I’ve no wish to re-hash the arguments that raged here on Lib Dem Voice and around the blogs about whether Nick Clegg was right to agree not to stand a Lib Dem candidate against Mr Davis. On balance, I think he made the right call. But, whatever your view, that’s a done deal. What I’m more interested in now is how the party will make the best of its decision? How do we associate the Lib Dem cause with Mr Davis’s thinking on civil liberties, while emphasising that Mr Davis is by no means representative of Conservative views in the shadow cabinet? When will Nick be sharing a platform with David Davis? When will the party launch its Lib Dems for DD website? (I’m only half in jest). Why haven’t we tried to adopt him as one of our own – on civil liberties, I mean – the better to show up how disunited and un-libertarian the real Conservative party is?
I'll leave the LibDems to their own discussions on what their approach should be, but I do take issue with him on one point. He says: "Mr Davis is by no means representative of Conservative views in the shadow cabinet?" Er, come again? On this issue David Cameron and David Davis and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet are in total agreement. Sure, there were rumours that Michael Gove and George Osborne were concerned about being painted as soft on terror, but they rowed in behind the policy of opposing 42 days detension.
Having seen the LibDem contortions over the Lisbon Treaty I think they should be last people to accuse the Tories of being disunited on any issue!
22 comments:
mmm not sure I agree with you here, Iain.
Correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't Cameron failed to say that he will repeal the 42 days Act if he wins the election?
This is why DD had to resign. For Cameron, Gove and Osborne it's not an issue of principal but of how it looks. It's as if they don't think the words of an Act of Parliament matter.
They then end up looking unprincipled. Either it is important and it should be repealed at the earliest opportunity or its just about Westminster politics and its importance is zero if it's not in the headlines.
It's the same with Europe. Is Cameron actually against the constitution, in which case there should be no problem repealing it once in power, or is he not that bothered either way as long as he can score political points.
The more I see of Cameron, the less sure I am that he doesn't really care about the big issues and that he's just another pol like Blair and Clinton.
Scary, I will correct you on that. Cameron is indeed committed to repeal. Grieve said so too in his first TV interview. It is emphatically NOT why DD resigned.
Suppose you are right Ian as you are in the know but Dave did not come across strong to me on his opposing of 42 days detention with no reasons given.
Having said that, isn't it a bloody cheek when Brown says the Tories are soft on terror? Dave really should hammer home that his party know all about terror, first hand.
The Lib Dems are united on Lisbon .They are also united in their wish not lose their seats in a Euro sceptic country.The lying hounds .
Scary. Biscuit ..it is ridiculous to expect Cameron to commit himself to descisions which must be taken with regard to the immediate security situation as it may be at the time . Two big Mozzie bombs and you will want anyone who looks at you funny banged up charge-less in perpetuity .Same here . Grieve`s interview ,suggesting a reduction from 28 days , was to correct any confusion between a proper regard for security in unknown situations with a disregard for Liberty now.
The two taken together are consistent honourable and realistic , everything I want from a Conservative .
Get with the programme Scary back sliding Biscuit this is not the first time I have noticed doctrinal thought crime from you… ….( Pass his identity to the ‘watchers’ Iain , 42 days of re-education and he will love David Cameron. )
It is perfectly clear the Tories are absolutely united on this one. That is why DD is arguing his case in a bye-election all on his own.
OT, but could I just say that I miss those posts of David Boothroyd's, where he comes on in a ginger wig and long red shoes and says it's a psephological impossibility for Labour to lose. Wonder why he's dropped the shtick?
Also - all the speculation about Broon's probable non-departure is based on the assumptions that nobody will challenge him and that he'll stick it out.
Has it occurred to anyone else that he might actually top himself?
Broon's Talking Bawgie said...
"I miss those posts of David Boothroyd's, where he comes on in a ginger wig and long red shoes and says it's a psephological impossibility for Labour to lose."
David Boothroyd never said that. Like Newmania, you are confusing him with David Lindsay who really is a twit.
Iain, but it was too late by then and even now Cameron still hasn't confirmed it. Many on Conservative Home have speculated that Grieve (a true Conservaitve) made this announcement without even checking first with Dave.
Whatever, there's no discernable passion from the Cameroons on the big principles and this is a big problem.
They are going to fail to connect with the working class, aspirational vote if they cannot connect their own heads to their hearts.
...Brown says the Tories are soft on terror?
Oh but no-one knows as much about terror as Gordon Brown .His team spent an entire day locked up with Iain Paisley explaining to the poor ingenue from placid N Ireland how bombs and such can be ever so nasty. It seems that Mr. Paisley was so shocked by the dreadful revelations that he and his principled colleagues supported 42days.
Says Brown
Of course the Lib Dems will anguish over their approach to DD. Whilst they might agree with his stance on 42 days, surveillance, ID cards etc., they'll never be able to square it with his views on (e.g.) capital punishment and immigration control, which they probably regard as neolithic.
Well said. The Lib Dems have shown anything but unity since Cleggy took charge. Resignations, fake walkouts, Lib Dem peers running their own show - what a mess.
Surely this is the candidate to vote for!
Mr Davis is defending a 5,000 majority from the last election and no one seriously expects him to lose. He insists his stance is proving popular with the voters locally and has propelled the issues to the forefront of political debate nationwide. A Shadow Cabinet minister is scheduled to visit the constituency every day between now and polling, though in truth fewer than half will make the journey northwards, according to a Conservative Party source. One of the candidates some believed might actually pose a threat to Mr Davis is Jill Saward – the victim of what became known as the Ealing vicarage rape in 1986.
As one of the first sex attack victims to waive her right to anonymity, her arguments on law and order carry more authority than most. She opposes Mr Davis on his demands to role back the frontiers of the surveillance state, demanding the DNA database be made national while seeking more CCTV cameras and an end to the right to silence.
If DD cares so much about freedom, why did he vote for the Maastricht Treaty, and why did he bully others into doing so as a government whip?
Scary: there is a big difference between rejecting the constitution now, and repealing it later. At the moment, we can reject the constitution and renegotiate, but we have no right to repeal it later unless we are also saying we will leave the EU.
Leaving the EU might well be a good thing, but that's another debate.
The Tories are CLEARLY split down the muddle over this issue. There is no point in denying that fact Iain.
Gove is probably a 420-day man like that mad ex-journo. Cameron is NOT committed to repeal 42-days never mind 28-days.
If the Tories were in government for 11 September and 7 July they would have brought back hanging by now. Just ask your mate David Davis.
In further response to the Cameron-doubters here:
The Cameron angle has been to emphasize the lack of evidence to support the need for an increase in the detention-with-out-charge limit.
That is a good message to have out in the public arena, because it shows a huge difference in approach to policy-making in general, between the two main parties.
Beyond that, and on this specific issue, Iain is right about the Conservatives' commitment to repealing this Act, as both Cameron and Grieve have made clear.
Chris Paul said...
"If the Tories were in government for 11 September and 7 July they would have brought back hanging by now. Just ask your mate David Davis."
No they wouldn't; that's what sane people would have done. The tories will do the same nonsense as nulab.
Pete, All contracts (both in business and between countries) are renegotiable at any time, if both parties agree.
If the EU refused to accept the British people's desire for a different relationship with their friends on the continent then we would have to fold or leave, but only as a last resort.
Personally, I would prefer it if we left but I suspect that Europe needs us more than we need them and so a compromise would be available if we sought it.
Him accusing the Tories of being "un-libertarian" is also quite rich.
@ anonymous at 8.23
He most certainly has said it:-
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/11/brown-skewered-by-cameron-and-cable.html
- look at the seventh post down.
These hapless Labouroids are so used to controlling the newspapers and the BBC that they forget they can't control the blogs too. David Boothroyd's stupid opinions will be out there for us all to laugh it in perpetuity.
Of course this all does beg the question of why did Davis resign?? You can't seriously tell me that something didn't seriously happen behind closed doors to cause this move....what precisely happened we may of course never know...
"She opposes Mr Davis on his demands to role back the frontiers of the surveillance state, demanding the DNA database be made national while seeking more CCTV cameras and an end to the right to silence."
What, you mean there still is a right to silence? I thought Major's administration did away with that. No Fifth Amendment here, mate.
Post a Comment