Richards outlines the Westminster argument

Nicholas

How does Richards know that "if he were to hold an Irish-style national referendum on his opposition to detaining suspects for longer, he would lose."? Much is made of this supposed majority support for 42 days but no-one asked me - or any of the people I know who are opposed to it.

Prior to the Irish "No" the pundits were confidently predicting a "Yes" victory. Richards makes the same mistake as so many in or about the Westminster village. He presumes to know what people want - what is good for them. It is precisely that arrogance that DD is striking a blow against.

And I don't think it is the 2 fingers, although that plays a part. It is everything else that DD is championing against. The creeping intrusion of the State which is the common currency for any ordinary person coming into contact with modern British officialdom in all its many guises and forms (especially forms!).

pooter

You seem sure that the general public is in favour of 42 days. Based presumably on one You-Gov poll.

Surely that depends upon how the question was phrased?

"Do you support locking up terrorists for 42 days without charge?" - "Yes"

"Do you support locking anyone up for 42 days while the police try and find something to charge them with?" - "...."

No doubt the Davis position will be framed towards the latter question.

tory granny

I'm surprised at you, Peter Hoskin! DD is not, repeat NOT, campaigning on the 42 days, that is a distortion (possibly deliberate) by the media. DD is campaigning on the slow, gradual, insidious attack on our civil liberties, mostly, but not exclusively, by this government. These have been listed elsewhere and I am sure that you are very well aware of them. The 42 days is merely the last straw.

Perplexed Perry

Just a comment really, admittedly vague. But I am intrigued by how clearly I think I understand what DD stands for, and the issues that would be important for him. And it’s not just about ’42 days’.

By contrast, DC seems more like a toffee-nosed sales rep. The real problem for me, - and therefore perhaps for his people, is that I for one, don’t know what he’s selling, - and never have done.

Sorry if this upsets the Cameronians, but I can’t be the only person in this position.

It isn’t that DC's ‘toffery’ puts me off. Boris (there you see, I only need mention him by first name) has similar ‘pedigree’ but I can relate to him, and what he stands for - no problem.

So, while DD may be sticking ‘two fingers up’ – that’s fine by me. It represents contrariness against the jabbering elitist folks who are far too precious and unrepresentative.

I’m hoping that out of this confusion a strong thread of more sustained and directed opposition to the flagrant mis-rule of the ghastly Commissar and his Apparachiks will emerge.

It needs to.

Tony Colvin

That's not DD's point. He wants the by-election in order to hold a public debate and change public attitudes. If he succeeds, then the opinion polls will switch, and presumably Brown and the others will then follow.

Ted

I'm not sure he would lose - the issue is the due process of Law according to the principles established from Magna Carta onwards. Its not a complex question; complexities arise in defining legislation within the limits and where and when the State should be allowed to opt out. Davis is looking to move discussion from the particular to the general.

Scott

As I understand it, David Davis' position is that the statement "general public support for 42 day detention" is fallacy. He is campaigning on the message, not the method.
Consider the following questions. "Do you support locking up terrorists for 42 days?" Most people would say yes. "If 50% of the people detained are innocent, do you support 6 weeks detention without charge?" Davis reckons most people would say no.

C Powell

People want someone to address the whole range of the authoritarianism of this Government. They may not share DD's views on 42-day detention; they may believe that locking up the Abu Hamzas of this world is a good thing but they do not want governments infringing their privacy, foisting ID cards on them and expecting them to pay, government officials spying on us, government officials having the right to go into their homes to find additional ways to tax them, the police stopping people wearing T-shirts with political slogans, the police arresting people over nonsensical matters, the police stopping people peacefully reading out the names of the war dead etc. You persist in saying that DD is only focused on 42-day detention: he isn't as his speech made clear and people have understood this. A shame that journalists can't or won't.

The claim that people want 42-day detention should also be made subject to a bit more scrutiny. People want terrorists dealt with effectively but they are also clear that this Government hasn't done so, indeed its own policies (its feeble, apologist, multi-culturalist agenda, its failure to police our borders and deport people etc) have made matters worse and, therefore, when the Government offers a policy - 42-day detention - it's little wonder that approve because they would like something - anything - done. I doubt that people really want the attacks on our liberties and freedoms coupled with really rather feeble policies on attacking terrorism which is all that is offer from the current Government.

cuffleyburgers

At one point Mr Richards admits that DD's side won the arguments convincingly in the debate on 42 days - however, he seemingly has no problem with the fact the expensively gerrymandered vote then went the other way. How this is supposed to show parliamentary process in anything other than a deplorable light, I am not sure.

If a s a result DD goes out on a limb to continue the argument, then surely he's entirely right.

On the EU, Mr Richards says "If the European Union did not exist, voters would be crying out ambiguously for an institution which sought to make common cause over issues such as the environment and immigration" - would they? I suspect not. If we had proper control of our borders outside the EU superstate, immigration would be an entirely domestic issue, and we could choose to have Australians and Zimbabweans, or ex-Ghurkas rather than Romanians.

What all these lost referedums all say, and what Brussels will never admit, is that the people of Europe do not want a superstate, and especially not the anti-democratic, corrupt, hubristic,wasteful and incompetent monster that is being foisted upon them.

Support for widening is to prevent deepening.

Back in the days when the then EEC used to win referendums it was sold as a trading and harmonization thing. Ok, so we got the ghastly metric system, but there were some benefits.

Where it all went wrong is when it changed its name to the EU, and the superstate agenda was wheeled out.

There is a message there which seems obvious to me, and I just hope for the sake of the people of Europe that Brussels will eventually get it as well.

As for Mr Richards' article well basically it's pants.

Austen

The even more unfashionable truth is that Gordon Brown has played a blinder on this one.

DD is going to be left fighting nobody more senior than the Greens - who are likley to attack him as soft on civil liberties: the campaign will be a fiasco and DD will be damaged by it.

He'll win, but return to Westminster a diminished and largely irrelevant figure (unless he breaks his promise of not challenging Cameron).

Brown decided early that his strategy was not to stand and he's stuck to it.

If DD attacks him at PMQs Brown has a slam dunk win waiting for him.

I'm no fan of GB but credit where it is due on this one.

Norman Briffa

Surely the point is by the fact the public are enthusiastic for his campaign lies an opportunity for DD and i hope the Tories to persuade same public on the dangers of the 42 day detention without charge.

ChrisD

The Westminster village decided our opinion of the David Davis resignation last week, and ran with it with in a mass piranha like feeding frenzy. Now our political media seek to decide the opinion of the voters of H&H and the public in general before the campaign has been run and a vote cast in one large after dinner belch!

This week has consisted of one long lecture from the Westminster village entitled "This is our opinion so therefore it must be the your view".
The self importance and sheer pomposity of the political lobby has been a sight to behold.
You tell us what matters, what to think, when to care, when to be principled, when to be cynical etc etc etc!

Naive, Norwich

What is wrong with 7 day detention followed by recourse to a Judge for extensions as required?
I know it sounds like using the law as a rubber stamp but the Judge would be kept informed of the intricacies of the case as it progressed and would be able to reply accordingly.
If a Judge could not be convinced of the validity of the case then there is probably not a good case.
It would prevent the 42 days being used by shadowy bodies for doubtful purposes.
After all, we are not talking about vast numbers of cases to which this would apply.
It seems so simple. Other civilised countries manage without drama.
On the possibility of compensation for wrongful detention, I had assumed that such compensation was already the case. If not then, silly me.

Rupert Stubbs

The whole point of a referendum is that it allows complicated issues to be fully aired before a vote. Therefore there is no guarantee that voters would approve the 42 day proposal.

Indeed, before the Irish referendum campaign got under way, there was a healthy majority for the Yes vote. In the course of the campaign the weakness of the Yes argument became clear, with little to back it up but arrogance and FUD. When our own politicians cannot be bothered (or are not intellectually equipped) to read the document they are endorsing, then it is hardly undemocratic to allow a more rigorous approval process via the electorate themselves.

John North

DD's argument is not just 42 days it is the increasing powers of intrusion used by the state coupled with the lack of judgement in their use. In WW2 quite exceptional powers were given to people. My Father was an 18 year old officer in the Merchant Navy. He was given a pistol in case he needed to keep order in a lifeboat after the ship had been sunk. The government armed an 18 year old and gave him the powers to execute people in order to keep order for the greater safety of those in the lifeboat. Are we saying that all police officers should be armed and given the powers to execute people who are the threat to society? We are not at war. If people want to know about what war is really about, when this nation is threatened, speak to those who served in the Merchant Navy, flew in the Battle Of Britain, flew in bombers over occcupied Europe or fought in the major land battles. The increased powers will be an absolute delight to those "Little Hitlers" employed by the government. When was the last time government employees admitted to their mistakes freely and without coercion. In reality the rapid turn over of politicians in ministerial positions means that very few of them actually control the government. D. Healey admiited that as Secretary of Defence he spent the first 2 years making mistakes, the next 2 years rectifying them and only in the last 2 years was he effective. D Healey was considered perhaps the best Secretary of Defence since 1945. How many politicians have his ability or the time to learn how their department works? Look at how an 82 yr old man was ejected from the Labour Party Conference and held under some anti-terrorism legislation. The civil service tends to take the easiest route especially when it means they can achieve some target.I suggest people read Zenna Atkins article in The Observer 15/6/08 condemning large parts of the Civil Service. When government is populated with people with the wisdom of Solomon and honesty of George Wshington then give them powers but still make them accountable.

Paul

Mr Richard's article is so much part of the problem rather than any coherent answer.
You compound the problem by attempting to give it credibility

The Laughing Cavalier

Mr Richards is an arrogant and elitist socialist who believes that politicians (of his persuasion) are the sole arbiters of wisdom and that we, the public, have no business asking for referenda. Instead we should tug our forelocks in gratitude and be about our daily lives leaving the difficult stuff to him and like-minded hacks and politicians. Where David Davis scores is that he rejects this nonsense.

Kevyn Bodman

Peter Hoskin,
You've now been told many times by different commenters that Davis' campaign is not just about 42 days.And the other issues have been explained to you.
Do not repeat the distortion ,please.

'Given the general public support for 42 day detention...'
Really?
We'll see.

Jaki

I agree that people would not vote on the issue, necessarily, and here we have the same problem as with the Irish referendum. Many people voted no because they thought a yes vote would require them, variously, to change their abortion laws, bring back the death penalty, be conscripted by Brussels, and God knows what else. And, to the person who thinks it's OK to vote on the platform of 'sticking two fingers up': that is for schoolchildren.

William Norton

Given that nobody seems to be clear about the issue on which DD is fighting the by-election (see posts above), I'd expect that nobody will be terribly clear what it means once he's won it. But at least it would be clear that he had won it.

Pete Hoskin

Kevyn: just to reassure you that I'm aware Davis' campaign is about more than 42 days. I didn't intend my reference to 42 days above to indicate anything else, although I can see how it might. I will be more careful in future.

Also to say - because I think it's relevant - I'm very much opposed to 42 day detention, and I largely approve of what Davis is up to on a wider canvas. But I still think that - if Davis is to succeed as he wants to - he needs to answer the kind of questions that Richards is putting to him.

retired master

The public may support 42 days, but they may not be right. What DD is trying to do is force open a window for debate.

And while we're about it can we get rid of this idea that the boys in blue need more time to decode computers and mobile phones. 150 years ago (when threats to our country were just as pressing) a man needed to get on a horse and deliver a letter and wait for a reply then ride back again in order to communicate or investigate a terorist action. magna carta was not torn up then. It is breathtackingly cavalier of this government to do so now

David Lindsay

Wholly predictable Political Class drivel from Steve "All Politicians Are Saints" Richards (well, execept Davis, of course).

Apparently, it's all to do with opinion polls. Have you ever had your opinion polled? Has anyone you know? Thought not.

And then consider that most polling is now done by telephone. In other words, the pollsters know whom they are questioning.

oldtimer

Guido Fawkes has done a good hatchet job on Mr Richards` article.

Re public support for detaining terrorists, my recollection is that the question posed in the opinion survey was not specific and the concern is in fact met by the provisions of existing anti terrorist legislation. This already provises for extended detention in an emergency.

TGF UKIP

oldtimer is right in guiding folks towards Guido whose take on Steve Richards is witheringly unmissable. Guido also has an excellent report on the hero of the Irish "No" Declan Ganley's visit to Policy Excahnage at Westminster and his inquisition at the hands of our europhile press. Guido, to be visited daily, at order-order.com