David Davis - honourable stance or opportunistic populism?

[egb_hibs]

What do people make of Davis's resignation in order to force a by election where he'll stand on the position of oppostion to 42 days detention?

i can't decide whether it's a return of some semblance of honour to british politics or a complete con pretending to be that, while knowing he's at no real electoral risk.

i believe the tories liberal sensibilities are authentically offended by this, and labour's increasing socialist authoritarianism generally - although in office i'm not sure they'd be any less brutal in the name of realpolitik on this particular issue. but this could well be a stunt nonetheless. but there again i've lost sight of where the line line between realism and endless cynicism is, whereit comes to our pols.

it could just be a gag to poke fun at the hilarious guardianistas fervently decrying labour - as with any elected left of centre party - of being 'right wing' on this and everything else. the more left wing labour become, the louder the cries get. mind you, their leader writers, seem to be shamelessly repeating the rather optimistic labour line that this puts the tories in turmoil. if turmoil means outwitting labour again - which i think is the upshot whether davis is at it or not - then i guess it is. unless of course, it's a sly leadership bid, which could really feck the tories up.

whatever, i think davis could win this by election by with as high a share of the vote as anyone has ever achieved in a democracy.

[egb_hibs]

interesting post on a guardian blog:

poster 1: "don't believe for a moment that the Tories would do anything different in power"

poster 2: "Where's your evidence? I keep hearing this - where is your evidence?

And why do you think DD is doing this? To force Cameron's hand, so he CANNOT backtrack on opposition to 42 days, on opposition to ID cards, on opposition to a national DNA database.

By doing this today, DD is guaranteeing that the incoming Tory government cannot behave like Labour has."


interesting idea. if davis really is serious, this might be a reason to do it, and might explain why cameron is apparently unhappy. there again it could all just be a beautifully stage managed stunt.

[AndyM]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

What do people make of Davis's resignation in order to force a by election where he'll stand on the position of oppostion to 42 days detention?

i can't decide whether it's a return of some semblance of honour to british politics or a complete con pretending to be that, while knowing he's at no real electoral risk.

i believe the tories liberal sensibilities are authentically offended by this, and labour's increasing socialist authoritarianism generally - although in office i'm not sure they'd be any less brutal in the name of realpolitik on this particular issue. but this could well be a stunt nonetheless. but there again i've lost sight of where the line line between realism and endless cynicism is, whereit comes to our pols.

it could just be a gag to poke fun at the hilarious guardianistas fervently decrying labour - as with any elected left of centre party - of being 'right wing' on this and everything else. the more left wing labour become, the louder the cries get. mind you, their leader writers, seem to be shamelessly repeating the rather optimistic labour line that this puts the tories in turmoil. if turmoil means outwitting labour again - which i think is the upshot whether davis is at it or not - then i guess it is. unless of course, it's a sly leadership bid, which could really feck the tories up.

whatever, i think davis could win this by election by with as high a share of the vote as anyone has ever achieved in a democracy.

Interestingly the Lib Dems are refusing to field a candidate up against him in this by election as they back him 100%.
I think this decision by Davis is probably a bit of both - honour and a stunt. Would have been interesting to hear his boss's reaction when he was first told, having said that the Tories are far from in turmoil as the Labour optimists claim, this could be a really smart move.

Where I'd disagree with you is on your point that labour are going left wing. As an ex labour supporter I think the party is fractured hopelessly now and its neither one thing or the other. What Labour is..... is lost and lacking any form of awareness and as Broon tries to tighten his grip the whole thing continues to slip through his fingers and the pathetic echoes of the dying days of the John Major government ring hollowly in his ears.

I expect a leadership challenge come the autumn.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by AndyM

Interestingly the Lib Dems are refusing to field a candidate up against him in this by election as they back him 100%.
I think this decision by Davis is probably a bit of both - honour and a stunt. Would have been interesting to hear his boss's reaction when he was first told, having said that the Tories are far from in turmoil as the Labour optimists claim, this could be a really smart move.

.

I agree its a bit of both. Doesn't look like it will work as nobody is calling his bluff - which is a pity as I agree with his point to a degree.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by AndyM

Interestingly the Lib Dems are refusing to field a candidate up against him in this by election as they back him 100%.
I think this decision by Davis is probably a bit of both - honour and a stunt. Would have been interesting to hear his boss's reaction when he was first told, having said that the Tories are far from in turmoil as the Labour optimists claim, this could be a really smart move.

Where I'd disagree with you is on your point that labour are going left wing. As an ex labour supporter I think the party is fractured hopelessly now and its neither one thing or the other. What Labour is..... is lost and lacking any form of awareness and as Broon tries to tighten his grip the whole thing continues to slip through his fingers and the pathetic echoes of the dying days of the John Major government ring hollowly in his ears.

I expect a leadership challenge come the autumn.

in what way is not (increasingly) left wing? with the exception of using the market as the engine for generating tax revenue, which is just a fact of life these days, labour have lavished money in the most hubristic fashion, taxed people till there eyes are popping out, implemented more and more authoritarianism - all classic core socialist things, plus brought in a raft of pc regulations in a nod to the 60s left.

they're as left wing a govt as would be tenable in a modern country.

[AndyM]

Originally Posted by egb_hibs

in what way is not (increasingly) left wing? with the exception of using the market as the engine for generating tax revenue, which is just a fact of life these days, labour have lavished money in the most hubristic fashion, taxed people till there eyes are popping out, implemented more and more authoritarianism - all classic core socialist things, plus brought in a raft of pc regulations in a nod to the 60s left.

they're as left wing a govt as would be tenable in a modern country.

Ah well we'll have to agree to disagree. Many Old Labour types are far more critical of Blair and Brown & co than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would ever be.

I take your point on the idle frittering away of public money (though how that differs from any other Government in living memory is another thing) but their sabre rattling abroad and willingness to meddle in foreign affairs though is miles away from Labour's socialist roots which TonyB abandoned in the manner of a new Pilate when Clause 4 was airbrushed out of the brave new NuLab dawn. Brown's increasingly authoritarian behaviour for me has echoes of Thatcher when she was losing it towards the fag end of the 80s. Also jobs for the boys and the alleged levels of corruption (London) are a feature that were present in both Labour and Tory administrations.

I also take your point on the pc pish - they have pandered to this and it has cost a bloody fortune along with their other numerous promises and public commitments to all sorts of groups and they have now realised that the treasure chest is now empty.

Where I'm sure we do agree is that they're a busted flush, utterly finished.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by AndyM

Ah well we'll have to agree to disagree. Many Old Labour types are far more critical of Blair and Brown & co than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would ever be.

I take your point on the idle frittering away of public money (though how that differs from any other Government in living memory is another thing) but their sabre rattling abroad and willingness to meddle in foreign affairs though is miles away from Labour's socialist roots which TonyB abandoned in the manner of a new Pilate when Clause 4 was airbrushed out of the brave new NuLab dawn. Brown's increasingly authoritarian behaviour for me has echoes of Thatcher when she was losing it towards the fag end of the 80s. Also jobs for the boys and the alleged levels of corruption (London) are a feature that were present in both Labour and Tory administrations.

I also take your point on the pc pish - they have pandered to this and it has cost a bloody fortune along with their other numerous promises and public commitments to all sorts of groups and they have now realised that the treasure chest is now empty.

Where I'm sure we do agree is that they're a busted flush, utterly finished.

we're mostly in agreement, but in terms of foreign adventures - surely the classic right wing position, at least in post imperial times, is non-intervention? tony's war seems to me to be classic left liberal interventionism. as has been remarked many times, the american neocons all come from that tradition too.

that said, i think framing this sort of thing on left/right grounds is ultimately futile. the 'national interest' - even under self proclaimed internationalist regimes - is a non partisan issue, ultimately. i present the above rather to provide an alternative to the tedious proclaiming of it as being 'right wing'.

there is an infantile streak on the left which basically redefines right as anything that makes compromises with grubby reality; for these people therefore, every single 'left wing' regime becomes of the right, and only those who never got the chance to have to try to govern actual reality become enshrined as the ones that got away; hence the enduring popularity of republican spain.

anyway, i disgress; labour are goosed.

[gun ainm]

was going to comment on davis' vanity but then realised the thread was yet another vehicle for a pop at the demon of socialism as viewed through the infatuated monocle of the original poster -

[Greenmachine]

I agree with David Davis on this, and I think he has taken an honourable and brave stance. FWIW I thought he was the better candidate for leader when he lost out to Cameron, but that's another debate. I found myself agreeing with everything he said in his resignation speech today.

[wee 162]

Tell you what, Labour could properly reverse any ingrained attitudes that the tories are stronger on national defence by fielding a candidate on this.

I would add the caveat that I personally don't think being able to keep folk in jail because you want to actually does that, but you can present it that way.

The amusement for me in all this is that there was an alliance of Tories New Labourites, and the fecking DUP to carry this. Fecking reactioaries to a man. I've heard socialists claiming that the Labour Party is saveable. Aye, and Nazi Germany was in favour of universal human rights...

Get them to feck. Vote out all these knobs. If you don't normally vote, go in and just vote against the incumbent cause they're aw pricks.

[egb_hibs]

Originally Posted by gun ainm

was going to comment on davis' vanity but then realised the thread was yet another vehicle for a pop at the demon of socialism as viewed through the infatuated monocle of the original poster -

perhaps it would take an infatuated monocle to conclude that from a highly ambivalent OP.

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Greenmachine

I agree with David Davis on this, and I think he has taken an honourable and brave stance. FWIW I thought he was the better candidate for leader when he lost out to Cameron, but that's another debate. I found myself agreeing with everything he said in his resignation speech today.

Feck off! He's in an unloseable tory seat. How's it brave, other than by positioning himself as the next de facto leader of the tories should Cameron somehow manage to lose the next election?

Is Mugabe "brave" by standing for election when he knows he'll win?

[FTJT]

if he hadn't tried to position himself as frontrunner for the last two leadership elections this might not look like a stunt. he did, and it does.

[shandongreen]

Originally Posted by wee 162

Feck off! He's in an unloseable tory seat. How's it brave, other than by positioning himself as the next de facto leader of the tories should Cameron somehow manage to lose the next election?

Is Mugabe "brave" by standing for election when he knows he'll win?

I was kinda lookin for away to put it,but you done just fine.

Who will they be voting for, the stance NO,the candidate ,YES,who could put the name of the party as "OLD PEOPLE STINK OF PISH" and they would all still vote for him.

Crock o shite if you ask me.

[O'Driscoll]

I looked at the headline and thought that this might be a serious debate about the Irony of a Tory campaigning on a civil rights ticket, but of course its not, its the usual have a dig at the left/socialism/the labour party/the guardian..... What is it with you EGB did a left wing lassie stand you up or something?

[Archie]

A real odd one this - not least all of the parties trying to claim the moral high ground. It's made more odd by the fact that most Tories instinctively favour the 42 day rule. Of course Davis will win - he knows it, though any cabinet career is gubbed, at least under Cameron - maybe playing a longer game, though at 59 that gets a bit harder. Should Labour stand? I would say no, as they can't win the seat, they are unpopular and the terms would be entirely defined by Davis.

Bottom line, Davis bounces Cameron into repealing 42 days, gives himself prominence as a defender of liberty and becomes a thorn in Cameron's side. Labour are dubbed anyway (all parties have a sell by date, despite what they do) so may welcome the sideshow. That, and nobody's talking about Brown for a few days.

[Colr]

Originally Posted by O'Driscoll

I looked at the headline and thought that this might be a serious debate about the Irony of a Tory campaigning on a civil rights ticket, but of course its not, its the usual have a dig at the left/socialism/the labour party/the guardian..... What is it with you EGB did a left wing lassie stand you up or something?

I can't agree that the Tories championing civil rights is ironic at all. There is a string tradition of soical liberalism within the party inherited from the Whigs - many top Tories take their inspiration from the early "liberals; Davis being one of them.

This view is not held by all Tories by any means and the split is one of the difficult things for them as a party. Economic liberalism is more common but again not universal.

[Purple & Green]

BBC NEWS | Politics | Ex-Sun editor to challenge Davis

This is why you shouldn't buy the sun - particularly the line about 420 days.

[Briant]

Anyone any idea what public opinion is on 42 days?

Has there been a poll?

I would have thought tory voters would be pretty much in favour of it

[wee 162]

Originally Posted by Briant

Anyone any idea what public opinion is on 42 days?

Has there been a poll?

I would have thought tory voters would be pretty much in favour of it

So would I. Which imo is the reason why Brown was so obstinate about getting it through.