If there is no Labour candidate, can Labour MPs campaign for Davis?

Disraeli's Ghost

BMA isn't a mverick he's a serial rebel. On election night in 2005, he announced he'd lost his seat which he hadn't

mary valton

on the same day as Davis resigned I watched the cnn news it showed two balaclavad men in I iraq in front of a crowd, including two little boys at the front; they had two men on kneeling hands tied behind their backs then they shot them. Then it went to a bridge where two men were being suspended over a bridge by their arms tied behind their backs. one of the two gun men went below and started to shoot up at them. The news reader pointed out that many Aquada men are going over to the Americans because of this. I suggest to Mr Davis that he should look at that and see what he may be dealing with in the future.

molesworth 1

It seems to me as though Davis has put Brown (& any other Cabinet Minister being interviewed about ANY other subject) between a rock & a hard place on this one, and, true to form, Brown is dithering. Just how long will it be before we get a definitive answer?
The longer he leaves it, the more cross-party support Davis will garner. Clegg has already 'immunised' the LibDems with a quick dose of 'principle', a move unavailable to Brown, so it will only be the Labour MPs that choose to support DD (I don't think "Sideshow Bob" will be the only one...) that will inflict any damage on their own party, or, more likely, try & screw some more concessions out of an increasingly politically 'skint' PM.
There are still, though, a number of questions unanswered:

1) Somewhere in Thursday's comments David Lindsay asserted that Labour would be in breach of their constituion if they fail to field a candidate. Is that so?

2)What sort of strain would such an unexpected by-election place on Labour's shaky finances, considering that they also have to fund the Henley campaign?

3) What is the cut-off date for a candidate to be nominated?

Answers on a postcard please...

Trumpeter Lanfried

As usual, Brown is dithering. He should have decided within the hour whether or not to field a candidate against Davis.

Pleased Perry

Ah, so integrity is not quite smothered. Well done Mr Marshall-Andrews.

The DD so-called ‘earthquake’ has caused all sorts of movement.

Well done again to DD, and to those bright enough to recognise the potential this brings.

As for Mz. Prudence, the Furiously-Fluffing White-Feather-Witch of Noo-Lying-Bores, - well, . . . !

[And there's always the tub of lard]

Fergus Pickering

Sorry, mary valton, I don't follow you. Do you mean that scenes like that will become commonplace in the parts of Britain where the Muslims live? I thinkthat's going a bit far, don't you?

Eddy

Whatever Brown does he's screwed - as with everything these days.

If he doesn't put up a candidate he will be charged with being cowardly and possibly a ditherer (after having waited the whole weekend to decide). Also, plenty of his own MPs could likely campaign for Davis - a kind of open revolt against the leadership that the media will love.

On the other hand, if he does put up a candidate (after spending the whole weekend looking for someone suitable enough) and loses horribly - both on the issues and the actual vote - he will look a complete loser.

molesworth 1

It seems to me as though Davis has put Brown (& any other Cabinet Minister being interviewed about ANY other subject) between a rock & a hard place on this one, and, true to form, Brown is dithering. Just how long will it be before we get a definitive answer?
The longer he leaves it, the more cross-party support Davis will garner. Clegg has already 'immunised' the LibDems with a quick dose of 'principle', a move unavailable to Brown, so it will only be the Labour MPs that choose to support DD (I don't think "Sideshow Bob" will be the only one...) that will inflict any damage on their own party, or, more likely, try & screw some more concessions out of an increasingly politically 'skint' PM.
There are still, though, a number of questions unanswered:

1) Somewhere in Thursday's comments David Lindsay asserted that Labour would be in breach of their constituion if they fail to field a candidate. Is that so?

2)What sort of strain would such an unexpected by-election place on Labour's shaky finances, considering that they also have to fund the Henley campaign?

3) What is the cut-off date for a candidate to be nominated?

Answers on a postcard please...

Kevyn Bodman

mary valton misses the point completely.
DD is not soft on terrorism at all;he wants proper investigation, arrest and charge procedures.
He wants all of us, me and you too, protected from being detained WITHOUT CHARGE.
These safeguards are important for all of us.

Prosecute terrorists, convict them, bang 'em up for as long as you like but don't do it without evidence.
To suggest that those of us opposed to 42 day detention without charge are soft on terrorism is wildly inaccurate.

As for the rules of the Labour Party, it used to be the case that you couldn't campaign against the official Labour candidate.
Other than that I think Bob Marshall-Andrews, who was opposed to ID cards too, and the others could campaign for DD.

But it's more than 20 years since I was in the Labour Party;perhaps a current member can tell us the rules .

griff

David Davies - a solution for Labour

Let Labour put up a legitimate candidate at H&H against DD.

At the same time let Jacqui Smith resign her seat and fight it on what Labour believes in.

JS and DD can then debate the issues and let people decide at the two constituencies.

TGF UKIP

With Carter & Co coming from the PR world we can probably look forward to some stunt or celebrity candidate.

On the other hand there might just be Blunkett. 42 days is very much his territory and a lot of the other curtailment of freedom legislation was enacted on his watch. More relevantly, though, as well as being a proven liar he's also a greedy and grasping sod with a taste for the London high life. A seat in the Lords plus some well remunerated quango promises and Blunkett might just be willing to take his place in the media spotlight he so loves. It can also be dressed up as an entirely altruistic step "no chance of winning, rural Tory constuency etc but important to put the arguments etc."

Wouldn't put a bet on it but wouldn't be too surprised either.

mitch

Whatever happened to that "great political tactician" brown? did he leave and put his idiot twin in charge?
or was it like his economic skills just hot air?

Watt Tyler

I agree with Griff. Jacqui Smith should stand. What has she got to lose?

It stops Labour from being labelled cowards (again) and it puts forward once more the case for 42 days (ridiculous 'pig might fly' proposal that it is).

If in the unlikely eventuality she did reasonably well, it might make Peers think again.

Whatever, she might as well have a go as she is going to lose her seat in two years in anycase!

At least she'd show some backbone (unlike her dreadful 'leader')

Silent Hunter

Mary Valton:

And what exactly has that got to do with people in this country being arrested 'in this country' and put into prison for 42 days without trial or even knowing what they're supposed to have done.

And they wonder how the German people allowed the Nazi's to come to power!

Charlie Hedges

Many people consider that a large proportion of politicians be they councillors, MPs or MEPs are lazy, greedy lickspittles. The fact that a MP is putting their career on the line for something they believe in can only help in regaining the electorate's respect. The vast increase in government powers and intrusion into our lives only masks the incompetence and laziness and of those politicians, police and civil servants. If the Government cannot keep hold of secret files , then they need address some very basics aspectsof securing the safety of this country. This request for 42 days detention of potential suspects starts to suggest the authorities lack enough experts and the ability to organise effectively. The shooting of Charles de Menez suggests a lack of competence in certain parts of the police.
If the Police say they need 42 days is it because there is genuine need or because they are inefficient? The pursuit of easy arrests in order to achieve targets raises fundemental questions about the Police's potentially poor judgement

Fergus Pickering

Don't you just LOVE Bob Marshal-Andrews and wonder what on EARTH he is doing in te LabourParty. I felt the same about Austin Mithcell until he old himself down the riverover the 42 days. Shame on him.

Paul Davies

If the Conservatives stop with the bitter briefings and back Davis 100%, this by-election could deliver a bloody nose to Our Glorious Ditherer on the one issue where he's supposedly in step with public opinion.

Labour fields a candidate: they lose the argument and the election.

Labour doesn't field a candidate: Brown is shown, yet again, to be a bottler afraid of elections. From Granita to today, has the man ever fought an election involving risk?

Watt Tyler

I see some gutless wonder (I'd name them but it isn't authored) has taken another obtuse anonymous snipe at DD under the title, "Tilting at Liberty".

Really these Westmister glitterati have no backbone.

Will the anonymous in-house Spectator (Neo-Con?) author please stand up?

We've seen the damage the Neo-cons did in the US. We don't need it over here.

Elizabeth

It appears Labour has a problem anyway.
The candidate selected by Labour to fight for the seat at the next election is apparently opposed to the 42 days and agrees with DD.
I am amazed the media has not made more of this but as is so blatantly clear, our media is singularly unwilling to embarrass Labour and certainly has no time for politicians with principle.
We can't have principle breaking out in Westminster says Sir Humphrey, it might lead to some honest government. Far too dangerous.
Presumably the existing candidate has to be deselected and a new one put in place. No wonder Broon is so relunctant.

Carol42

Since Bob Marshall Andrews is not standing next time wouldn't it be great if he did the same and called an election on this principle. I know he has a tiny majority but I am sure in this instance many Conservative and Lib Dems would vote for him, I know I would.

Chris

It really would be helpful i f the many idiots who think the intention os to imprrison people for 42 days without charge would understand that the proposal is to extend the time during which eveidence may be gathered before EITHER A CHARGE IS BROUGHT OR THE PERSON IS RELEASED. I know they won't, because the word 'idiot' is far more pertinent here than the word 'understand.' But hey, I can dream.

molesworth 1

Oh, Christ! He's even got Jackie Ashley behind him. Well, almost...

Fergus Pickering

Chris, the law is not concerned with intentions. What do we know of Broon's intentions? What does he know of them himself, nail-biting obsessive thathe is? The law is concerned with the WORDS of the statue and what they can be construed to MEAN. Which, in this case, is that a person may be imprisoned for 42 days without charge. In other words that lazy-minded or vicious persons in authority CAN BANG YOU UP FOR 42 DAYS WITHOUT HAVING TO GIVE A REASON. It is true thatin many parts of Europe they can do this already and for far longer. But, hell, we are not Portugal. We are not Greece. We ate British and we never, never, never shall be slaves. Have you got that, Chris? Am I goingtoo fast for you?. Necessity is the excuse of tyrants and the creed of laves. Or words t that efect. Whosaid that? William Pitt the Younger, our Prime Minister when we resisted the tyrant Bonaparte. Heard of him, have you? Well, it was a long time ago. Like Magna Carta. History stuff, don't you know.

steve

Well it looks like I called this one wrong, when I suggested that DD would end up looking a bit silly if no-one ran against him. The "Come on you cowards and take me on" could just be the killer line required to inflict further damage on Brown. Dunno why I didn't spot that possibility earlier

Nicholas

Chris: To many the 42 days is acceptable because they assume that:

a) The persons being arrested will be terrorists; and

b) They will be guilty

The government has also peddled this misconception.

You need to study some recent judicial history to understand just how many miscarriages of justice there have been. Britain is very good at it, including hanging innocent people and banging up people for many years for murders they did not commit.

If you still don't get the message of why this law is so dangerous, instead of throwing insults at the people who do, try and imagine yourself or a member of your family being falsely accused and banged up, perhaps as the result of a malicious tip-off.

There has already been a change in the presumption of innocence since Labour came to power. It used to be innocent until PROVEN guilty and juries were expected to convict only if the case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Nowadays people are more often than not convicted by the media (especially a certain "worthless rag") long before they even get to court.

And much of Labour's relentless assault on the justice system has been predicated on presumptions of guilt, the demonising of certain groups and a knee-jerk hysteria intended to appeal to a lynch mob mentality.

When was the last time you heard the phrase "A man is helping the police with their enquiries"? Now, it is likely that the police will have camera crews and journalists with them during the arrest and the suspects will be "named and shamed" all over the newspapers months before they get a chance to defend themselves in court. Such an experience is not easily dismissed by the platitude that they will be released after 42 days. The experience is traumatic for the persons concerned and their families, they lose their jobs, sometimes their houses, and the stigma of guilt (thanks to that "worthless rag") seldom leaves them.

The odious Kelvin McKenzie has made much of the platitude "If I have nothing to hide I have nothing to fear" in defence of this government's erosion of liberties. Well, McKenzie is lucky because many innocent people have been subjected to the power of the state and had their lives ruined, or in some cases taken, by it.

cuffleyburgers

I like the bit about the candidate earmarked for the seat in the next election being anti-42 days; I presume DD must have found that out during the lead up to the debate, and that is what lies behind his action.

Who has dared may yet win.