Free beer/snacks for those that vote for an anti-42 days candidate?

I’m genuinely struggling to understand the angst this seems to be causing here and elsewhere Sunny. Davis has been in Parliament for 21 years and so, like most MPs with sort of vintage his voting record shows some anomalies and inconsistencies etc. On occasion (and perhaps still) he advocates things people here would disagree with – that applies to me to. There will be many opportunities in the months and years ahead to tackle those issues and given where DD was at the weekend there’s good reason to believe he’s moved on many of them.

Regardless of any of this he’s made it perfectly clear what issues he’s basing his candidacy on – and it’s a platform most people here support. When he wins he’ll return to the Tory backbenches anyway so the victory won’t impact government policy directly – there will still be a Labour government for the next couple of years at least. Nobody, not least David himself, is pretending his victory (which is inevitable) is an endorsement of every position he’s ever held or even holds now, not least because of those inconsistencies which I’m sure he accepts.

The man’s made a fairly straightforward statement about something that concerns him and taken a stand on it. In political terms it’s rash and a little egotistical but those must be second order issue for supporters and opponents alike. He’s campaigning for something this website and most people on the liberal / left passionately believes in and so there’s simply no good excuse not to lend him your support on this occasion. Looking at the reaction over the last week or so it’s hard to conclude it’s borne of anything other than a very childish and ill-conceived tribalism.

I like what Rachel North has to say. Its my via.

Davis has given the country an opportunity. Take it. There is dithering but no dilemma.

Sunny, just get on with it.

But I do not want to see New Statesman involved, they are not trustworthy. Unless of course Martin Bright has left.

typo, should read:

‘Its my view.’

You are fleshing out a very good strategic approach and I agree with it.

However, at a tactical level, I agree with Rachel North and Liam Murray who basically both say ‘sieze the day’.

In the top right hand corner of this blog is Not a Day Longer – Against 42 days. If Davies stands on that platform alone, I see no reason why we shouldn’t support him, or try to outflank him. But we should make it obvious whatever support we are giving is limited to that issue only.

I don’t agree with the fourth estate, whether it’s the Sun or the New Statesmen standing candidates at all. But that is, perhaps, a separate issue?

I don’t see the point of splitting the vote and diluting it to assuage a desire for higher purity of purpose. It’s self-indulgent and self-defeating. And it’s exactly what the authoritarians want you to do,

I don’t really get the point of campaigning in constituencies where there are no elections either. Sorry – I’m probably being thick so if someone could explain….what is the point of campaigning where there is no election? By the time the election happens everyone will have forgotten and who knows what will be forefront of mind in May 2010, surely?

Most of the people who are in the ‘target areas’ will only have thought about civil liberties this week because DD was all over the news going on about it. If George Michael had said he’d stopped touring because of civil liberties or Zara Phillips had left the Olympic team because of civil liberties they’d have noticed that too. Because it would have been on the telly. It would have been a story for one day.

This is still a story, 6 days later. It’s a huge story because it is the Shadow Home Secretary doing something totally shocking and walking out of his job, out of the front benches, out of Westminster and running about saying ‘Look! This is crap! Enough!’.

You/we/I could have turned up and made speeches and campaigned a fortnight ago in key constituencies and fat lot of good it would have done. Remember, most people don’t even know their MPs name without looking it up, and don’t follow their MP’s voting record. The reason people are interested is because it is in the news. On the TV. In the papers. On the radio.

Earlier last week, if most people thought about it at all, it was likely in terms of the vote being on the news and as far as as I can see, the general reaction was ‘Hmm, the Government are saying ‘should we lock TERRORISTS up for 42 days?’ and the most prevalent response was probably ‘Hell, yeah! String ’em up!’.

Nobody was linking it with ID cards and chips in bins and arresting grannies at airfields and reading out the names of dead soldiers and manhandling Walter Wolfgang and the Government spying on us all until DD drew all the threads together and suddenly made it an issue.

I know lots of us have been trying like mad for ages to make it an issue but like it or not, this DD thing has had an effect that we have not.

People who have pricked up their ears re. the DD debate (and who vote in the constituencies you mention) will watch the TV and listen to the radio and read the papers this week and next week.The media are following Davis. They have decided to follow it more carefully than they first planned because thousands and thousands of pissed off readers/viewers/listener shouted at them and said they believed in what he was doing and admired it and the issue was important to them.

Hence the Sun’s climb down and the media and politicians in general’s recent back-peddling from the ‘crikey, the chap’s gone bonkers, knew he wasn’t one of us, send him to Coventry, the egotistical beast, he’s broken the rules, the bounder’ which was the position on Friday.

Please. Enough hand-wringing. Get where the action is. Go and surround Davis and make it a non-Tory issue. It’s about civil liberties. It’s a big Tory coming over to the civil liberties camp. The media will be looking for evidence of people giving a stuff about civil liberties and the politicians will be looking to see if what Davis is saying is popular and striking a chord.

Like it or not, the debate is happening around Davis, nowhere else. You can watch it happening and mope about it being a Tory on the telly saying it, or you can get in there and be part of the debate and make a noise.

Rachel,

The problem I have is that we are trying to make a stand on civil liberties and contrast our position favourably with that of the government and many of its supporters. If we do this by just getting behind Davis then the NewLabourites will just say, with some justice, “well actually we are more liberal than you because we oppose the death penalty and supported the abolition of section 28 and the equalisation of the age of consent, whereas your candidate is decidedly illiberal on these issues” and I’m not sure how to answer that. That’s why I think we need to find our own voice on this.

It’s not about trying to attain some level of high idealogical purity, it’s about having a position which is coherent and consistent and which stands up to scrutiny. I don’t think Davis has this. It’s not the fact that he is a Tory which is the problem for me.

I’m certainly keen to get involved and make a noise, it’s just a case of finding the best way to do it.

I don’t see a problem with splitting the vote with a more pro-liberties candidate (it would hardly help Brown’s case if the top two candidates both opposed him and it looks unlikely there will be a credible pro-42 days candidate with a chance of coming through the middle), but nor do I see much tactical advantage. It would also mean that, assuming Davis were to win, he could claim that his flavour of “pro-civil liberties up to a point” had a popular mandate (bollocks of course, but this is symbolism we’re talking here).

As an aside, given that the RCP have launched this Facebook group, what about Claire Fox as a candidate?

“it’s about having a position which is coherent and consistent and which stands up to scrutiny”

No Andrew – that’s quite definitely what it’s not about. Politics in general yes, supporting candidates in a general election yes, certain outcomes in a referendum yes.

But in this case it’s the search for that very thing which risks the left fracturing and getting an outcome that ultimately contradicts their interests. This is as simple as Rachel suggests – Davis is advancing the argument on this particular liberty issue and should be supported.

As the simple answer should New Labour-types challenge on Davis support for the death penalty and clause 28 is that there are Labour member who did likewise – this isn’t about party. It shouldn’t be beyond any of us to construct a decent argument along those lines…

Very well put Rachel.

Looks as if we need a pre-campaign campaign to stop the dithering.

Takes me back to the endless (often mindless) debates common on the left.

Get with it folks – this itself is beginning to look like a farce

Sunny,

Why don’t you run as an independent along the lines Rachel is suggesting?

With your contacts and networks you’d get the publicity, you could even try and pull an Obama and use the net for donations to run the campaign. You could be the UK Netroots champion for civil liberties, really put LC on the map and shift the debate back to the political territory it belongs in, the left.

Seriously, give it some thought.

There is a danger of over-complicating it.

It’s really simple from the media and politicians point of view: it’s ‘do the public give a shit about civil liberties?’

As measured by ‘do they all rush out in droves to support this man who says he is standing on civil liberties’?

The media and politicos are looking at

1. Public reaction and loads of debate – tick,( In many ways this is more important than the result. It’s the noise about the subject and the heat it generates)

2. Ability to draw together all sorts of people on a single issue – seems to be happening, tick . (Again, in many ways more important than the result. Is this liberty thing a vote winner? Hmmm….)

3. Big turn out and increased vote….? ( we’ll see. the authoritarians would love it if there wasn’t. They rely on apathy.)

4. End result> Public increasingly conscious of civil liberties. Media deliver with more civil liberties news as public clearly up for it. Authoritarians chastened. Libertarians on the up. (Whether you’re left or right doesn’t really matter any more. It’s authoritarians vs. libs.)

Or

Public now bored with civil liberties, nobody cares, terror threat ramped up, another attack happens or some trial ends with tons of dreadful details, and ‘increased security’ is full steam ahead.

The media and politicians will be watching for this one thing: do the public really care about civil liberties, and they will be watching this man, DD, because he is one of them.

THAT is the whole point.

If DD does well, they will think, hmm, must make civil liberties noises and do civil liberties things – the public want it and are interested in it.

Super unsullied civil liberal candidates being offered up are missing the point. The media and politicians don’t consider them ‘one of us’. DD is one of them. That’s why they are all fascinated. He’s much more of a threat because until Thursday he was doing what they were doing, playing their game, and all of a sudden he’s gone off piste, and he’s getting massive support, and bringing in all sorts from Shami to Porter to Helena Kennedy to local conservatives and lib dems and pissed off labour lefties and centrists and ….

….do you see why this is a one-off, important, BIG game?

This will never happen again. We will never have to do anything like this again. But this is a completely unique event and mark my words, they are watching like mad.

Because they couldn’t imagine themselves doing it. We have to make it possible for them to imagine themselves doing it. We have to make it easy, popular, rewarding for politicians to champion civil liberties by rewarding the first one who does it with strokes and support and plaudits and votes.

Reward positive behaviour.

I am being super-nanny here, but can’t you see?

There is a bus. Get on it.

Leon,

I don’t think Rachel is suggesting anyone else should run, but get in there to support the argument.

Running to gain publicity for a website would probably be a first, but you could argue it would be similar to newspapers running candidates. A retrograde step. And definitely a distraction to the issue in hand.

Reminds me of an earlier time when we confronted a newspaper editor for his stance on elected mayors – he denied, in print in his own publication, he had any pretensions to the throne. He’s now been running that little borough for 8 years.

Refresh, I wasn’t suggesting she was.

I also wasn’t suggesting he run to promote LC just that doing so would bring attention to this already built platform.

I’m suggesting the smart thing to do is to support Davis, and not run other pro-liberty candidates. Thus demonstrating to the media and politicians on this single, extraordinary occasion, that will never come again, that a senior party politician – a Tory Home Sec ffs – standing on one thing only – civil liberties – can do the impossible and pull support towards him from all over the spectrum, because the issue transcends party lines.

Nuances, candidates with a better record, all unfortunately wasted because this is a one off and will never happen again. If it does happen again, it won’t be the same as it is now. This is new territory for the establishment, because this time, there’s the internet and the public talking back and you can watch this thing kicking off in real time – and they are watching.

It’s a straightforward issue that they want an answer to – if a senior politician goes off piste to wave the liberty flag, will he get massive, overwhelming support from across the spectrum and touch a nerve with the public? Yes, or no?

Yes – and the cause of liberty is served.
No – and we’re fairly fucked. It’s carte blanche for them to behave even worse in future -whichever one is governing us.

Public support, popularity; it’s all they care about. And they’re watching because it is ONE OF THEM in the hot-seat. They can dismiss a Martin Bell. They have no idea what to do about this, which is why we need to use this as a battering ram, use the machine against itself, support him because it is not about him or his party. It’s about civil liberties and civil liberties alone and it is worth breaking all the rules to get the point across, because this opportunity will not come again.

that will never come again,

Well I wouldn’t lay claim to knowing the future with such certainty but I’m yet to be convinced that the wisest course of action is supporting David Davis.

Well said Rachel!

I’m thinking of taking a bus up there to see what’s going on and whether there is any fuss on the ground…

Are there any public events or hustings? Will any media be giving coverage to any formal debates which occur? How much are the various parties and candidates going to engage the wider public, or will dialogue be restricted to voters in the constituency?

Are there any citizen journalists who will cover the campaign in the way the creweblog covered C&N? I’ve only seen one constituency poll so far – is this all we are going to get?

Rachel and Liam,

I do understand your arguments. I fully agree that this could be a unique opportunity and we have to make sure we take it. I totally take the point about Davis being “one of them” – if it was as simple as just finding a candidate who is suitably “sound” on civil liberties then I would stand myself. Furthermore, I really don’t have a problem in finding common cause with someone whom I disagree with on many other issues. The fact that Davis is a Tory saddens me in the sense that it highlights my disappointment with the modern Labour party but it doesn’t in itself prevent me from supporting him.

And yet…Davis is making a stand on a matter of principle and when anyone does this the first thing that their opponents do is look for inconsistencies in their position, to make them look less principled than they claim to be. Of course we are all only human and I’m sure that people could find holes in any of our principles, where our actions don’t quite live up to the standards we set ourselves. The problem with Davis is that his principles seem to have holes that you could drive a juggernaut through which IMHO makes him a fundamentally flawed standard bearer for civil liberties.

Maybe there are ways round this. Maybe he has changed his mind on some of the issues he has been criticised on. Maybe we can find a way of offering conditional support for him personally whilst still communicating ouor own position on the wider issues surrounding civil liberties. I’m happy to be persuaded that there is a solution, but I just don’t think I can offer unequivocal support for him.

Andrew Adams,

Despair and despond are human traits or life styles. Try

“Shakin’ yourself down,

Shakin’ yourself up.

And startin’ all over again..”

Apparently the NS piece has been leaked: http://www.politicshome.com/Landing.aspx?Blog=1421&perma=link#

Tomorrow’s leader, in addition to Martin Bright’s column, will be on the subject.

Full text of the leader:

“Labour voters deserve a choice

The New Statesman has opposed the extension of detention without charge for terror suspects to 42 days from the moment it was proposed by Gordon Brown. The argument for detaining these suspects for six weeks has never been made to our satisfaction, nor, indeed, that of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

This magazine could never endorse the candidacy of David Davis in the coming by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency. Davis is a right-wing Conservative, as can be seen from his stance on a range of issues from the Human Rights Act to the death penalty. But neither do we share in the general sneering that emanated from the Westminster village following his resignation. The former shadow home secretary has succeeded in his main aim of keeping the issue of civil liberties in the public eye, and we applaud him for that.

Already, Gordon Brown has been forced to address Davis’s concerns in a point-by-point riposte. There is briefing that Labour will not put up a candidate in opposition. This would be disrespectful to the people of Haltemprice and Howden, who deserve the chance to hear Labour, on the ground, making the case for 42 days.

However, it is also a good opportunity for an independent candidate to make the genuinely liberal argument against 42 days, putting up a robust defence of the universal human rights that Davis does not support. Such a candidate would receive the full backing of the New Statesman.”

Come on Sunny! Give your mate Martin a ring and tell him you’re up for it!! 😀

Ha ha! Not sure how that’s a PH exclusive, given that I was the one who broke the story first.

They sent me the leader piece soon after I published this, just to clarify my line, though I was out and couldn’t publish it.

Sunny,

Ignore any temptation to stand. Especially big money offers. There is only one winner in this by election. It is up to us to figure out how to exploit it. Personally, I think it cracks politics down the middle.

Its not just Labour voters that deserve a choice (speaking as a Lib Dem). If you look at the list of candidates so far then this is clearly turning into the circus everybody predicted it would be….it looks like Davis will be elected spokesperson for ‘freedom’ by electorally crushing a fruit and veg seller and a pub landlord campaigning against the smoking ban…not to mention that political heavyweight Miss Great Britain….for this to be a serious exercise the leftist opposition to Davis and the proponents of 42 days need to be represented…thus I agree with the New Statesman on this….by not opposing Davis we are denying the electorate a serious choice.

I note that Sunny hasn’t said he wont run. 😀

Yesterday afternoon I warned against “childish and ill-conceived tribalism” – then the New Statesman say this:

“This magazine could never endorse the candidacy of David Davis in the coming by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency. Davis is a right-wing Conservative, as can be seen from his stance on a range of issues from the Human Rights Act to the death penalty…[This] is also a good opportunity for an independent candidate to make the genuinely liberal argument against 42 days, putting up a robust defence of the universal human rights that Davis does not support”

So an argument about extended detention and CCTV cameras morphs into one about ‘universal human rights’? This is utter nonsense and will just dilute the public response to the issue Davis has furthered more than any other person or organisation. This factionalising is something the liberal \ left have done time and time again and has never served their interests well – among other things I thought the purpose of this website was to move past those errors of the past.

How many ways are there to say this? Davis isn’t asking for an endorsment of his position on the death penalty, or on gay rights, or on anything else. Only an idiot would consider any support lent to him under these circumstances as having any bearing on those issues. This sense of revulsion or distaste – ‘I couldn’t stand next to him on a platform’ – is almost pathetic and should be beneath those who claim to support grand & noble ideas like personal liberty.

It’s a small by-election with a forgone conclusion for heavens sake – support the man, send a message to the government on this issue and then pursue the good fight on all the other issues – even if that then means taking on Davis….

and voters are to be given an all or nothing choice because a ridiculously partisan

Of course it does; his position on these question matters because he is not campaigning to be elected as the spokesperson for ‘freedom’ and therefore should be held to account on his entire range of views. His support for the death penalty for example is inconsistent with a civil liberterian approach.

How will his ‘smashing’ of a fruit and veg seller, a pub landlord, the OMRLP and not forgetting Miss Great Britain send a message to the government…i think they are quite happy to watch Davis make a fool of himself and of the cause….. in fact, they are the main winners from all this because it has thrown the Tories into chaos and as soon as Davis gets back there will no doubt be more fun to be had by Labour….is it any coincidence that for the first time yesterday Gordon Brown was confident and on the up at PMQ’s??

Well, Davies can realistically say that no serious political party stood against him. ‘Cause they were feart, perhaps.

So, he’s already had his victory for common sense. Which is as it should be.

Where he goes from there is in the lap of the Gods, I’d have thought.

Well not really….Labour is never at the races in his constituency and the Lib Dems took a wrong tactical descision I think…..doubt he will see it as much of a victory because it is unlikely to satisfy his ego but hey ho…..

Quite frankly the issue is not that he goes unopposed.

It is that New Labour refuses to put up a candidate. It is they who should be held to account.

Despite not standing, New Labour is still campaigning and our efforts should also go into exposing that as much as anything else.

Refresh,

I take your point, I think. But is that not more or less what I’m saying too? And why David Davies is on the stump? Is it not ridiculous for New Labour to be campaigning without a candidate?

Douglas,

Yes I do think we are.

‘Is it not ridiculous for New Labour to be campaigning without a candidate?’

Its unadulerated cowardice.

Pro-civil liberties candidate to the left of Davis = a good idea, because the issue does not “transcend political parties”. Labours problem is that they have been too much like the authoritarian tory predecessors, not that they are not as good as the tories.. Davis might “mean it”, but he is not breaking with his party (Altho I accept he is putting some pressure with it). Remember, the thatcher government claimed they had a “libertarian” wing, and they began the authoritarian ratchet.

As to who, if the Statesman are involved, I fear it will be Peter Tatchell – better than no one I suppose, but not my fave. How about Bob Marshall Andrews – would be interesting to see if he was disciplined by Labour for standing against a tory instead of with one. Raphael Rowe still seems active – Davis would have had him hanged, so he would be a good candidate

In reality many old fashioned Tories and Liberals are more intriscally in tune with an open and free society than Labour. Being a member of a union often meens blind and dumb obedience. Much of the membership of the the Labour Party and it’s voters comprise middle class white collar types who work for government in one sort or other and believe they can run peoples lives better than they can do it themselves. When, in the last 60 years has any government employee admitted to their mistakes?
After all it was middle class Labour who developed the idea of Social Engineering in the 50s and 60s. The only Labour person to admit that our education system was not perfect was J. Callaghan when in 1976 he pointed out the failures. The decrease in social mobility is in part due to the failings of much of our education system. If government employees be they teachers, civil servants, lecturers and unions in education are not prepared to admit their failures why should those who will run any proposed ID system? Hundreds of organistaions and thousands of people can now obtain telephone conversations and e-mails. How many mistakes will be made , especially if you have a name such as J .Smith? If HMRC can lose CDs then certainly a name can be miss spelt and someone’s life ruined. How many mistakes have social services made and how many reports into their failings been issued? It takes the death of a child until social services are forced to admit their mistakes. There is no indication that any government run organisation can be trusted to handle all information and be honest enough to admit to their mistakes. What happens if the information is wrong and someone is arrested when overseas? What sort of protection will they have? Practically Anyone can be broken under torture. Even Freddie Yeo- Thomas GC admitted that if the Gestapo had continued their torture he would have broken. Let us support DD. His brave stand is showing the indequacies of so many politicians and for that reason they hate him. We longer have a group of politicians who have risked their lives for freedom. Quite frankly many of our our politicians are just inadequate careerists who will do anything to obtain and hang on to power. After all this data which has been lost – be it CDs, laptops or files shows how little respect civil servants and politicians have for important information. If Lt Col Collins, a highly experienced former SAS officer does not think 42 days is justified then this is showing how wrong is Gordon Brown on this issue.

Davis must be aware that this kind of debate is going on. it would be nice if he came out and explained his position on some of these issues. He might have adopted a more liberal stance.

Ann on…..

Still I wonder why nobody has mentioned the Labour PPC in the area…