Sunday, 15 June 2008

Labour MPs pledge support to David Davis over 42 Days.

One of the biggest jokes, and I might add, lies of the last week was Labour's claim that the Tories are split over 42 Days. Let's look at the facts: On the vote for the extension of detention without charge to 42 Days only one Conservative MP rebelled against their party. However, there were 36 Labour rebels, and there would have been more if it hadn't been for some desperate arm twisting and bribery. To prove the point, and to embarrass Gordon Brown into a fit of mobile phone smashing mania, two of his MPs have pledged their support to David Davis in his by-election campaign. Now that's a split. The air must be a wonderful shade of blue in Downing Street this morning.

Will Brown have the cheek to call the Tories split over this matter again? I think he will because once he starts using a line, he tends to wear it out. And he's got so used to lying to the public he will conclude that there's no point stopping now. Brown has called this move by Davis a farce. What is a real farce is the fact that Brown is too scared to put up a Labour candidate for fear of losing. And what's even more farcical is that the Labour guy who should be fighting Davis (Edward Hart) is anti-42 days. Can you Adam and Eve it?

Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews has said:
“I applaud David Davis’s decision to resign and fight a by-election on the single issue of civil liberty. “The election will obviously transcend party politics and I have written to David Davis to inform him that I will be happy to accept any invitation to speak during the course of his campaign to ensure that the voice of a substantial part of the Labour party may be heard.”
Also pledging his support, Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North, said:
“Davis has a good argument. You can call it a stunt or a gimmick, but there is a serious side to this. I’m quite happy to join in. I’d be quite happy to share that platform to talk about what I think.”
Brown and some sections of the Labour party are going to lose a lot of face and support before this by-election is over. Well done to those Labour MPs who are supporting David's fight for our civil liberties.


Anonymous said...

Its about time someone made this argument mainstream , not just 42 days but the whole scary issue of this countries loss of freedoms,from spying ( councils using terrorist laws to spy on people)to keeping dna of people who should not be on the register. This countries whole ethos seems to be east Germany but with more control.Is it to late already?

John Trenchard said...

funny how the people who have come out worst in this 42 days deal, are not Labour - but the D.U.P. , especially in England.

i wonder how many English support the Northern Irish unionists now - not many I suspect..

tearing up magna carta for 20 pieces of silver will not be forgotten by the English.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with your comments. I'm particularly annoyed how the Westminster Village have portrayed this issue..the MP's and the journalists. They just don't get it. Davis' resignation was electrifying...a rallying call for everyone who's had enough of the constant erosion of our liberties.

I really think that Davis' example will draw in a whole raft of people not previously interested in politics. The 42 Days detention is a disgrace a puts us on the same footing as Mugabe as per my photo posting on the web.

If I was a Labour Party member I'd hang my head in shame. Can you imagine the reaction if the Conservatives had done this?

Anonymous said...

Totally agree with you, I'm donating to Davis's campaign and volunteering.

Has anyone noticed a switch in Brown and co's tactics from the dismal failure of "Tory Toffs" at Crewe and Nantwich and Henley to the, soon to be, dismal failure tactics of "Tory nutters" and "grandstanders".

TNs was first used in a rather half hearted way against Boris. Despite having failed miserably to smear good old Boz, Brown - being, as you say, a creature of habit, continues with the same failed tactics against David Davis, only this time goes into full dramatic mode.

I wish I could remember where I saw this, possibly the Telegraph, but here is an example of what I'm talking about, outrageous allegations that:

"Davis is suffering from personal stress or a midlife crisis. One commentator blamed his grand-standing antics on “psychological flaws” traceable to his tough upbringing on a south London council estate. The suggestion was that he was compensating for feelings of rejection when his mother, a single parent, acquired a new boyfriend whom he hated"

How odd then that paragon of rationality, Labour Peer Helena Kennedy QC, former Chair of the Power Inquiry says of good old Davis:

"Why I support this passionate politician

decision by David Davis to resign over the extension of detention without charge is a reminder of what politics ought to be about. Here is a politician going back to his own constituents to see if they support his stance on issues about which he feels passionate.

I suspect that, like me, Davis has watched the steady erosion of the freedoms we had taken for granted and wonders where it will all end. He probably also regrets that the debate had descended into complicated impenetrable layers of process, masquerading as safeguards, and feels the public is being denied a real debate about the principles and why they matter.

Everyone seems to have amnesia about the historical experiences out of which our civil liberties took root; we have forgotten lessons about what it is like to be at the receiving end of abuse of power. I think Davis wants a full-on debate with the public to reinvigorate our belief in freedom. I am all for it. I just wish my own party was initiating it.

The Government has justified its abandonment of civil liberties on the basis that this is what is required for security reasons and it is what the public wants. Yet when people are given the real facts, they are usually aghast at the catalogue of inroads into our liberties, often unaware of just how extensive the salami slicing has been. The steady flow of power away from the citizen to the state has been extraordinary.

One of the great values of being a British citizen has been the strong sense that we are not here at the behest of the state; the state is here at our behest. That was why policemen could not just stop us and demand to know who we were or where we were going. It was why we did not have to have an internal passport, as is now being put in train with ID cards. It was also why, if we were arrested, we would have to be charged promptly. We knew that to give police the power to lock people up for weeks on end while they went looking for evidence was a recipe for serious abuse.

It is the existence of these quiet but enduring entitlements that are at the core of our national being. When people hear the evidence they often take a different view of what government should be doing. David Davis knows that and wants to win the argument so that his own party sees it is not an electoral handicap but a bonus to espouse liberty.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, the quote was from the Times online, not the Telegraph