David Davis: premature capitulation?
I have to say I’m a bit non-plussed with David Davis’s resignation. Sure, it’s brilliant to finally see an MP give up his career on a point of principle and a very fine principle at that.
But the thought strikes me that he would very likely have been the Home Secretary within two years. In the intervening time he could have pushed his cause hard in the shadow cabinet and the wider party, and then dismantled all of New Labour’s half-cocked authoritarianism once he was in the big chair.
Now? Well, who knows? He’ll have to hope that some of his principles rub off on his successor(s). Can he now expect a big job in a Tory government?
And if Labour don’t field a candidate he risks looking a bit of a berk. In that event, would he get the debate he’s calling for? Or the all-important media coverage needed to broadcast that debate? You’d have to doubt it.
Update 13/6: A good spot by Matt T:
Did Davis support the 28 day extension?
…
Yes he did, and worse, he argued for it on the same grounds that Labour now argue for 42 days. This makes his whole position ludicrous in my view. I have no idea why 42 days destroys the Magna Carta, but 28 didn’t. It’s a stunt. The idea that David Davis wil protect your civil liberties is a fantasy. One might argue that’s he changed his mind, but to me the issue is this – we can talk about and once every 4/5 years have a 1/40m say about it, but he had a 1/600 odd say and chose an extension – worse he argued in favour of it.
Update updated: And then I read something like thing from gone-native New Labour megaphone Michael White, and I swing the other way:
Most politicians dislike the sort of behaviour Davis has displayed. It may please those voters who want their MP to stand up and be counted, but such unpredictability unsettles the trade.
The trade? I look at court gossips White or the BBC’s Nick Robinson and I wonder if they even remember why MPs are elected in the first place. They seem to think that Parliament exists solely as entertainment for the complacent time-rich middle-classes.
Update update updated: There’s more:
He has called for the return of the death penalty, backed section 28, and wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. What exactly is liberal about that? Magna Carta is all very well, but justice in this country depends on more modern protections, which do not all have his support.
Posted on June 12th, 2008 at 8:31pm under Tories
| Related posts... • David Davis: at sixes and sevens • David Davis: all kinds of everything • The Ultimate Answer |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 14 Comments |
If I were Gordon Brown, I’d call it a silly game and a bad precedent to set and refuse to stand a candidate.
With the Liberal Democrats not standing, it’s hardly the “courageous” decision it’s being lauded as: there’s virtually no chance that he could lose his seat. And with the Lib Dems the main opposition in Haltemprice and Howden, a victory there in their absence proves nothing really.
I think Davis may genuinely have decided that there is something he believes. This is so unusual these days in our political life, no wonder this comes as a shock to the Westminster village and the chattering classes.
Something tells me this resignation will play well in the country as a whole- if Labour doesn’t stand, they risk showing themselves as electoral cowards who are not willing to debate the principles. (Brown is already branded thus in any event). Given there is a strong whiff of pork about Brown’s win in the Commons, and apparently he’s reduced to bribing the DUP, they may find they can’t afford not to put up a candidate.
technomist’s latest blog post… D. P. Mark
it’s brilliant to finally see an MP give up his career on a point of principle
On the other hand, it’s fairly routine to see an MP perform a headline-grabbing stunt and claim it’s a point of principle. No doubt he hopes to play Blunkett/Mandelson to Cameron’s Blair, making a bit of a prat of himself and then returning to high office covered with glory and basking in the envy of his peers. Then again, perhaps he thinks a back bench the best place to hone the knife which he hopes one day to place between Cameron’s shoulder blades.
Philip’s latest blog post… Phishing for Attention
Call me naive, but I honestly do believe that Davis’s “point of principle” is genuine.
I also think it’ll fall flat on its face if Labour fail to put up a candidate!
Call me naive, but I honestly do believe that Davis’s “point of principle” is genuine.
You’re naive.
(sorry, couldn’t resist).
Jim Bliss’s latest blog post… Referendum Day
Yes, he surely must be a man of principle.
Here’s a list of 72 written questions he asked about the number of Christmas cards sent out by each government department.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=section%3Awrans+christmas+speaker%3A10162+
It’s one step from there to Magna Carta.
This mornings Radio 4 were reporting ex Sun Editor Kelvin Mackenzie may be standing against him.
No doubts there about whose ego Kelvin will be representing.
I’m moderately surprised you haven’t noted the reaction of “Westminster insider” Iain Dale. I quote: “I’m as shocked as anyone. I didn’t see it coming at all…”
Surely as the former leadership campaign manager of the Rt Hon David Davis MP, Dale’s the political commentator in the best possible position to get a scoop? So why didn’t he? If even his ex-boss won’t bung him a bone, who in Westminster is?
Yep – challenging the mainstream media hard and fast here in blogland…
I hadn’t seen it – I’ve sworn off Dale for a bit and feeling much better for it, thanks. So, it turns out he’s no better informed than the rest of us. There’s a surprise.
“I’m as shocked as anyone. I didn’t see it coming at all…”
Perhaps he should look over his shoulder more often.
[/would have said it even if Iain was a breeder]
[/applies equally to Cameron]
Tim Ireland’s latest blog post… David Davis
If the MacKenzie / Murdoch “Britain says YES to unlimited detention without trial” campaign wins, they will have achieved what the BUF failed to achieve: some momentum. MacKenzie will be relying on the fact that every casual racist in Britain ‘knows’ that the police only ever detain brown people (and nonces) and so feels completely comfortable faced with the prospect of a ‘crack-down’. This is dog whistle politics of the nastiest kind.
Other people have pointed out that Davis has also (inadvertently) exposed the unspoken ethos of the professional political class: namely, this isn’t about the proles, or rights, or anything beyond being in government.
There are some very good reasons to support Davis in this, despite his various earlier pratfalls and inconsistencies.
Justin,
DD may well have an inconsistent record on these issues and I can see where you are coming from on this – particularly with the updates.
However, I’m reminded of an incident related to me by a former Exec. member of the old CP that I know.
Years back he was involved in organising an anti-aparthied rally/demo. All the usual Peoples Front of Judea/Judean Peoples front groups were there when this guy turns up, on his own, who explained he genuinlly felt aparthied was abohrrant – despite the fact that he was a Conservative supporter.
Well there was uproar. No way say the PFoJ/JPF groups. We ar’nt having a Tory on “our” march. At which point they had to be reminded as to the purpose of the event by my friend. If this guy felt so strongly about aparthied and other people attending were genuine in practicing, as compared to preaching, anti-aparthied principles, they should have no problem having this guy on the march.
The point being that the situation is what it is now. The by-election will go ahead. DD may well be the main actor in this drama but he is not in control of events. Currently, the Westminster village and their journo hacks are busy closing ranks and tut-tutting that someone has broken ranks. The issue is what it is not what they or someone else wants it to be.
And that issue is the wider one of civil liberties. The space which has opened up needs to be occupied – and quickly before the Westminster village and political class park their tanks on the lawn to frame the debate and issues their way.
The alternative is that Murdoch’s ego(who seems to be in favour of 420 rather than 42 days) wins the by-election at which point the argument and debate is also lost.
Like the anti-aparthied example above, we have too much to lose to let this ground be occupied and won by the authoritarians of all parties.
Regards.
Dave Hansell
Stocksbridge
Sheffield
Jeez…Davis v McKenzie – who do you most want to lose in that fight? (Even if you do oppose 42 days)
PS: Any chance of Rowan Williams coming out against 42 days on the grounds that even Jesus only had 40 days in the wilderness, with perhaps only Satan for company?
He has called for the return of the death penalty, backed section 28, and wants to scrap the Human Rights Act.
Oh, thank God for that! For a minute there, I was close to experiencing the unprecedented sensation of respecting a Tory, and for his principles. That was weird, to say the least…