The Future of David Davis

Paul Goodman has written a superb analysis of the motives which drive David Davis, and what the future holds for him. Read it HERE. What a superb addition to the ConservativeHome team Paul has been. He is one of the few must-read columnists around on Tory politics.

"As for David Davis, dear boy...well, what can I say? Too many speeches, on too
many subjects. Too many interventions. He's an ex-leadership contender, and a
senior colleague. If he wants to come back, he really should be keeping his
powder dry. It won't do at all." Those words, or others rather like them, tend
to emerge from Conservative MPs these days when the subject of Davis comes up
(at least, from those reasonably well-disposed to him; those less well-disposed
are more hostile, and express themselves in terms ranging from contempt to
alarm).

I declare an interest. I'm a friend of Davis, voted for him twice as leader, and had a hand in his 2005 leadership campaign, of which the full story is yet to be told. I like him, respect him, admire him, and am exasperated by him (the last two attitudes tend to battle for primacy). I would say that he was badly-advised to quit the Commons and the front bench to fight a quixotic by-election if he'd taken any advice other than his own. He'd have made a forceful Home Secretary, and his talents are a loss to the Government. At the same time, he's a lone wolf and perennial outsider, the temperamental opposite to smooth, insidery David Cameron.

It's a statement of the obvious to say that he's spiky rather than fluffy. His method of argument is rather pugnacious as well as highly rational, and there's a touch of the lecture hall as well as the battlefield about it.

Instead, it's worth grasping that there isn't a game. Davis isn't trying to execute a master plan that would return him to the Conservative front bench and deliver him a Government car and red box. I say this not so much on the basis of conversations with "sources close to David Davis", but because the facts suggest it. Davis was a Whip, knows the system, and understands that waging backbench campaigns - or shooting his mouth off, whichever way you want to look at it - won't further endear him to the Prime Minister, who decided long ago that Davis was trouble, had his view confirmed by that by-election, and tends to stick to his judgements of people
once he's made them.

There should be a place in the Commons for dissenters, heretics, bomb throwers, the awkward squad. Davis loves Parliament, and has written a book about it. He also likes running backbench campaigns. His first major one, a push during the late '80s to scrap the Dock Labour Scheme, was successful, so it would be wise not to write all his present ones off. And what's the world come to, after all, if an MP can't campaign for causes he believes in? If in doing so Davis is held to have joined the great gallery of
British eccentrics, fades into obscurity or (worse) becomes a celebrity, so be
it. Parliament should be about more than simply minding your manners.

That's just an extract. The whole article is HERE.

DD's Brokeback Moment

Clearly the silly season is upon us. When a jokey reference by David Davis to a group of former Tate & Lyle colleagues at the Boot & Flogger pub [you really couldn't make it up] to Clegg & Cameron as something akin to the two leading characters in Brokeback Mountain makes the front page of the FT, you know it's a light news day. It's hardly original, either. Several days ago I saw a TV montage showing Clegg and Cameron in a 'love story' type setting. My only comment would be that it is quite refreshing to have people making comments about the two people at the top of government getting on, rather than ranting at each other all the time, which is what Blair and Brown did. I can't imagine Cameron or Clegg taking umbrage at being likened to two handsome actors in one of the most successful films of all time. I'm surprised no one has photoshopped the movie poster yet... [Update: Pic courtesy of Lakelander]

David Davis also raised the possibility of a coupon election. Again, not news. This has been the subject of much discussion in Westminster for several weeks, as most of the journalists who leapt on these remarks today will know. The very fact that it is being discussed illustrates how happy many Conservatives are with the progress of the coalition. If they weren't there would be uproar at the mere suggestion.

Of course, David Davis has made clear his unhappiness with various coalition policies before - 55%, AV, Afghanistan, CGT etc. But those misgivings were all about policy rather than personality or process. It is quite revealing that the personality/process aspect of this gets higher billing that than his views on policy.

This is a Westminster Bubble story although I quite understand why it has hit the headlines. If I was the FT journalist, of course I'd have written it too. When a former political adversary makes any apparently negative comments about their former sparring partner, the reporting will be exaggerated beyond all reason in a bid to whip up a political storm. If David Davis didn't understand that before, he certainly will this morning!

Lesson from this story for budding politicians? Don't hold court in front of friends in a pub near a newspaper's head office. Book a private room!

UPDATE: Sunder Katwala writes a very interesting piece on this story HERE. His best line is this...

A Boot and Flogger Parliamentary Club would be an ideal name for a guerrilla "Real/Continuity 1922" backbench force.

LOL

UPDATE: A reader emails to remind me that it was Richard Littlejohn who first coined the Brokeback analogy back in May.

Fringe: In Conversation With David Davis (Over Breakfast)

Steve Richards has asked me to publicise a breakfast IN CONVERSATION fringe The Independent is hosting tomorrow morning from 8.30am in the Trafford Room at the Midland Hotel in Manchester. The guest is none other than David Davis.

I do hope the Indy puts on a bit of food. I spoke this morning at a Google breakfast fringe - which was great. Apart from the fact that there wasn't any breakfast. Serves me right for turning up late...

Do We Want David Davis To Be a Nodding Dog?

James Forsyth has written this morning about the "David Davis problem". He thinks the Tory leadership needs to give him something to do. His article was sparked by Davis's piece in this morning's Times which calls into question the approach of contracting out the maintenance of health records to companies like Google. Forsyth views this as "unhelpful" to the Cameron leadership and lists it as the latest in a line of sallies by the former Shadow Home Secretary, which appear to demonstrate a willingness to fall off the tightrope of outright slavish loyalty. Well, up to a point.

There have been three occasions when Davis has written articles which have tried to kickstart a debate - on the future of Trident, and the need to cut public spending, and our role in Afghanistan. In all three cases he was successful. On Trident, he questioned the need for a full upgrade. Liam Fox might not have approved but many others around the leadership of the party did. And on public spending he was the first to suggest that this would be the main issue of the next election. He was criticised for raising the issue at the time, but he has been proven right. Similarly, after a trip last autumn to Afghanistan he raised a number of the issues which have since become common currency, and questioned the basis of our mission there.

A few weeks ago he wrote an article on the need to retain grammar schools. Last time I looked, that was actually Conservative Party policy. Admittedly he went on to say they should be expanded, which is patently not party policy.

This raises the whole question of what being a backbench Member of Parliament is for. Do we want a parliament full of nodding dogs? Surely not. What we want is for senior politicians to feel able to try to lead a debate on particular issues. If when Davis writes an article it is now only viewed through the prism of whether he is trying to cause trouble, it says something about the level of political debate in this country.

The trouble is that the media only ever report anything a senior politician says if it could in some way be interpreted as an attack on their party's leadership. Alan Milburn and Charles Clarke would no doubt agree. I am not saying that they are always wrong in this. All I am saying is that it is wrong to interpret everything a politician says in this way. It's called judgement.

But it is not only the media who have to judge when a politician is speaking with conviction or whether he's out to cause trouble. Politicians must exercise judgement too - they must judge when it is right to speak out and when it is best to shut up. No one easily forgives a politician who gratuitously rocks the boat in the nine months before an election. But a politician who has something meaningful to say but feels inhibited from doing so because of possible accusations of disloyalty may well not be able to forgive himself.

No one said being a politician was meant to be easy.

Justice for Old Etonians!

Recess Monkey has a moderately amusing story about overhearing a conversation between David Davis and a passenger on the tube. He headlines it: DAVIS SLAMS TORY TOFFS. The conversation, according to the flappy-eared Alex Hilton went like this...

Old bloke: “How was your week?”

DD: “Very busy what with the Damian Green thing and the Speaker”

OB: “So you want the Speaker to resign?”

DD: “Certainly not, Labour would elect another Labour speaker and they would be there for the whole of the next parliamentary term - and the trouble is, we don’t have that many good candidates”

OB: “There’s George Young”

DD: “Another old Etonian - we can’t have an old Etonian Prime Minister and an old Etonian Speaker”.

Alex would never make a very good journalist. His ears weren't flapping quite hard enough. I just read this out to DD, who found it highly amusing that Alex had missed a vital part of the story. His closing remark was actually a third more disparaging. What he actually said was...

DD: “We can’t have an old Etonian Prime Minister, an old Etonian Mayor of London and an old Etonian Speaker”.

Just wanted to clear that up, all for the sake of accuracy, you understand. And a sense of humour.

Why David Davis Won't Be a Liberty Tsar

Hold on a cotton pickin' minute. Methinks certain people are getting a tad carried away. Rosa Prince's heavily briefed story on the Telegraph website this afternoon, revealing that David Cameron is to offer David Davis some sort of Civil Liberties Tsar role, has now been taken up by the Spectator and ConservativeHome. Reading between the lines it seems that Prince's source for the story was someone high up in the Cameron Command.

They really don't seem to know David Davis very well. Briefing this sort of thing to the press is likely to have the very opposite effect to the one someone clearly desires. David Davis won't allow himself to become pigeon holed as a single issue politician and I know he has no intention of doing so. Rosa Prince's article continues...

Describing Mr Davis as a "brave and courageous man," the Tory leader held out the prospect of a return to the front bench at some point in the future, although party sources indicated that the move would not come this side of a general election, if ever.

This sort of unnamed spinning helps no one. It makes the 'party sources' look sour and bitter and at odds with what David Cameron has said publicly. Briefings like this, I had thought, belong to the Tory Party of the past.

David Davis made his own decision to leave the Shadow Cabinet. No one forced him out. I doubt very much whether he expects to be offered a return now, or possibly ever. Attempting to buy his loyalty with a meaningless role isn't likely to work. But the fact is, his loyalty doesn't need to be bought.

He, like the rest of us, wants to see the return of a Conservative government. If anyone seriously thinks he is going to be some sort of Michael Heseltine figure, prowling the backbenches, cultivating dissent, they have learned nothing from the last few weeks. There was no fall-out with David Cameron. There was no split. There was no disagreement about policy. The media would love there to have been, but there wasn't.

I believe the respect the two of them have for each other is intact. And for that reason I can't really believe David Cameron will offer David Davis a meaningless role and expect him to accept it. The party already has a liberty tsar. He's called Dominic Grieve. He's the Shadow Home Secretary.

UPDATE 10.20pm: Half an hour ago, Rosa Prince updated her original story on the Telegraph website, which is now headlined DAVID DAVIS TO TURN DOWN CIVIL LIBERTIES OFFER.

UPDATE 10.30pm: Labour Minister Tom Harris has a unique insight into David Cameron's plans for David Davis.

David Davis Back Where He Belongs

So, David Davis's sojourn away from the House of Commons is over. He won the Haltemprice & Howden by election with an overwhelming 72% share of the vote (the highest in a by election since 1997) on a 35% turnout, which was far higher than most of the so-called Westminster village 'experts' had predicted. Considering he had no real opposition, I think that is a very creditable turnout in the circumstances. It is roughly the same as the turnout in Sarah Teather's by election in Brent East in 2003, but far higher than Michael Portillo's (29%) or Hilary Benn's (19%). When you consider that 9,000 students were away, it is the summer holiday season, and it rained I am not sure anyone could have expected a much higher turnout than that.

The Greens came second, only narrowly ahead of the English Democrats. The candidate Labour was tacitly backing, Jill Saward, came sixth with a miserable 492 votes, 29 fewer than Miss Great Britain.

Here is the full result...

David Davis (Con) 17,113 (71.56%)
Shan Oakes (Green) 1,758 (7.35%)
Joanne Robinson (English Democrat) 1,714 (7.17%)

Tess Culnane (National Front) 544, Gemma Garrett (Miss Great Britain) 521, Jill Saward (Ind) 492, Mad Cow-Girl (Official Monster Raving Loony) 412, Walter Sweeney (Ind) 238, John Nicholson (Ind) 162, David Craig (Ind) 135, David Pinder (The New Party) 135, David Icke (Ind) 110, Hamish Howitt (Freedom 4 Choice) 91, Christopher Talbot (Socialist Equality Party) 84, Grace Astley (Ind) 77, George Hargreaves (Christian Party) 76, David Bishop (Church of the Militant Elvis) 44, John Upex (Ind) 38, Greg Wood (Ind) 32, Eamonn Fitzpatrick (Ind) 31, Ronnie Carroll (Make Politicians History) 29, Thomas Darwood (Ind) 25, Christopher Foren (Ind) 23, Herbert Crossman (Ind) 11, Tony Farnon (Ind) 8, Norman Scarth (Ind) 8

I didn't stay up for the result, which was delayed until 3am by a recount demanded by one of the fringe candidates, but left of centre civil liberties campaigner Anthony Barnett from Our Kingdom did. He was disgusted by the BBC coverage. Sounds like my decision to go to bed was good for my blood pressure...

[BBC] coverage of the count was an utter disgrace and will for the moment serve this angry viewer as a symbol of its appalling conceit and incompetance. It lost the sound when the Sherrif read out the results. Anyone could have run forward with a microphone to make sure they could broadcast Davis's acceptance speech. They didn't. Nor was their hapless reporter ordered forward with his own mike. Listen to Davis at his moment of triumph? Hear what he had to say about the issue? No need for THAT. The BBC knows all, and it knows that we do not need to worry about liberty while it can call in its license fee. Not only did we have the reporter then talking over Davis - he did not even have the curtesy to report to us what he was saying even though he could hear him. This farrago was followed by one of the most prejudiced leading question I can recall. Without any serious opposition, and indeed with voters pissed off by the sheer amount of idiot candidates, Davis got a fantastically high turnout in the circumstances. In 2005 the current Labour government only got 22 per cent of the total electorate. By my calculation Davis has got 27 per cent tonight. In other words he represents a significantly higher proportion of his electorate than Gordon Brown does of Britain's. So what does the BBC do? From the studio in London it asks, "Were all of his voters really voting in support of civil liberties?" Oh no, says their local lackey, in a clearly primed exchange. "I spoke to Conservative voters who said they did not agree with Davis but because they respected him and the way he was making a stand they were voting for him". The quotes are not exact, they accurately convey the exchange. It was clear, even though the turnout was deemed "respectable" (BBC for a triumph the Corporation disapproves of) we are not allowed to interpret it as people agreeing with Davis! You see, his success does not mean anything at all. If they had not voted for him it would have shown that the BBC was right and people did not care about civil liberties. If they do vote for him it shows that they don't care either - they just support his maverick integrity. Either way, no effort whatever is to be made to let listeners hear what the newly re-elected MP for Haltemprice and Howden has to say.

PS: The web arm of Britain's corporatethought managed to pull off the patronising view of Davis to perfection, headling the outcome as "Davis cruises to b-election win". It could almost have been "glides". No resistance, no effort, no story.

Mike Smithson of PoliticalBetting.com agrees...

The BBC showed once again with their minimal coverage of the count and lack of analysis that they have abandoned their case to be funded by a tax enforced by all the apparatus of the criminal law. Covering the electoral process at work should be the first priority for a public service broadcaster and they failed miserably. Sky, by all accounts, was so much better.

Seeing as the BBC didn't feel it necessary to bring you David's speech at the count, let me provide the public service they should have...

First, may I thank the returning officer, his officials ad the police. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the other parties that contested this election. One of the freedoms I defend is the right of anybody to stand in a democratic election. By and large this has been a courteous and entertaining campaign. I thank everyone for taking part. Four weeks ago, I resigned my position as Shadow Home Secretary, and Member of Parliament. Not for personal gain. Not for political advantage. But to defend a principle. The doubters said it couldn’t be done.
You can’t win a by-election campaigning for freedom. You can’t shift public support for 42 days.
You can’t spark a national debate, they said… people just don’t care about British liberty. And yet, 3 weeks on, we’ve sent a shot across the bows of Gordon Brown’s arrogant, arbitrary and authoritarian government. We’ve galvanised a new consensus … across the political spectrum … beyond the world of politics. A new resolve. A new spirit of freedom. A fresh sense of purpose.

Today, the people of Haltemprice and Howden have delivered a stunning message to the government…as our campaign has reverberated across the country. Four weeks ago as Gordon Brown stooped into the gutter to rig the vote on 42 days, Ministers crowed that 69% of people supported 42 days. Today just 36% support it. Four weeks ago, the government touted public support for a range of other draconian measures. Today, 71% support my stand against the attacks on British liberty. And in the House of Lords, the last Head of MI5 savaged the government’s 42 day proposal. It now lies in tatters, robbed of any remaining credibility. Along with this government. And that’s after just 3 weeks.

But today is not the end of this campaign. It’s the beginning. On Monday I return to the House of Commons, to take up my seat in those hallowed chambers. I do so with a clear mandate to fight Gordon Brown’s vision of ‘Big Brother Britain’ tooth and nail. To stop 42 days dead in its tracks.
To prevent the disaster of ID cards before it happens. To protect our personal privacy from being ransacked by the ever-intrusive state. But most of all for the thousands upon thousands who have written to me… Supported me…and voted for me….

I return to fight for those fundamental freedoms that define our way of life. The freedoms that millions died defending. The freedoms that make Britain Great.

So, let's turn to the question which ConservativeHome tried to answer a day too early. Was it worth it?

I made no secret of the fact that I would rather David Davis hadn't done what he did. Like all his other close friends, if I had been asked for my opinion before he resigned, I would have counselled against it. He knew that. It's why he didn't talk to any of us about it. I respect that, even though I continue to believe it was a wrong decision. I also respect the fact that he sacrificed his political future for a cause he passionately believes in. There's no way back to the Shadow Cabinet and he knows it.

One result from this by election is that it has demonstrated the growing disconnect between the Westminster Village and the rest of the country. So-called expert commentators dismissed Davis as 'bonkers', 'going through a mid life crisis' or worse. The rest of the country saw a politician standing up for something he believed in, willing to make personal sacrifices for the cause. Whether they agreed with him or not, they liked a politician who strayed from the norm.

David Davis's aim was to spark a national debate. He may not have got quite the debate he wanted, but there have been acres of media coverage of the issue which would not have happened if he had not stood down. It has made some previous advocates of 42 days think a little harder about their support for the measure. It has brought together a rainbow alliance of people from across the political spectrum in a way which might not have happened before.

The whole campaign will have made it just that little bit harder for Gordon Brown to get this measure through the rest of its parliamentary stages. For David Davis, that will have made it all worthwhile. For me, well, I sit here thinking what a damned shame it is that a supremely talented man won't now be in the next Conservative Cabinet.

More on the by election...

Andy Sparrow - Seven conclusions
Liberal Conspiracy - Analysis
PoliticalBetting - Was Nick Clegg DD's big mistake?
Anthony Barnett - Canvassing in H & H
Glyn Davies - DD is a hero
Robin Lustig - A national debate?
Cassilis - What DD did and didn't do
Andrew Grice - DD 1 Labour 0
Danny Finkelstein - DD & baldrick's cunning plan

UPDATE: I have also written a piece for Comment is Free HERE, looking at the fallout fron the by election.

David Davis Interview

There's a web only exclusive interview with David Davis by Shane Greer on the Total Politics Campaigns Blog today in which he talks about the by election and the issues involved.

ConservativeHome has a post today on David Davis's by election entitled Was it Worth it, which looks at the results of a Politics Home poll which has contrary evidence to yesterdays ICM poll which showed voters turning against 42 days and the excessive use of DNA evidence. ConservativeHome's interpretation of the PoliticsHome poll is questionable to say the least, as it fails to compare like with like. They asked totally different questions. Donal Blaney has gone off on one HERE, and Daily Referendum has done the SAME.

I think I will sit this one out!

Has David Davis's National Debate Been Sparked?

When David Davis resigned his seat he said he wanted to speak a national debate on 42 days and the surveillance society. Despite not having a serious opponent he has managed to get across quite a large part of the national media. If some new poll evidence is to believed, people are now starting to have decond thoughts over their previous support for 42 days, ID cards and the unresricted use of a DNA database.

A Joseph Rowntree/ ICM poll ftoday has found that that 61% of people oppose detaining terrorist suspects for longer than 28 days. Four weeks ago 69% were said to support the government view on 42 days. This adds weight to the view that the more people hear about 42 days, the less they like it.

The ICM poll shows that whilst 36% of those asked think people who may be guilty of a terrorist offence should be held in detention for up to six week, or 42 days, before they are charged or released, 32% say it should be up to four weeks, 13% up to two weeks, 10% up to one week and 6% up to four days.

On detention, significantly, when told that six weeks in custody is equivalent to the prison sentence which someone might serve if found guilty of an offence such as burglary or assault people change their minds. Of those who said terrorist suspects should be held for up to six weeks before being charged or released, more than a third (35%) changed their minds when told this and agreed it is not right to hold someone who may be innocent for so long.

Even more interestingly, in the same poll 74% of people do not support the permanent retention of DNA for innocent people and suspects who are acquitted. David Davis has made clear his view that it is ridiculous that the government has one million innocent people on its database, yet leaves off serious criminals. It seems the public agrees.

47% of people say that DNA profiles should not be kept at all by the police if someone is never charged with an offence or is acquitted, with a further 27% saying they should be kept for a limited time only.

93% believe DNA profiles should be kept permanently on a database if someone is convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence such as rape or murder. Only 33% of people believe these rules should also apply to those convicted of a lesser offence such as being drunk and disorderly. If a person is convicted of a ‘public order offence’, two-thirds of people say that their DNA records should either be kept for a limited time only (47%), or not at all (19%).

All this comes on the day after the former Head of MI5, Lady Manningham Buller said in the House of Lords that the didn't support 42 days. Neither does her predecessor Stella Rimington. Neither does the former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. Neither does the former Justice Secretary Lord Falconer. Neither do various former Metropolitan Police Commissioners. Neither does the Director of Public Prosecutions. Need I go on?

The 42 day proposal will not get through the House of Lords and the government will be in even more of a mess than it is at the moment. I suspect that whatever national debate David Davis has sparked in the last three weeks, will be nothing compared to what is about to come.

Stirring Up Apathy in Haltemprice & Howden

The reason for my silence today is that I have been up in Haltemprice & Howden emulating Willie Whitelaw and stirring up apathy. Sunday is not an ideal day to campaign in a by-election, but it is the only day I had free. I've spent most of the afternoon leafleting in Willerby with a good team of volunteers, one of whom has flown in from Israel especially to help David Davis. You can't get much more committed than that! There's a good show of posters and from the reaction from people we spoke to during the course of the day, it seems reasonable to expect a fairly good turnout. What constitutes a good turnout? Not sure to be honest, but there's one thing for sure - the DD campaign needs a good Get out The Vote operation on Thursday - essentially they need to knock on every door, and not just Conservative pledges.

Interestingly, I encountered two Labour voters in Willerby who were both intending to turn out for DD on Thursday. They said they were disgusted at Labour's failure to put up a candidate.

DD has got William Hague, Francis Maude, Liam Fox Dominic Grieve and the Shadow Home Affairs team coming tomorrow, Martin Bell on Tuesday and on Wednesday there's a big lunchtime public meeting with Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews, 7/7 survivor Rachel North and Shami Chakrabarti from Liberty. And tomorrow night DD is debating with Tony Benn at the Queen Elizabeth Hall on the South Bank in London. More details on the David Davis for Freedom Website.

Bob Geldof on Freedom & Liberty

Bob Geldof paid a visit to Haltemprice & Howden today to support David Davis. He gave a terrific speech, which you can read HERE. Here's an excerpt...

Let us be grand for once then, for we talk of great subjects. Let us ask ‘what is the point of England “ now that Parliament, whose primary purpose is to defend the liberties of the people have so gratuitously, so wantonly, so casually betrayed that trust and taken from us that same liberty which above all else defines this country and its constitution, and that which has been its greatest gift to the world its freedom, its tolerances, its civilisation which William Wilberforce so forcefully argued from this town so many centuries ago.Melville claimed for America “that it bears the Ark of the liberties of the world.” It could be better said of that Britain which invented and codified those freedoms.

Are Magna Carta, and Habeas Corpus not to mention the Anti-Slavery laws, to be traduced in one brief sad moment of political expediency. When a 800 years ago Britons told the state in words that still ring true and through the ages: “To no man will we deny, To no man will we delay, Justice and Right”. 42 days detention denies and delays Justice and Right. It is a clear breach of ancient right, of Magna Carta itself.

So what great existential threat does this country now face that did not face our forefathers of the past 1000 years. What is so grave the emergency now that neither civil war nor world war nor various terrorisms were considered so dangerous to our security that our oldest statutes -and few have lasted the 400 years relevance of habeas corpus - could be upended for such a ha’pnworth of momentary contemporary panic. If authority is to be respected it must be just. When it is not, then the greatest threat to that authority is its own instinct to authoritarianism.

These new security measures, these new limitations on our liberties are not the thin end of the wedge We’re way past that now. This is now, already, the bulkier mid way point of that authoritarian block. For we have in the past few years so mauled our ancient defended rights, rights for which bloody battles were fought and heroes lived and died for, as to seriously consider whether the constitution is today much more than a cartoon of its essential meaning. And what moral authority resides any longer in a lawmaking body that acts against the liberties of its own people? Is it not true that the willingness to use intolerable means to achieve impossible ends shows the political mind at its most deluded?

Meanwhile our supine press gulled by political complicity, lull the population to apathy by banging on with their trivial irrelevancies while the constitution is quietly turned aside. Shame on them. Alas they are shameless.

What terrorizes the terrorists is our civilization. What those unthinking fools of fundamentalism fear most are the very freedoms our representatives strip from us. Essentially this ‘war on terror’is a conflict waged against Islamist forces that claim to reject the Enlightenment. If that is so, then how can we ever succeed if we side with our opponents in rejecting those same ideals? Every moment we are spied on by the invisible watchers. Every time that we are recorded and monitored at every turn, on every purchase. Every time we are mandatorially logged, noted, tagged and followed on databanks and files because “it is in our best interest” They win. And every time we accept it, we lose. We must not hold this attitude of passive acceptance to these restraints on justice, rights and liberties that ultimately amounts to nothing more than complicity with intolerance.

Inspirational stuff. But not considered worthy of reporting by any BBC channel. Maybe they thought DD's outing on ANY QUESTIONS tonight was enough publicity for one day.

Great Conspiracy Theories of Our Time: No 94: DD (Not) for Speaker

Now I really have heard it all. According to Ben Brogan, DD's resignation is because ... wait for it ... he wants to be Speaker of the House of Commons. RAOTFLOL* or whatever the phrase is.

Mind you, not such a bad idea, come to think of it...

*Roll all over the floor laughing out loud.

UPDATE: Diary columnists alert: I have just spoken to DD about the magnificent prospect of his taking over the Speakership. Once he had recovered from several minutes of laughter he declared: "I haven't got the legs for it and I doubt whether I'd look good in tights." Which begs so many questions...

David Davis's Walk Into the Unknown

So, now that the dust has settled, what are to make of it all? The news media is in meltdown mode as they struggle to come to terms with the enormity of what David Davis has done. Instant conclusions are naturally being drawn, but many of them are very detached from reality.

I should perhaps make clear that I did not know about this decision until this morning. I am glad I didn't for several reasons. I still haven't spoken to him so what I am about to write is my take on the situation and my take only.

During my six months working for DD in 2005 Tony Blair's 90 day detention proposals I saw first hand how passionately he feels about this issue. It's not a matter of political conviction, it's almost as if it is in his DNA. He genuinely thinks that extending pre charge detention to 42 days will make the country less safe. It will give the terrorists a propaganda victory.

Up until the weekend he believed the 42 day proposal would be defeated. He hadn't reckoned on the duplicity of the DUP or the fact that so many Labour MPs would be bought off by offers of goodies for their constituency or the chairmanship of this or that committee.

Labour is spinning away that David's decision is a kind of emotional reaction to the loss. They could not be more wrong. David Davis doesn't make emotional decisions. He makes them with a military precision. He won't have done this on the spur of the moment, he will have thought about it deeply and played some war game scenarios. In the end he will have come to the conclusion that the only way to defeat the 42 day agenda is to start a massive public debate. And that's what a by election will do.

This isn't about one man's vanity. It is about the ability to sacrifice personal and public advantage for a greater cause. As he said in his statement, Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta. Over the last 800 years people have fought and died to protect our civil liberties. If it falls to one man to sacrifice political advantage to try to make a stand against their further erosion, then so be it.

David would have been Home Secretary in the next Conservative government. He has consistently been the party's best media performer over the last two years. He has played a major part in the revival of Conservative fortunes, and while many people have tried to drive wedges between him and David Cameron they have failed to manage it. Quite obviously, they come from a different background and have certain different priorities - so do any two politicians. But during the leadership contest they grew to respect one another greatly and a good working relationship was established. For David to sacrifice his political future in this way, effectively to be a single issue campaigner, says a lot about his moral compass.

I don't pretend that David Cameron will be pleased at today's turn of events. He would obviously have wanted to keep David on board. But he is where he is. We are where we are. How's that for being profound!? He's made an excellent appointment in Dominic Grieve, someone who regular readers know I believe should have been in the Shadow Cabinet ages ago.

The LibDems are to be commended for deciding not to stand in the by election. Labour is showing all the signs of following suit. If they do, they will be treating the issue (and voters) with contempt. The 42 day issue can now be debated fully during the by election campaign. Sure, there are 69% of people opposed to David's stance, but they oppose it with their hearts not their heads. Most of us can have sympathy with banging terrorists up for as long as it takes, but when you think about the actual consequences of doing so without charge, you slowly begin to think with your head, not your heart.

I see that well know by election Labour campaigner, Stephen McCabe MP, thinks that David is "treating Parliament and the voters with contempt". They really don't get it, do they? They don't get the fact that our there, voters are crying out for politicians who take moral stands and stand up for what they believe in, even if it is temporarily unpopular. They are fed up with politicians who are on the take, or can be corralled into a voting lobby by a government whip offering them sweeties for their pet cause. Ann Widdecombe made a courageous stand when she made her something of the night speech. She did so in the full knowledge that it could be the ruination of her political career. She did what she thought was right. And that's what David Davis is doing.

So what now? I have been inundated with emails from people offering David help for the by election, and also money. Facebook groups have already been formed in his support.

As many of you will have seen, I have been on various media outlets during the afternoon giving my views. It's been like flying blind to be honest. Dangerous but fun!

More later...

DD: Shoot the Generals

Fraser Nelson reveals in the News of the World that at a Shadow Cabinet meeting David Davis stunned his colleagues with a suggestion of what to do about Burma...

Invade the country, shoot the generals and feed the people

Tamzin Lightwater would have gone weak at the knees. How tongue in cheek the suggestion was, I will leave you to judge.

Labour Accused by DD on Political Advertising

Ben Brogan reports on a letter David Davis letter to the Cabinet Secretary Gus O'Donnell today, complaining about a series of Home Office adverts, supposedly aimed at businesses, which had subliminal party political messages to swing voters on immigration. Strangely, even though the target audience was supposedly businesspeople, the adverts only appeared in the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Mirror and The Star.

Bearing that in mind, read this quote from the Chipmunk (Hazel Blears, for the uninitiated) in tonight's London Evening Standard...

"We have to persuade people in Hastings, Basildon, Harlow and Luton we are firm but fair on immigration, that we understand their apprehensions..."

Now, which papers do many people in those towns read? You're ahead of me. Yet another example of taxpayers' money being used to help the Labour Party.

David Davis Gets a Shock

David Davis got a bit of a shock this morning. He's in Washington at the moment meeting US experts on dealing with terrorists. He was settling down to his bacon and eggs in his hotel when he spied a familiar face across the room. It was Martin McGuiness, no doubt in DC on another IRA Sinn Fein fundraising trip. Suffice to say that no words were exchanged. Not even a few hand gestures...

I think I am correct in remembering that in the early 1990s David Davis introduced a bill into the Commons to prevent Sinn Fein from getting any form of funding from the British taxpayer. The irony now is that Sinn Fein is allowed to raise money abroad, while the Conservative Party isn't.

Note: Diary columns use attribution please

If You Live in Fantasy Land...

Some bloggers really do live in a parallel universe, where the conspiracy theory always takes precedent over the obvious. THIS post today really made me laugh. In it, the UK Daily Pundit (for it is he) asserts that David Davis is going to America this week to get the approval of our empirical rulers, before he ousts David Cameron later this year. Hilarious. Here's the relevant bit...

Which brings me to David Davis and the real reason behind his trip to the US this week. On the face of it Davis is on a fact-finding mission to discuss zero tolerance policing and defence. In reality, he's about to attend the most important job interview he'll ever have. The Shadow Home Secretary will this week face an assessment by the Americans as to his suitability to be Prime Minister. He's being cleared for the top job. If all goes well and Davis gets the nod, at some stage later this year David Cameron will get wind of a draft letter calling for a vote of no confidence in his leadership. At that point he will announce that he is to step down to spend more time with his family.

As Richard Littlejohn might say, you really couldn't make it up. But the UK Daily Pundit has. I haven't had such a good laugh since I almost wet myself at a Frankie Howerd live theatre show.

There's Only Two David Davis's

There was a curious mistake on Comedy Central's The Colbert Report the other night in a report on the military hospital scandal. Colbert reports on the members of Congress that visited the hospital in question, and flags up an image of all these at once (about 15 secs into the video HERE). Who's that chap on the top righthand side? Why, our beloved shadow Home Secretary! Even though he has nothing to do with it. Why? Presumably because some researcher used Google image search without checking they got the right David Davis. The one they were after is a Congressman from Tennesse, whose delightful website you can see HERE. They look so alike, don't they? Easy mistake to make...

When an Exclusive is Not Quite What it Seems

Sky and News 24 and the Sundays are full of the Francis Elliott/James Hanning "revelations" about David Cameron's schooldays. Big deal. He handled the issue very well during the leadership contest and I expect him to do so again.

The amusing part of this story is how the Mail on Sunday have a so-called EXCLUSIVE from two journalists from the Independent on Sunday. Money talks, eh? Although the Indy have also run it as an exclusive (so, laughably, has the News of the World) they really need to buck up on their own PR. Apparently they rang News 24 this evening to complain about them saying it was a Mail on Sunday story on their bulletins. The BBC replied that if the Indy had bothered to tell them it was their story in the first place it would never have happened. Elementary PR, you'd have thought.

Several journalists are querying now what exactly the Conservative policy on soft drugs is. I suspect it will remain whatever David Davis says it is. Period.

Davis: We Will Axe ID Cards Scheme

The LibDems seem to take great delight in asserting that they are the only Party which is totally opposed to ID cards. Well they won't be able to trot out that old canard again. Today David Davis, has today written to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell giving formal notice that an incoming Conservative Government would scrap the Government's ID card project and asking what provision, if any, has been made in the relevant contractual arrangements to protect the Government - and public funds - against the costs that would be incurred as a result of early cancellation of the scheme. A similar letter has also been sent to the likely major contractors warning them of our intentions. This is the text of the letter to Sir Gus...

I am writing to you in relation to the Government's planned roll out
of its national identity card scheme, commencing this year. You will be aware
that there is a longstanding convention that one Parliament may not bind a
subsequent Parliament.As you will also be aware, the Conservative Party has
stated publicly that it is our intention to cancel the ID cards project
immediately on our being elected to government. You are now formally on notice
of our position and fully appraised of the contingent risks and associated
liabilities arising from the national identity card scheme.

In light of these risks, I urge you to consider very carefully the
government's position, in advance of the roll-out of the scheme later this year.
As a matter of financial prudence, it is incumbent upon you to ensure that
public money is not wasted, and contractual obligations are not incurred,
investing in a scheme with such a high risk of not being implemented.
In particular, I would be interested to know what provision, if any has, been made
in the relevant contractual arrangements to protect the Government - and public
funds - against the costs that would be incurred as a result of early
cancellation of the scheme.

The Conservatives will be a launching a web and print based campaign against Labour's ID Cards proposals tomorrow.

As Stephen Pollard so eloquently puts it...

So at one and the same time, he has reiterated the Conservative Party's
stance in favour of individual liberty versus the state; he has undermined the
chances of ID cards being successfully introduced under Labour by indicating
that he might, as Home Secretary, overturn contracts with commercial
organisations, thus introducing a crucial new element of risk; he has helped the
Conservative Party in its key task of drawing in potential LibDem voters; and he
has given the Conservative troops a morale boost by sticking to core
principles.