't even think it was abotu the need for 42 days in the end.
Brown was in such a weak state after the 10 p debacle, that he refused to back down over 42 days. He couldn;t be seen to do another U-turn, and he couldn't lose the vote.
In the end he twisted arms, made promises did everything he could to win, to the extent of watering down the 42 days policy so much that it is effectively useless.
What leaves a really bitter taste in my mouth is that Labour MPs that up until last week were dead against the 42 day extension, allowed themselves to be bought off.
Taking an extreme exmaple, if I was an MP, therse is nothing that could be offered to me, that would make me vote for , say, the reintroduction of the death penalty. Not a safe seat, not something for my constituants, nothing. Why? because you have to vote on what you think is right, not on what you have been, effectively bribed to think.
I genuinely beleived, that Labour MPs especially, would be above that. And I feel completely disillusioned by the fact that they clearly aren't.
The thing is, when the DPP, the police, MI5 and everyone else is saying "we need 28 days", then it is difficult to argue against it. (personally I had issues about even 14 days, but there we go).
Now, in the end, the Tories voted with the government on 28 days, but refused to go any further than that (hence the 90 day vote was defeated), and I think that's a valid stand to take.
With 42 days, the counter terrorism and various other concerned bodies are split down the middle. Which leads me to think that we don't need it.
I don't think it is inconsistant to be accepting of 28 days but against 42 days.
At the end of the day, I don't even think it was abotu the need for 42 days in the end.
Brown was in such a weak state after the 10 p debacle, that he refused to back down over 42 days. He couldn;t be seen to do another U-turn, and he couldn't lose the vote.
In the end he twisted arms, made promises did everything he could to win, to the extent of watering down the 42 days policy so much that it is effectively useless.
What leaves a really bitter taste in my mouth is that Labour MPs that up until last week were dead against the 42 day extension, allowed themselves to be bought off.
Taking an extreme exmaple, if I was an MP, therse is nothing that could be offered to me, that would make me vote for , say, the reintroduction of the death penalty. Not a safe seat, not something for my constituants, nothing. Why? because you have to vote on what you think is right, not on what you have been, effectively bribed to think.
I genuinely beleived, that Labour MPs especially, would be above that. And I feel completely disillusioned by the fact that they clearly aren't.
I don't think it's inconsistent either, I just think people should stop going on about principles and how we all of a sudden have had our freedoms curtailed, because we haven't.
As for the Labour MP who changed their minds; I think they looked into the abyss and saw the consequences of a government defeat and chickened out. If the Gov had lost last night then Brown would be completely finished.
Rightly or wrongly, there has always been horse-trading when it comes to close votes, there's absolutely nothing new there.
The fundamental problem here is that we have a weak and indicisive government, we need a change and soon. I noted with interest that Cameron has refused to say what he would do with this new law when he's in power.
Last edited by Martin2005; 12 June 2008 at 04:02 PM.
12 June 2008, 04:17 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well there was specualtion that this was the reason Davis resigned. Davis all but guaranteed that the Tories would reppeal the law when they got in, but Camerson hasn't exactly been singing from the same hymn sheet.
12 June 2008, 05:08 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[sigh] no, duffer.
it's very, very clever politics and the libdems know it which is why they're stepping to one side. they know that tory won by-election on the single issue of 42 days will come as a direct stab in brown's one remaining bleary eye - and that they will likely benefit (a little) from vote transfers of disaffected labour voters at the general election. labour backbenchers will be horrified by the sheer chutzpah of this maneouvre. of course cameron knew about this - this is all about the incremental destabilisation of the labour party and applying another notch of pressure on a paralysed brown.
- it keeps the topic hot (and that's important because 42 days detention is an erosion of ancient liberty and another incremental move up the police state wedge) and labour will lose the by-election heavily.
- davis will be returned to parliament with an increased majority because he is a pretty skilled, outspoken individual who is a very good constituency MP by all accounts.
- labour will get skinned again at the ballot box, making it four seriously big hits in just three months.
- brown will face another poll disaster and be weakened further.
of course, it may backfire - but it isn't likely. brinkmanship and real politics for once, the polar opposite of bland. i applaud it wholeheartedly. clear water between the parties? we're starting to see it now. 69% of people polled may support 42 days but there's something here we haven't seen for decades - the appearance of principle. and people respect that. and are attracted by it.
Last edited by Holy Ghost; 12 June 2008 at 05:13 PM.
12 June 2008, 05:59 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can always rely on the SNP to put the boot in to Labour whenever possible. When discussing who would stand against David Davis, Simon Hughes said the Liberals wouldn't as they shared the Tory view on the By-election issue, Labour 'insiders' were putting it about that there was no point in wasting money contesting the seat (they are just so considerate, aren't they?), and the SNP spokesman reckoned if Labour didn't contest the seat it was because they were 'running scared'. Fair point,probably.
Kevin
12 June 2008, 06:16 PM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry - haven't read it all. Has Davis actually resigned from the Tories or been asked to yet?
What will he stand as - an Independent Conservative?
dl
What will he stand as - an Independent Conservative?
dl
12 June 2008, 09:26 PM
#45
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i applaud it wholeheartedly. clear water between the parties? we're starting to see it now. 69% of people polled may support 42 days but there's something here we haven't seen for decades - the appearance of principle. and people respect that. and are attracted by it.
I for one, and probably many other people can identify with what Davies said in his resignation speech and admire him for taking his decision. It's good to see a politician actually doing his f**king job for a change and taking a stand for what he thinks is right. I expect there are MPs in the Tory party who are now wondering if they put the right man at the helm.
12 June 2008, 09:28 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labour have tried to take the sting out of it by proposing not to contest it.
This will steal his thunder a little, however, should he return a massive vote (say, 50-60% turn out voting for him as the only candidate) then the message sent is effectively the same.
12 June 2008, 09:54 PM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, he is still a conservative party member, and will contest the seat as a conservative. He has done it to force a by election in his own constituancy, and he will fight it on no issue other than oppostion to the 42 day extension.
Labour have tried to take the sting out of it by proposing not to contest it.
This will steal his thunder a little, however, should he return a massive vote (say, 50-60% turn out voting for him as the only candidate) then the message sent is effectively the same.
Labour have tried to take the sting out of it by proposing not to contest it.
This will steal his thunder a little, however, should he return a massive vote (say, 50-60% turn out voting for him as the only candidate) then the message sent is effectively the same.
And when I heard Davies speak it was about much more than just 42 days. It was ID cards etc etc. He might be on dodgy ground if he just stayed with the popular 42 day thing. dl
Last edited by David Lock; 12 June 2008 at 09:57 PM.
12 June 2008, 09:59 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 9,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the Tories have any choice but to stand right behind Davis. Interestingly, the new shadow home secretary has stated that he'd repeal the 42 day law should it come into power.
12 June 2008, 10:15 PM
#50
BANNED
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Father of the Banned
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting tactic ....... go to the public vote when the public have shown in poll after poll that they are backing Labour in their fight against terrorism - and they see the 42 days as Labour getting tough on terror.
As I said earlier, I liked David Davies, but there is a risk that a Terrorism Victim in a wheelchair will stand against him on the 'Tougher Laws' ticket ...... and wipe the floor with him.
That will only make him look extremely silly and the Tories will be shown as being soft on terror - and that wins absolutely no votes whatsoever.
Will be very interesting - Davies v Terror Victim .......
As I said earlier, I liked David Davies, but there is a risk that a Terrorism Victim in a wheelchair will stand against him on the 'Tougher Laws' ticket ...... and wipe the floor with him.
That will only make him look extremely silly and the Tories will be shown as being soft on terror - and that wins absolutely no votes whatsoever.
Will be very interesting - Davies v Terror Victim .......
12 June 2008, 10:31 PM
#52
BANNED
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Father of the Banned
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tories don't like it ....... it takes the News away from where Labour are in trouble and straight onto a subject where the polls say that 70% of voters support Labour ..... not where the Tories want the spotlight!
12 June 2008, 10:39 PM
#53
watch his speech, highly principled and full of integrity
BBC NEWS | Politics | David Davis to resign as MP
BBC NEWS | Politics | David Davis to resign as MP
The words 'politician' and 'integrity' are a non sequitur, surely?
I'd p1ss myself if the publicity-seeking git loses the by-election too!
According to the Times, grassroots Tories aren't particuarly happy about this move -
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis resigns to force by-election - Times Online
On the blog representing grassroots Tories, ConservativeHome, the majority of message boards disagreed with the move.
"Madness – thank the lord that he was never elected party leader! I hope the whip is removed - Let him stand as an independent candidate and let him find the funds to fight a by-election," one blogger wrote.
Another wrote: "Ambitious MP with large majority in publicity stunt shocker! Clever politics, but that's all it is." A further post said: "Admire DD but we really didn't need this."
12 June 2008, 11:47 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be the same ConservativeHome (run by Tim "Biblebasher" Montgomerie) that wrote an editorial in favour of 42 days that was so glowing that it was read out by Brown in the Commons? Why, yes it is!
13 June 2008, 12:11 AM
#55
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: West Yorks.
Posts: 4,130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given his majority that'd be about as likely as finding WMD in Iraq - Brown knows full well he'd be in for a bloody nose at the polls - his only options are withdrawal or defeat and neither of them will put him in good standing.
Grassroots Tories need to get a grip. Davies has some pretty old-skool Tory tendencies, but they're just toeing the party line so not to appear fragmented. The government vote on the 42 days issue was about as convincing as Mugabe's election results, but as per usual the Tories are going to screw up this golden opportunity to garner support from the public unless they ditch that loser Cameron and get rid of all the dinosaurs. A blatantly manipulated Commons vote and misleading polls are not indicative of public opinion yet the Tories are too scared to bat this one out on the assumption that the government will win using the national security card and make them seem a bigger bunch of dithering ***** than a disillusioned electorate think they are already. One of the things Davies is saying is that 42 days is a slightly fatter part of the thin end of the wedge : given that the RIPA act is being used at local authority level against people who have no wish to strap on a bomb-vest i'm inclined to agree.
Grassroots Tories need to get a grip. Davies has some pretty old-skool Tory tendencies, but they're just toeing the party line so not to appear fragmented. The government vote on the 42 days issue was about as convincing as Mugabe's election results, but as per usual the Tories are going to screw up this golden opportunity to garner support from the public unless they ditch that loser Cameron and get rid of all the dinosaurs. A blatantly manipulated Commons vote and misleading polls are not indicative of public opinion yet the Tories are too scared to bat this one out on the assumption that the government will win using the national security card and make them seem a bigger bunch of dithering ***** than a disillusioned electorate think they are already. One of the things Davies is saying is that 42 days is a slightly fatter part of the thin end of the wedge : given that the RIPA act is being used at local authority level against people who have no wish to strap on a bomb-vest i'm inclined to agree.
13 June 2008, 12:17 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 26,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 days has never been used, so why extend it to 42.... maybe 84 will be next.... maybe we might see the return of internment without trial. Anyone with half a brain can see where that would lead.... (again).... so yes, the detail is important
13 June 2008, 01:14 AM
#57
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't you mean ConservativesInAHome? i'm an atheist tory and tim montgomerie is an illiberal **** and in the wrong party. he's entitled to his view but i'd stick him on a bonfire with all the rest of the sky-fairy-daily-mail-brigade. w@nker. he comes near me, he gets a glaswegian kiss.
13 June 2008, 01:19 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**
don't you mean ConservativesInAHome? i'm an atheist tory and tim montgomerie is an illiberal **** and in the wrong party. he's entitled to his view but i'd stick him on a bonfire with all the rest of the sky-fairy-daily-mail-brigade. w@nker. he comes near me, he gets a glaswegian kiss.
don't you mean ConservativesInAHome? i'm an atheist tory and tim montgomerie is an illiberal **** and in the wrong party. he's entitled to his view but i'd stick him on a bonfire with all the rest of the sky-fairy-daily-mail-brigade. w@nker. he comes near me, he gets a glaswegian kiss.
13 June 2008, 07:02 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well my faith in MPs has just beeen restored.
In an day and age where MPs can be brought off with promises, here comes one that is willing to lose his job over his beleiefs. Apparantly Cameron had no idea he was going to do it.
The Lib Dems have said that they won't put a candidate up against him, so good on them too.
He said in his speach he was going to fight the by eleciton solely on the erosion of civil liberties.
David Davis has just gone up several hundred places in my opnion
In an day and age where MPs can be brought off with promises, here comes one that is willing to lose his job over his beleiefs. Apparantly Cameron had no idea he was going to do it.
The Lib Dems have said that they won't put a candidate up against him, so good on them too.
He said in his speach he was going to fight the by eleciton solely on the erosion of civil liberties.
David Davis has just gone up several hundred places in my opnion
13 June 2008, 08:38 AM
#60
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kelvin McKenzie was on the radio this morning say he may run in the by election. (He said it last night in "this week" too - The other thing that happened in This week, was Dianne Abbot confirming all our suspicions of MPs being bribed).
Anyway, Kelvin, bless him, said that he didn't understand people with a libertarian view of the 42 day issue.
Libertarian What???? Thinking that locking up innocent people for 42 days without charge is libertarian?
That's like saying that being against, you know, burning witches at the stake, is a bit "left wing"
Anyway, Kelvin, bless him, said that he didn't understand people with a libertarian view of the 42 day issue.
Libertarian What???? Thinking that locking up innocent people for 42 days without charge is libertarian?
That's like saying that being against, you know, burning witches at the stake, is a bit "left wing"