David Davis: the morning view

Josh P

Well, he has earned my respect. Imagine this man as Prime Minister - what a contrast with the dithering Mr Brown!

Michael Hargrave

I can understand DD point of view. He felt he could not do nothing, such was his rage that "being part of the team" was not an option. David Cameron has an Opposition to run, but surely there is space for politicians of conviction and he accepted that and got on with running it.
Davis obviously felt that sitting back and letting the Labour Party implode was not enough for him, and now was the time to take the debate, for better or worse, to the country and he will rise or fall by his conviction. Lets see what the country thinks.

Ian C

Two interesting remarks I saw last night.

1) Mathew Paris said if Labour don't put up a candidate they risk being seen as not able/bothered to defend a position that is far from a done deal in parliament. (A Parliament Act force through for a non-manifesto commitment is wide open for a hammering nationally). A typically shrewd observation.

2) To paraphrase Heseltine on Newsnight 'what can he achieve from a non-by-election that he could not as Shadow Home Sec?'

Both very pertinent points and it will be interesting to see which proves more relevant to the outcome. The fact that he has wide public but little Westminster support could lead to the breaking out of Conservative caution if it goes well for him.

The negative for me is that Brown has been helped up off the floor - temporarily anyway and probably not with longer term consequences, but why risk it? The answer may be in the answer to the questions these two posed last evening.

Searcher

The likelihood is that in less than two years time, we will have a Conservative government, and David Davis would have been Home Secretary. As it happens, I totally agree with DD's views on civil liberty, but if the principle of reversing the continuing encroachment of our civil liberties was really all that this is about, then the obvious and essential approach would be to do everything to increase that likelihood, and do nothing that might reduce it even slightly. The DD resignation hardly meets that criterion. The truth is more probably that DD has found some camouflage under which to detach himself from the Cameron project, and is looking forward to a new role as the King across the Water, er, make that King on the Back Benches.

Max Kaye

The public are well ahead of the political classes on this one. Trust me, I'm not a politician.

Nicholas

Media attention this morning (well, at least New Labour's PR wing the BBC) is about the ridiculous blow-hard buffoon Kelvin McKenzie standing against DD as a candidate for that worthless rag of which he used to be the editor. Anyone complaining that DD has done this for reasons of ego should watch McKenzie's puerile performance on News24.

There is speculation that Labour will not stand a candidate, but of course they have not decided. They are so concerned with party politics, scheming, spinning and duplicity that they want to plot their best (i.e. least damaging) course of action first.

DD has already exposed them. If they were a party of principle on this issue their candidate would already be named.

Brown and his motley crew are, like most bullies, cowards. He should have written a book about cowardice. Nick Clegg should change his party's colours. Yellow should be the colour for New Labour.

Travis Bickle

Re the Home Secretary in 2 years point, perhaps he simply realises that by this time the Lisbon Treaty will have been fully ratified and not even the British Home Secretary will be able to do much about many of these EU-led intrusions..

Maybe the best possible outcome of DDs actions would be to blow apart the whole cosy party cabal that exists in UK today, sadly we could have done with this happening 20 years ago as it's probably now too late.

James Allen

going back slightly on my initial ('knee-jerk') reaction - that Davis is just on a big ego trip - I would agree with the excellent comments made last night on national review online by Iain Murray. A party that is confident enough to debate these difficult issues, rather than one that stifles debate (a la Tony Blair's wretched party conferences), may well endear itself to the public in this extremely cynical age. I think Cameron should offer Davis more public support. This may be a great opportunity for the Tories to say to the public, "we have principles that matter more to us than short-term political advantage". Contrast that with Labour's cynical use of public money (buying off the rebels) for political advantage. "Brown doesn't do things for the country, he does them for himself".

dennis

DD made an interesting point on the Today programme when he quoted Alastair Campbell's dictum that if a story lasts less than three days on the front pages, it doesn't really matter.

Had DD not done what he has done, 42 days - and the wider civil liberties issue - would have been effectively parked by the pols and the media.

I think his attempt to actually try to change the public's mind shows real leadership.

What puzzles me is the less than supportive behaviour of some Conservatives who are feeding the 'Tories in turmoil' line in the press and (especially) on TV and radio.

Whether one thinks DD was wise or not to do this doesn't matter. He's done it. So the question now is whether to get behind him and give him full support or to squabble in public.

Loyalty + unity are supposed to be the party's secret weapons, aren't they?

oldtimer

I agree with Max Kaye
"The public are well ahead of the political classes on this one. Trust me, I'm not a politician."

Neither am I. If Brown fails to put up a candidate to support his case, and DD wins by a walkover it surely gives the House of Lords more freedom to savage this bill and no scope for Brown to invoke the Parliament Act to ensure it becomes law. On the other hand, if Brown fights the by-election and wins then he makes his case for public support of his bill and puts the HoL in a much weaker position to resist the will of the HoC.

Attempts to dismiss this as a DD stunt will not wash.

Mark Mason

I am not an expert on Magna Carta - most people who quote from it aren't either. But if the 42 days' power contravenes it, then so does the 28 days existing rule that Davis supported. Don't remember Magna Carta saying (translated freely from the Latin) "For 28 days mayest thou keep them in captivity without charge but if on the 29th day shalt thou still detain them, that shall be an abomination against the laws of England".

Robert Williams

Lord Carlile reveals in this morning's best selling "Worthless rag" - The Sun - that DD was the only politician who refused to meet him to discuss the proposed legislation & eventually offered him an unspecified date 6 months hence.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1286612.ece

DD is obviously deranged over this matter.

Labour should ignore his antics which will be ignored by the media all the quicker if he faces no serious opposition in H&H.

GeoffH

Well, the quality of support for 42 days is exemplified on the Sun's own comment site for Kelvin Mackenzie's proposed candidacy:

"No time is long enough when there's no evidence" - 40-year old Man City supporter.

There you have it. The voice of the super soaraway Sun's readership. No need to worry about evidence. Just lock anyone suspicious up and throw away the key.

This is where Brown's arguments have led us.

No wonder DD felt the need to break out of the box of conventional politics.