So who was right?
When David Davis shocked Westminster by resigning his seat I reported the fury within Team Cameron which led them to describe his decision as "personal" - meaning taken without consultation with his leader or other colleagues - and "courageous" - which I translated as political code for "mad".
I predicted that whatever happened it would damage the Tories since the man who was defeated for the Tory leadership would be able to claim his own electoral mandate and thus have an independent status on the backbenches if he won his by-election.
Never before have my predictions provoked such anger or such a flurry of complaints. I was accused both of mis-representing David Cameron's real views and of under-estimating the public's support for David Davis.
In short I was told repeatedly that I was prisoner of the Westminster village who "just didn't get it". So, on the morning after the by-election night before what's my verdict now?
I'm sorry to disappoint my critics - or perhaps confirm them in their view - but I've not changed my mind. Except, that is, on one point. I did under-estimate the extent to which the act of resigning on an issue of principle would elevate David Davis in the eyes of many in this profoundly anti-political age. The turnout and majority he got, in what turned out to be a non-election, was a reflection of the high status he has in his constituency.
However, I hold to the view that, whether he means to be or not, he will be a destabilising presence for David Cameron whether he stays on the backbenches or is eventually given another job.
The last time I faced such flak for a prediction was a long time ago - when Clare Short attacked Tony Blair's spindoctors as "men in the dark" when Labour were still in opposition. When Blair and Short cobbled together a statement saying they agreed with each other I described them as "like a married couple" who'd stayed together for the sake of the children or, in this case, the Labour Party.
The problem, I continued with my over-extended metaphor, was that if you invited them for dinner they'd end up having a row and throwing the crockery at each other.
This prediction led Peter Mandelson to try to have me sacked. For years afterwards as Short sat, apparently comfortably, in Blair's Cabinet I worried that I'd got it wrong. Then, along came the Iraq war...
Perhaps the diplomatic thing to say to minimise the risk of triggering yet more complaints is, as Deng Xiaioping once famously remarked when asked for his view of the French Revolution, "It's too early to tell".
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~46~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
One thing David Davis has shown is that he has cross party friends like Junior Milliband and Tony Ben.
He is clearly a very principalled man. In the case of 42 days maybe he just let his emotions get the better of him. In the face of such obvious Government bribes and deals - I know I would.
Clearly the public also admire David Davis.
Thus I say......... lets make David Davis the next Speaker of the Commons.
Would provide a neat solution for Cameron and give a principalled man like Davis a real challenge and role.
Complain about this comment
I wonder you bothered to pen this article, it says absolutely nothing, you are just kicking your prediction into the long grass in the hope "events " eventually prove you right.
Must be a slow day.
Complain about this comment
David Davis has shown that he is not capable of thinking through his position fully. His resignation was never going to achieve what he wants. With a safe seat he was never going to be seriously challenged and so he has proven nothing, except that he is a lower grade politician who should not be trusted with with high office.
Complain about this comment
You've said it all...we may not know for a long time.
What's the difference between this and the power struggles and egos at the top of a blue chip company?
It's human nature to compete for power (despite Ed Balls attempts to award prizes to all the losers)
Competition creates edge and makes people work harder - one of the many benefits of capitalism and democracy.
Complain about this comment
Wow you are stretching your defence of position here Nick.
even if it is like Blair/Short how long did it take for the crockery to fly and lets face it she was right to throw crockery at the man for starting an illegal war.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Speaking as one of those who posted that you were misunderstanding the views of the wider country and too focussed on the ‘Westminster Village,’ may I respond.(Actually, village is too general a word. Hothouse is more like it.)
The by-election was lost before voting began, when the government party did not offer the electorate a Labour candidate to vote for.
This is regarded as cowardice by everyone I have spoken to, from across the spectrum of political support. The man in the pub may not have a developed political understanding, but he can tell when someone has ‘bottled it.’ Gordon Brown is now regarded as the arch ‘Bottler.’ He ran away from a general election, he ran away from a fair vote on the Constitution, he ran away from a fair vote on 42 days, and he ran away from David Davies.
Couple that with Labour’s failure to select a candidate in Glasgow, surely one of their safest seats, means they seem dazed and confused, and running scared to boot.
Given Labour’s dreadful standing in the country, they should have run, even if they lost. They might have got some credibility back.
Complain about this comment
David Davis has to be commended for his stance. He has sacrificed his political career to stand up for the British people. The support for the Tories has increased, partly I believe due to David Davis showing there are some politicians who care. Cameron is benefiting as no Labour or Liberal MP are looking to protect our rights.
I admired the courage of Clare Short and Robin Cook over Iraq. With the debacle over the expenses vote last week MP's have to stand up and be counted and just because there are differing opinions over certain issues within the parties, does not mean there is a damaging split. It is simply healthy debate which is good for the country. Toeing the party line is not democracy.
Locking people up for 42 days will not prevent terrorists trying to blow people up. It would not have stopped 7/7 from happening.
The way things are going how long will it be before this type of blog is censored? Is it already?
Complain about this comment
The Brits love a Maverick.
That’s what you didn’t predict.
Complain about this comment
#2 Megapoliticaljunkie wrote that Nick is just trying to kick his prediction into the long grass.
Actually there were ten predictions, five of which have come to naught. Five could come to something.
All depends on what David does next. Not Davis, Cameron. He can either embrace Davis and his personal mandate, or try and ignore it.
My view is that it would be a profound mistake to ignore it. Davis needs to be inside the tent, directing his force outward, rather than outside, where it could go anywhere.
Cameron may not like where Davis steers, but it is where the country want him to go.
Complain about this comment
David Davis has shown himself as too 'passionate' to be overall leader.
He is just another high quality member of the opposition - albiet with a particular reputation for freedom issues.
While labour are stuck with forth raters in all top jobs, and no better candidates to replace them; the tories have a whole raft of potential big hitters/statesmen ready and waiting to take on the awful challenge that the nulabour disaster will bequith them.
Browns 'cukoo' instict of destroying all potential threats has left him as captain of a ship with out a single good crewman. His scorched earth policy against tallent in NuLabour is only equaled by his scorched earth policy to spite this country following his disasterous time in charge.
David Cameron, William Hague, David Davis, and IDS are just a few of the first raters, all of whom are growing in experience daily, who we can look forward to leading the country back to where NuLabour have dragged it down from.
Complain about this comment
I am not sure that the approval of the Tory party was very high on the Davis agenda but it does raise an interesting thought.
If Labour back benchers had cared more about their principles and less about the party, there might not have been a by election at all.
If Davis succeeds in making his case to the public, possible electoral consequences might succeed where principle has failed persuade wavering Labour backbenchers when the bill returns to the Commons.
Complain about this comment
The election was a farce because DD is a farce.
What would be interesting in the coming months is, the fight that DD will be giving DC for the leadership.
Watch this space!
Complain about this comment
As I stated in Nicks DD resignation Blog the one thing that DD has acheived by his action if nothing else, is banish thoughts of Tory slease of the old pre1997 days from the minds of the electorate, and laid that charge firmly at the doors of the labour party
Complain about this comment
I saw Tony McNulty pop a jibe at Davis saying he reminded McNulty of Homer Simpson. Seems to me that makes McNulty the equivalent of Chief Wiggum. Where was New Labour - not too chicken to take us to war on a lie but too chicken to fight an election. Whatever Nick says will originate on the inside of Westminster village and beyond the real world. Davis, however his by election is painted, has shown that he has the moxy to stand up for what he believes and that the widespread public support he received shows there are still people outside politics that care passionately about these issues but are not being satisfactorily represented by their own constituency MPs. Good for Davis. Nick, get out of that rarified atmosphere more often, it will poison you in the end.
Complain about this comment
I'm glad you 'fessed up to underestimating the public welcome for this move - but in your defence you were not the only one.
Indeed, had Cameron's people not made the same mistake, they would have been a little more welcoming of the move, perhaps made it clear Davis's job was being held open for him (I suspect Dominic Grieve would have accepted the job on a temporary basis, because he seems equally committed to the issues), and would look les "bounced" by Davis.
The only people I know who think (a) it was a waste of money and (b) Labour really were not being cowardly in dodging the whole contest are signed up members of the most loyalist parts of the Labour Party.
There was one other big error of judgement which seems to have been forgotten - was that of the Sun and Kelvin MacKenzie. I actually regret the fact they didn't go through with their hairbrained idea to intervene directly in UK politics, rather than snipe from the edges. In a real contest, David Davis would have had a real chance to put the press in their place. But whoever made such an appalling error of judgement must be delighted it has disappeared from the memory as fast as it has.
Complain about this comment
At 2:47pm on 11 Jul 2008, jonathan_cook wrote:
Excellent thought Jonathan, he is quality in terms of principles and would be streets ahead of the current incumbent.
Dear Nick, John Wayne said "Never aplogise...", he might have added, "Move on and do not re-visit past failures"
You were totally silly to write this blog, move on, you are only pointing out your own failings as a journalist which has the faintest whiff of an "ego thing". People like you have to come to a decision concerning how you want to be seen, a "man of principle" like David Davis who will throw the dice or, a jobbing journalist getting paid a salary.
Your view of Davis seen through the prism of the media Zeitgeist was no different from any other "media hack" because the story lacked the black and white drama that sells papers and advertising unlike "Nazi Sex Party...Mosley, FF1" de dah...
Best advice, move on and forget it, bringing it up again merely makes us question whether you are worth a fart reading/listening to in the first place and, having sown the seeds of doubt yourself... don't bitch sunshine.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
Why are you so sure about your views on David Davis?
Do you consider him a calculating and ambitious man or do you consider him a man of principle?
Would you have taken this view of Churchill had you been around in the 1930's?
Our freedoms allow you to comment and allow us to question you which is all that really matters. Have you ever considered that perhaps pride should never get in the way of freedom? You will never look well upon David Davis but isn't it important how people look upon you? Just a thought.
RC Robjohn
Complain about this comment
although no major party stood against him and still a fairly typical turnout, one must wonder whether labour and libdem would lose deposits in a general election, after all it would seem their voters were happy enough to vote for someone else yesterday.
Still I would have thought we would have heard more about the greens coming 2nd in a by election, still small but one wonders what share of vote they may get in a general election?
Complain about this comment
The quotation "Too early to tell" is usually attributed to Zhou Enlai (during his meeting with Richard Nixon), not Deng Xiaoping.
Complain about this comment
@12
Are you a betting man onlywayup?
i'd wager a crisp british tenner that Harriot Harmful challenges GB before DD challenges DC
Complain about this comment
9 uglyjohn so not only do you think that you know all Labours faults your now telling Cameron what to do. on both counts you couln't be more wrong.
Complain about this comment
You STILL don't get it.
What a lot of us said is that it is irrelveant whether or not this will cause political damage to the tories. What IS relevant here is that all of us in this country, including yourself, are under threat from new labour attacks on civil liberties. Discussion of these kinds of issues would be much more interesting and useful to the future of the country than yet more dull party political analysis.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I thought a bit of balance is required.
Labour should have put forward a candidate. The fact they were going to lose or their arguments against Davis are irrelevant.
There are Labour supporters in that constituency, and Gordon Brown has stated that the "majority" of UK citizens want 42 days. So why did he not give them the chance? He had what he considered a popular policy, so why did he not try and at least reduce the majority? That would have given Labour a huge boost.
Not putting forward a candidate in my mind is an insult to the Labour voters of that constituency, regardless of their reasons.
And Davis is not stupid enough to try and derail Cameron. That would only cause division at a time when the Conservatives must stayed united.
A couple of years into a Tory Government is a different matter however.......
Complain about this comment
Not sure whether you'll let me quote Andrew Rawnsley, but I think this sums things up rather well for me
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/15/daviddavis.conservatives):
"That David Davis is several marbles short of the full bag is certainly the consensus view at Westminster. Tory and Labour MPs are united with each other and with most journalists in thinking that he is mad.
The public, though, appears to be responding in a strikingly different way. So far, we have only rough and ready indicators from radio phone-ins, websites and the like. But public opinion there has been heavily admiring of David Davis.
More than one member of the shadow cabinet who thinks David Davis is crazy has also told me that they have had emails and calls lauding him as a man of great principle taking a heroic stand.
This, I think, is something for the political class to ponder and ponder hard. So ingrained with cynicism is Westminster about itself that it can only see David Davis as a lunatic for sacrificing his career on the altar of his beliefs. The politicians need to ask themselves why so many of the public seem to regard David Davis as the only sane man in the asylum."
Complain about this comment
on this topic i dont understand how people can say David Davis is shown to be principled and Brown shown to be a 'bottler'. Brown looked like losing this bill from a long time ago, and yet persevered with it. David Davis called a byelection he couldnt lose, which wasted public money, and invoked magna carta when he voted for 28 days when it was party policy! where is the principle exactly!?
Complain about this comment
13 pot kettle So you really think that was worth £120,00. all that fuss and you think that wipes out all the Tory slease of the pre 1997 days well Buddy the british people wont fall for that one if thats what the clown was trying to achieve.
You were right about the nothing else.
Complain about this comment
Can't believe #10 described the upper ranks of the Tory party as 'first raters'. Who honestly thinks IDS or William Hague are anything more than failed nonentities? Cameron is basically Blair lite - and no-one north of the Home Counties is remotely fooled by his smarmy attempts to pretend his party isn't stuffed with right wing nutcases with a dislike for anyone poor or foreign (including the Scots as far as I can make out).
Not that Labour are much better. But let's not pretend that the Tories are the answer folks.....
As for David Davis - for all his faults, at least he's got the courage to stand up for what he believes in, regardless of the personal cost.
Complain about this comment
It is good to hear that the complaints and praise expressed here do get through to the author.
Mr. Robinson is wise to continue to argue his view, but would be foolish not to take the criticism as a learning point. The complaints should not be seen as a one off, but the zenith which drove many viewers, myself included, to express their opinion for the first time with such vigour.
Complain about this comment
A predictable small minded response to the election result from 'I never get anything wrong' Nick. Sad!
Complain about this comment
You've fundementally misunderstood the nature of the criticism.
What people found frustrating was your continual focus on the Westminster view of politics - the personalities and the plots. Most people (thought not myself) find this a real turn-off.
David Davis being a nuisance (he will be no more) to Cameron will only matter if it changes the way people vote. No one seriously thinks the Tories have become less united because of this. Provided Cameron can look vaguely competent in the face of the Government's current woes he will win and Davis will be irrelevant. Frankly my dear most people don't give a damn about personality clashes in either party provided they do the business. Disunity and open warfare is a different matter.
The actual issue for most people was that Davis appeared to stand up for a principle - and whether or not you agreed with it he has undoubtedly caused his career damage as a result. I'm sure vanity was involved but there must have been some belief too.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me you have no real role. You either report speculation and gossip obtained from obviously biased but unnamed sources or you travel to events that discuss matters on which I doubt you are properly qualified to comment e.g. G8. It has been clear on TV appearances you have that your grasp of some policy areas e.g. pensions, is very weak. When you are broadcasting to millions a little knowledge is definitely dangerous.
You are dependent on the politicians for any stories you pick up and therefore can never be properly objective or critical.
Complain about this comment
#10 "David Cameron, William Hague, David Davis, and IDS are just a few of the first raters, all of whom are growing in experience daily"
William Hague who lost to Blair. IDS, a complete liability who was kicked out two years into the job. David Cameron, experienced? what experience exactly? well apart from the obvious 'experiences' as a member of the bulligdon, which no doubt gave him a great insight into the social and economic concerns of the country.
were you being ironic?
i dread to think where that motley crew would drag us. firstly, capital punishment (davis). secondly, pointless, populist, probably illegal homophobic legislation (davis, hague, IDS?). thirdly, Cameron would drag us in around three directions, not mentioning his party. would he choose to be a liberal conservative (by-election in scotland), conservative to the core of my being (telegraph), or his current compassionate conservatism?
Complain about this comment
Here are Nick's statements
1) It will pit the Tories against the paper whose support they most want to win - The Sun
The Sun bottled it - and now surely won't back a loser i.e Labour
2) David Davis might lose the by-election, robbing the Tories of a talented politician
No he did not.
3) Davis may win big, emphasising his status as a potential rival for David Cameron
He won as well as he could - but nothing has appeared suggesting he could be a rival. Your statement is in two parts but the second part does not necessarily follow from the first.
4) The by-election may be a damp squib in which no major party runs and is seen by many as a waste of tax payers' money
So far commentaries have been positive. Very few comments about the cost.
5) David Davis wins and gets back into the shadow cabinet where no-one knows what he'll do next and is therefore a divisive force
No indication of getting back in cabinet.
6) David Davis stays on the backbenches and becomes a focus of discontent with David Cameron and a divisive force
The opposite to 5: again you have made one statement in two parts and tried to link the two together - have you ever heard of a non-sequitur?
7) The Conservative Party is forced to have the divisive debate between libertarianism and authoritarianism
No indication that they are going to have this debate, much less that it will be divisive.
8) The Conservatives are diverted from their strategy of focusing on schools, welfare and family policies
No - still doing it - witness DC speech in Glasgow - which I nbotice the BBV virtually ignored.
9) David Cameron does not look in control of his top team
Seems to be still in control - emphasisied by MEP expenses for instance.
10) For the first time in months Gordon Brown is helped to avoid dreadful headlines which today would have read ("I did no deal, honest")
Yes - For about 12 hours he avoided them - mind you he put his foot (or rather his mouth) back in it by having an 8-course meal while discussing food poverty.
Complain about this comment
Typical of your low brow commentary, the quote about the French Revolution was made by Zhou Enlai not Deng Xiaoping.
Complain about this comment
One of the most important things about being in office is being able to rely on your cabinet to behave rationally. I know that there have been many occasions in the past when this has not been the case. But if were David Cameron I would think very very carefully before offering anything to Davis. Vainglorious or just plain vain, he has always struck me as a man who likes the particular sound of his own voice promoting his particular politics. He isn't a team player. He never will be. And as for the suggestion he should be speaker... I think we have had enough controversy with that for now, thank you.
Complain about this comment
'...as Deng Xiaioping once famously remarked when asked for his view of the French Revolution, "It's too early to tell".'
I think you'll find it was Zhou Enlai who 'famously' made this remark.
But why break the habit of a lifetime and bother to check facts?
Complain about this comment
I do not want the 42 day legislation but one thing this has confirmed to me is a rule change or two on by-elections.
When an MP resigns he should not be allowed to stand in the by-election he has caused.
The second would be that when an MP changes party that would also cause a by-election.
David Davis is someone who i have a lot of time for and found him worth listening to.It would be a shame if this stops him of progressing further but that is the choice he has made and he has to live with it.
Complain about this comment
Nick
You might be right when that the respectable turn out and result will give Davis an 'independent status' on the backbenches - whatever that means - but I'm not sure why that would translate to him being a destabilising influence for Cameron.
I guess it depends if he decides to help Brown and Labour out of the hole they are in by using his new found status to damage Cameron and, therefore, the Conservatives. Why would he to do that ?
I was surprised that you under- estimated the positive response of the public to a politician taking a stand on principle. Completely predictable,I thought. Not the act of principle by a politician, but the positive public reaction to it.
The very fact that the decision looked politically damaging to him and his party was the reason the public saw it as an act of principle. Very telling that the same perceived anti self-interest consequence was the reason he was the labelled 'mad' by politicians and uncritcally reported by political commentators with .
Very interesting also that when presented on the same issue with, on the one hand, Labour and other politicians who were 'persuaded' to vote against their consciences and, on the other, a guy who gave up his job for acting on his that it should be the latter who gets hammered in the media.
Then, when Labour fails to contest the by-election, it is Davis who is attacked for it then being "meanignless" - not Labour for ducking the opportunity to promote their policies on what they constantly tell us is an issue of crucial importance.
Public and politicians - different values, I guess. I'm only surprised the MPs who voted to make expenses more transparent aren't being called mad.
Complain about this comment
Re #1 jonathan_cook
Excellent idea if he'll do it.
Someone is going to have the clean up the mess soon after the mess the current incumbent leaves office and Davis would be an very good choice.
Sadly, Martin the muppet won't stand down before the general election to preserve his own snout in the trough (he, like Brown, could have set an example and voted with the Noes) and NuLabour from another Glasgow by-election where the SNP are in 2nd place but if he's ever to get a seat in the Lords he'll go then while his "friends" can name him in their resignation "honours" list.
Complain about this comment
I honestly can't understand how people can view this sham of a bi-election as anything but an utter waste of time. I would be first in the queue to lend my support to any genuine attempt to shake up our current ineffectual political system but this was sadly about little more than Mr Davis’ ego.
Good on Labour for having nothing to do with this farce!
Complain about this comment
@26
Er...when did anyone vote for you to be spokesman for the British People.
You clearly havent understood what happened here. Regardless of whether you thought it was right or not people in their droves have called newspapers and phone ins stating that they see DD as the most principled politician of recent times.
You need to get out more and speak to some real people instead of tirading at us tories in here, then perhaps you will be in a betteer position to speak for the brithish people.
Complain about this comment
I agree with your thoughts. What David Cameron should now do is to give Davis a Life Peerage so that he can debate the 42 days bill in the House of Lords where it can be defeated. Then they can have a real byelection in Haltemprice and everyboy would be happy.
Complain about this comment
Again, Nick refuses to see the big picture, where we the British public can see the Labour spin machine falling off its wheels. Seriously Nick why do you have a strong bias for Labour? DD stood up for civil liberties that Labour are constantly chipping away, I just cant understand why someone like yourself Nick is so oblivious to the truth or hear the cries of the public. You need to get out of the Westminister bubble and report real politics from the ordinary Joe Public.
Complain about this comment
Just to wind a few up in here I thought I would let you know I just through about £3.50 of sanwiches in the bin,
I'll do the rest of my weekly allowance later
Complain about this comment
I had to laugh.
Tony McNulty's attempt at a sneering put-down of Davis just made him look like a pompous arse. Sad but true.
The election did turn into a slight non-event because of the lack of a Labour candidate to really go against. But even then Davis won the argument becasue now it is widely perceived that Labour have run away form the argument.
And becasue Davis has played well with the wider electorate, Cameron would be foolish not to use his skills to put the boot into the government somehow, not wasting him on the back benches.
End result: Davis looks good, the Tories don't come out too badly but look slightly timorous at not supporting him more fully. And the government don't look good at all.
Disclaimer: I have no strong party affiliation, so don't have any real axe to grind with any of the major parties.
Complain about this comment
Re #40 Pot_Kettle
Well said, but it isn't just you Tories who greatly respect Davis' actions and we certainly still diagree with him on many other issues.
Clegg was 100% right in not fielding a candidate to allow decisive testing of Davis' stand while Brown showed pure cowardice at the idea of facing the electorate.
If NuLabour had fielded a candidate who was able to retain the 6,104 votes they got in 2005 Brown would have proved his ideas had at least some support amongst "real" people. As it was, in the words of a Tory I dislike greatly, he was "frit".
Complain about this comment
Forget being diplomatic Nick, it really is to early to tell. In some ways, this has only just begun.
While single issue politics is inherently dangerous, there is a big issue here that goes well beyond 42 days. It is no less than the increasing perception that the rights and freedoms of the British people are being stripped away by the government they elected to office. The word 'eroded' has been used a lot in the argument but it can no longer be called erosion. It is beginning to look like a flood. E mail monitoring, wire tapping, lack of judicial oversight, lack of proper regulation, anonymous testimony, access to trial by jury, mandatory sentencing maybe all of them trickles of dissent but the accumulative effect is greater than the sum of it's parts.
If the perception that the nanny state has given way to a control freak administration, public opinion will turn decisively. In the changed circumstances, the 42 day bill could be lost when it returns to the Commons and that will be seen by many as an important turning point and those who see Davis as an object of fun may wll end up laughing on the other side of their egg spattered faces.
Complain about this comment
Re-post (the first one mysteriously "dissapeared"...
Nick,
Your aknowledgement of criticism is admirable, however your refusal to accept that the majority of us plebs believe differently to yourself smacks of the superiority-complex and vainity that is seen, and oft complained about, within the Westminster Village. Perhaps you should be the politician and not the commentator for all of your belittling of the common man.
For what it's worth, if, and it is a big if, the populous see DD's actions as those of a politician of principals, rather than one who is merely self-serving, then he has done some good for the political establishment, demonstrating that not every politician is only doing the job for a free shopping spree and a London pad. If only he could now make a stand for the perks that he is re-entitled to...
Complain about this comment
Has anyone seen David Davis's view on CCTV? According to the campaign leaflet I received, he thinks that it is an invasion of privacy, and that therefore we need more cameras, taking higher quality images.
I sent him an email asking for clarification, but he and his office didn't reply, so I didn't vote. He probably knew Mad-Cow Girl wasn't going to win, so why commit yourself on such an important issue for the sake of one vote?
Principled, my eye!
Complain about this comment
Given that the case for 42 days is far from proven and that the police are going to pay more attention to knife crime particularly in London it seems to me that a principle is surely at stake here.
It seems to me that the Political class has at least one champion of long held liberties in this country. David Davis should be applauded for his stand against this erosion of long standing and hard won liberties and not denigrated by the Labour supporting media.
The reality of the situation will be 42 days will become the norm in all Police work not just anti terrorism cases........ one should never forget two things....... quick laws are normally bad laws and creeping reductions in liberty are very hard to turn back. stevebloggie
Complain about this comment
One or two comments here about the Tory front bench "lacking experience".
Erm, I recall similar arguments being made about the Labour front bench when they were in opposition.
Just because someone is experienced at something, it does not necessarily mean that they are good at it!
Tony Blair was relatively inexperienced, and like him or not, he dealt with the role of PM quite well, despite some of his policies.
Complain about this comment
Well! Part time politician, part time SAS. Man of principle, natural leader, Right Honourable, Tory shock trooper. Could he lead the way forward in restoring faith in politics? I hope so!
Complain about this comment
Nick, I know that you and your leftie chums at the BBC love running destabilised Tory stories, but how about you predicting who might destabilise Labour. You know, just to pretend to bring a little balance into your reporting.
Complain about this comment
"..- and "courageous" - which I translated as political code for "mad"
Indeed you did. And I took issue with you for that idiotic remark, but found that when I tried to put it in a comment here, the words:
"Nick Robinson accuses David Davis of being mad..."
resulted in my comment being rejected at moderation. Now that you have agreed that you did mean this, I wonder if this comment will similarly be rejected...?
Complain about this comment
40 pot kettle so its OK for you to speak for many people but its not for me, for every one that thought he was a hero two didn't. your attitude once again is typicaly Tory, you can speak on everyones behalf but no one else's opinion counts. Dont worry about the people I meet they come from all walks of life and are free as we all are to voice their opinions with out someone accusing them of trying to speak for the country.
DD even if I thought he was principled which I dont I think you have forgotten Robin Cook haven't you?
Complain about this comment
Nick I am a great admirer of yours and I think you rare get it wrong but about your commment
"as Deng Xiaioping once famously remarked when asked for his view of the French Revolution, 'It's too early to tell'. "
Surely not.
Was it not "Zhou Enlai".
Marquet
Complain about this comment
#50
a fair comment about experience. sometimes a lack of experience can in fact be a good thing. however to claim experience when lacking experience, is clearly false.
Complain about this comment
54. grandantidote
Your slipping you forgot Clare Short
Thats 2:1 to you
Complain about this comment
I was totally with you Nick, until you mentioned Clare Short. Clare Who? I remember back in the days before the Iraq invasion about how it was SO important that Blair keep Short in the cabinet rather than out, and how damaging she could be to his government. In the end she had no impact. Backbench snipers never live up to the hype because eventually they get told to shut up and sit down. Cameron is riding a wave and the whole incident confirms to the PCP what a lucky escape they had from electing a loose cannon who might have blown their election chances with some populist antic that misfired. So Cameron will allow him his moment in the sun, then ignore him.
Complain about this comment
Ben Bradshaw speaking on Radio 4's Any Questions recently pointed out that Davies is a passionate homophobe who voted to continue the imprisonment of gay people, opposed equality in the armed services, opposed equal rights in employment and civil matters, and refused to vote in favour of civil partnerships. He is NOT in favour of civil liberties - only a small raft of issues dear to the heart of the hard right. How such a self-declared bigot who, inter alia, supports the right of religious people to withold equal treatment from gays (in adoption agencies, and as wedding registrars) can be regarded as 'courageous' defeats me.
Matters are made worse by reporter Robinson's characteristic BBC assumption that gay rights' issues are marginal - so these points are neglected.
Complain about this comment
Aren't people missing the point rather?
What Davis has managed to do is distance himself from Tony Cameron - who is a disaster waiting to happen - and position himself to take over when the Conservatives rediscover Conservatism.
And he's done it without burning any boats, and with his personal standing with the public pretty well intact - perhaps even a bit improved.
Not quite as futile an exercise as some are making out.
Destabilising Cameron? Perhaps as a side-effect, but that fellow's walking a pretty shaky tightrope already, and will fall off sooner or later of his own accord.
Complain about this comment
If David Davis now has a popular mandate and broad public support could circumstance be envisaged where he challenges Cameron at some stage for the leadership of the Conservative Party? Perhaps after the next election
Complain about this comment
#32 has you well and truly skewered on your own predictions.
Meanwhile, let's consider the response of the pompous Nick McNulty. The best he can come up with is crude abuse by describing David Davies as "Homer Simpson"; this from a man whose occupation before entering parliament was that of principal lecturer in organisational behaviour at north London Poly, sorry University of North London. David Davis runs rings around this sad apologist for the Gordon Brown terror.
Complain about this comment
It may be that David Davis’ resignation indicated internal division within the Conservative party, but I don’t think it hurts them at all. With all parties now advocating economically liberal policies the old left-right dividing line does not have much relevance. The new divide is along the liberal-authoritarian line and it is advantageous for the Conservatives to appear to stand for individual liberty.
The Liberal Democrats in particular will suffer. Following the Lisbon treaty deceit one of their few remaining appeals to the electorate was their support for liberty. But when the LibDems talk about liberty they give the impression of going through the motions where as David Davis appears to speak from conviction. His stock with the public is certainly in the ascendancy.
Complain about this comment
Nick
Re your implication that you got it right re Short and Blair - albeit they delayed their split by pausing for the intervention of several years and a war.
Reminds me of this broken watch I've got. It is at the right time twice a day.
Complain about this comment
Really not worried about the party politics. Much more interested about the issue.
DD risked something for an issue and the public seemed to love it.
Does this scare anyone
http://www.californiacriminallawyerblog.com/2008/04/dna_tests_may_offer_deper_exam.html
Complain about this comment
How about this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jul/16/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy
Complain about this comment
DC was very interesting on Test Match Special at lunchtime today. He also made a big thing about politics being a team game and not just about individuals. Jonathan Agnew compared DD to Andrew Flintoff - i.e someone you'd want to bring back into the team. However, DC pointed out that as talented as these people may be they can't just walk back into the team at the expense of other talented individuals
He also spoke about making sure that DD had something to do when he came back to Parliament, although not in the shadow cabinet.
It doesn't seem that there is too much of a schism between them, although I got the impression that DC would have rather it hadn't happened.
Complain about this comment
Whilst in the mode of sticking one's neck out and making predictions, my guess is that. following their first success at 'hitting the radar', the real winners of this contest will be the English Democrats. Just a gut feeling that this may be the beginning of a trend....
Complain about this comment
Q- So who was right?
A - both and so far right that they would seem dangerously right wing to Genghis Khan!
There will always be something deeply repellent to every fair minded person in the heart of every Tory; otherwise they would cease being Tories.
DD was just silly and that is the kindest thing I can think to say about him. DC has a fractious party of opportunists - he knows that any actual policy statements will fracture the party. Mention Europe in any Conservative club bar and see what I mean. The same thing would also happen in the other conservative party's club (The Labour Club).
All our politicians are too scared to do anything and to have any real policies. 42 days was not a real policy it was a virility test for Gordon. DD knew that, just as we all did. It is just a pity that DD wasted so much public money proving nothing. ID cards have such a small chance of actually working that again it is just a waste of money.
Complain about this comment
Nick your political antenna has broken down it seems.On the scale of political significance this by-election scarcely even registers.The outcome of the Glasgow by-election will by comparison be an epochal moment in UK politics.You see the public has allready concluded this government can do no right,and therefore the conservatives can do no wrong.Any 'bad' news for the tories from now on will simply not be registered by the public.Any bad news (and there will be little good news) for the government wil always be magnified in the voters mind as proof that the government are hopeless and must be got rid of.They have decided they want to kick this government out and that means accepting a conservative government.Nothing will change that narrative in th e next 2 years.
Complain about this comment
Dear Nick,
Of course the Tory front bench were furious when D.D. resigned. It was a politicaly destructive move.
But look at the outcome!
Davis got 17,113 votes, over 70% of the vote.
The Greens in the shape of Shan Oaks only received 1758 votes, that's less than 8%.
So where did all the anti conservative vote go? True Labour and the Lib-Dem's didnt stand, but surely all their supporters didn't stay at home? The only logical candidate for these people to support (among all the dross), are the Green's.
So nearly all the 34% that did come out to vote supported the conservatives, and said "up your's" to the Green Party, and to Labour and to Nicky Clegg.
Make one think.
Complain about this comment
Once again Nick Robinson shows his true colours. Why cannot he see that every time he writes editorial it has a left wing bias. So David Davis made a point, if politicians however right or wrong just went along with their party or leader's policy, politics would be all the more poorer. What David Davis has done has not damaged the tories in any shape or form, it has possibly strengthened them!
Complain about this comment
It is sad that Mandelsohn tried to get you sacked but heart warming to know that he didn't succeed.
I watched newsnight yesterday with the interview of Ingrid Betancourt, and was very moved at her description of the BBC Radio. Perhaps I was mistaken, but I also could see from her eyes that Emily Maitland ( the anchor ) felt similarly.
The day the government, of any colour, is able to bully journalism is the day we cease to be free.
Complain about this comment
Nick, It seems that you still don't 'get it'.
Try talking to real people.
Complain about this comment
I think this latest posting by Nick is, to be frank, a bit up itself - rather too 'oh what a clever boy our Nick is!'
I think Nick IS a clever boy (and an excellent lobby correspondent) but a bit less pressure on the you-read-it-here-first pedal would be welcome from an organisation like the Beeb.
Ultimately, I read Nick's postings at the time, and they did have quite a tinge of the 'of course he's mad' about DD's resignation....personally I doubt if Davis was born yesterday, but at the same time I doubt if he did this for all the dreary reasons trotted out by the Establishment - bonkers, vain, self-important, naive etc etc.
Others who were www.notbornyesterday.org can continue laughing at that Establishment. Oldbutnofool
Complain about this comment
I believe ,in common with the majority of opinion ,that David Davis acted out of principle in resigning his seat and attempting to raise the issue of civil liberties to a new level.Why else would he take the decision he did ?Some other possibilities -
1)The Labour view trumpeted by Gordon Brown and his cabinet - it was a scam which turned into a farce.This is not really an arguement. (In fact the absense of substance in this position seems to suggest they accept the DD version !)
2)His position on civil liberties is firmer than the rest of the Tory party and he is seeking to sway their policies should/when they are in government believing that he can exercise greater influence as a relatively independant back bencher. Note the change in public opinion on the issue of 42 days only brought about by a debate re-ignited by him.Also as the ID card project proceeds the wider aspects of his campaign continue to bolster his views.Then lost records and their security will undoubtedly rumble on.He can now give full weight to his position free of any restraints due to his being in the shadow cabinet.
3)He believes he is outwith the inner circle of the shadow cabinet and his chances of personal advancement are limited - so why not pursue his cause celebre as there is nothing to lose given that should David Cameron become prime minister ,the latter's position will be impregnable for several years.
4)In the eyes of the electorate he will be seen to establish himself as a man of high principle - opinion probably now supports this.Would it not strenghten his position in the Tory party and increase his ability to influence policy on all fronts ?
5)Ambition - he sees his route to the leadership can only eventually be achieved by distancing himself from David Cameron,if not from his policies.
Well maybe some of these aspects will kick in from time to time and could give credence to Nick Robinson's opinion that David Davis will be a de-stabilising factor for David Cameron.
My view is that DC should engage closely with DD over the next two years to ensure he is within the 'tent'.Given the Tory tendancy to select an inverse proportion of front bench spokesmen from a narrow social base it can only be an advantage for them that DDs standing with the electorate is turned into a positive and not dissipated into party in-fighting.Whilst clearly re-appointment to the shadow cabinet is off the agenda close consideration should be given to his being offered a cabinet post in a Tory administration.
Complain about this comment
David Davis did this to provoke a debate 'about civil liberties'.
I did'nt notice much of a debate taking place duirng this by-election.
Although the 'magic' number 42 (days) did provoke me for the first time ever, into into writing to an MEP to ask why European citizens human rights were of lesser value than American citizens.
Americans have to be charged within two days of being held by the authorities.
In Europe, it could be virtually anything from five days (Sapin) to 'forever' (Italy).
I don't see much point in the EU project if it cannot produce common values on such basic human rights.
Anyway, Davis returns to the HoC as a notional 'independent Conservative'.
As I a very keen on independents in politics, then this is a step forward.
Complain about this comment
Are there not two factors here messed together?
You are saying that David Davis is not flavour of the month with the Tory High Command. That may be true in terms of him picking up a top cabinet position. But would he have been re-shuffled anyway in the longer run? Kelvin M. alleged he had been already "frozen out" by David Cameron and he worked at the Sun and knows Rupert Murdoch so he can't be wrong. DD probably has not damaged the Tories because their appeal broadened and created the possibility of people switching. That may only be a short term factor in fairness. DD accepted damage to his own prospects. I don't see Cameron sweating it over DD, or vice a versa. If DD ends up being perceived as Portillo was with Major as an "assassin" that never strikes then he would lose credibility anyway.
The second factor is the 42 days. Many people are outraged that 42 days was won with dodgy deals. So seeing somebody charge the barricades, even if in a moment of madness, was likely to win popular support. You could sympathise. If those dodgy deals are exposed the Tories (and I am NOT one) will probably reap some credits. I don't see McNulty enjoying his "Homer" moment for that long.
By the way any thoughts on the fact that if I have it straight people were 67% in favour of 42 days before the vote but there was no bounce for Brown in the polls. It went the other way I think. Now the percentages have changed more against 42 days. I usually believe the polls but I personally am dubious about 67%.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how close a comparison it would be reasonable to draw between Davis's situation and that of Enoch Powell. Powell was of course a very complicated man, but in essence he left the government because he didn't agree with the strength of its opposition to Europe (ie he thought it wasn't strong enough, as Davis apparently thinks Cameron isn't strong enough on the various issues he espouses). However, he was a popular figure in parts of the country, and he is even credited by some for Heath's surprise victory in 1970, as 'labour' voters fell for his populist right-wing rhetoric, especially on immigration. He was often said to be a 'principled' politician, to the extent that he left the Tories for the Ulster Unionists; after many years he almost got around to rejoining the Tories, but when Thatcher got the boot he decided not to.
The main features that are similar are Powell/Davis's visceral dislike of Europe, and their apparent conviction that they were 'men of the people' speaking for England. Hence Powells 'Rivers of Blood speach, and their willingness to go to the backbenches to argue their case in the conviction that 'England' would follow.
If there is any validity in this comparison, it doesn't bode well for Davis. Powell remained active until he was struck down by Parkinsons, but he was increasingly a lone voice talking to himself. Perhaps if Cameron rescues him in a year or two Davis might come back, but I rather think not.
(With apologies to the historians on here for my butchery of the complexity of Powell's story, and to those youngsters who have never heard of him).
Complain about this comment
I'm sure that many people, like me, wondered why David Davis would force a by-election focused on a narrow area of politics.
Didn't seem very "British". Single focus politics don't gain much support here. After all, MPs stand and support the framework of a party's "manifesto", don't they? (Not totally true, but there have only been a few Independent MPs elected over the years.)
Well, maybe we've got it wrong. If a party produces a 30 page manifesto and gets elected, it often points to an obscure paragraph to claim "electoral support" for a policy that was so far away from the real issues that nobody within the electorate thought it would ever make sense to implement it.
Davis was clearly incensed about the "42 days" issue. So should we all be. If you can't quite get the evidence within 28 days (which is a very long time) and still couldn't get it after the 42nd day, what comes next?
In other words, where do you draw the line?
Davis believes that there should be a protection of the rights of the innocent. Who can seriously argue with that?
I'm not aware of his thinking or his views of the proven-guilty. I would accept that those found guilty of heinous crimes should be subject to a far more rigorous regime than we currently expect. For goodness sake, we have a government minister saying that meals in prison should be made more attractive. While those who survived a couple of world wars can barely live.
Brown will no doubt pass some fatuous comments (possibly laws or regulations) to try and combat knife crimes. More words. More regulations. Get real. Get some folk down there on the street, authorised to break up the hooligans. There are well trained karate people (that means they understand the discipline that should accompany any use of force). Don't forget that in NYC, the authorities turned a blind eye to people who came together to threaten the thugs on their subway.
You beat up or rape an old lady? You get hurt while you're caught? So what?
Human Rights implies that we all have a right to life. Seems fair enough. But if you deprive someone else of their right, what punishment do you get? Pretty little. Is there any scale on which the points can be tallied, so good things done get plus points and bad things done get minuses, and eventually you run out of societal tolerance?
I'd be very happy to have the UN designate an island where anyone convicted of murder could be sent, equiped with tools, seeds, water etc. No deprivation of life. Just positioned with others and struggling to
create a life in recompense for the harm they created themselves.
Not what DD would have said, I'm sure.
Just a gut reaction to the way we run society today.
You want and can afford to have 8 kids. Great. You want others (including OAPs) to support you. No thanks.
You want us to believe that you are "bad" because we didn't stop you being brought up in a bad way. Get real. Look back a few generations. Being poor was not an excuse for harming others. God knows, much of social morality was driven from the base of the poorest part of the population. I have absolutely no sympathy for rich kids who do appalling things. In the past, that may have been tolerated, but whoever you are, from whatever background, if you don't act right, you don't deserve to be treated as everyone else is treated.
Get that through and there would be a huge improvement in the way people react to education and general societal concerns.
Just find it hard to imagine that we need the SAS on the streets of London more than we need them in Basra.
But, if that's what it takes, just do it.
Complain about this comment
So David Cameron doesn't want DD in his Shadow Cabinet. Perhaps it will be that DD doesn't want DC in HIS Shadow Cabinet!
Complain about this comment
77. JohnConstable
Not to mention the lopsided" extradition agreement that Blair agreed to but Bush could not get passed the senate. UK citizens rights were signed away by Blair anyhow.
This treaty designed to extradite terrorist gets used to take away bankers accused of fraud.
A prime example how giving law enforcement officers too much power turns out.
Utterly outrageous.
Interesting to see what the old socialists make of that.
Agree on independents
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5171266.stm
.
Complain about this comment
It was Chou En Lai - not Deng
regards
Complain about this comment
#80 fairlyopenmind :
"In other words, where do you draw the line?"
Well, answer your own question. Where do you draw the line??
The proposed legislation allows for the possibility that someone could be detained before charge for up to 42 days, but with strong protections against arbitrary imprisonment (a judge to agree every 7 days, agreement of the independent overseer (currently the Liberal Lord Carlyle), and the DoPP amongst others).
Davis would have us believe that that is draconian. But he himself accepted the possibility that more than 28 days would be needed, as did Liberty; they want to use the Civil Contingencies Act to meet that eventuality. But how long could someone be held under that legislation? -56 days perhaps? or are there any limits at all? And the protections are certainly not as strong.
On this, Davis is not acting on principle. He voted for 28 days, and accepts the possible need for longer. What he is arguing in this area is practicality, not principle.
Complain about this comment
Jimbrant
DD didn’t just stand on 42 days.
Add the following to the list:
ID Cards
DNA data base (contains details of innocent children)
CCTV (1 camera for every 14 people)
Attacks on the jury system
Official snoopers – like bin cameras
Clamp downs on peaceful protest
Phone taps by councils and quangos
Over zealous law enforcement
Its the whole package people don’t like.
Whether you like the man or not he has struck a chord.
You realy should read that article on where we are going with DNA
http://www.californiacriminallawyerblog.com/2008/04/dna_tests_may_offer_deper_exam.html
Complain about this comment
Previous posting of mine are very clearly in support of DD and the stance he took. He needs to continue this now he is back. Not just 42 days, but all the growth in surveillance, erosion of privacy, and political interference in our everyday lives, very eaisly we could have all thoughts moderated.
I support what DC is doing in his post as Leader of the Opposition.
I did not support DD in his bid to be leader and and would not should ever he be in that position again. This does not mean write him off as he has a lot to offer and he should be in the shadow cabinet. What position? He would be good as we used to say "Without Portfolio" and be used by Cameron to develop various aspects and take on Labour and Liberal, as he is the best street fighter the Conservatives have, maybe other than Ken Clarke.
So welcome back DD
Complain about this comment
#85 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
"You realy should read that article on where we are going with DNA"
I did, when you pointed to it on the previous blog.
I'm not frightened by science. If it works, and is done properly, I don't see the problem. As I said last time, if my daughter is raped or killed I want the criminal found, wheter he has a previous record or not. And of course DNA would protect me fom wrongful arrest if I hadn't done anything.
My view on CCTV is similar, and almost everybody agrees according to polls. Both DNA and CCTV help to catch criminals - thought the former is pparently more useful than the latter.
The rest of your list is, IMO, largely over-reaction fanned by the usual media suspects. And there was no 'attack' on the jury system, any more than the use of anonymous witnesses in exceptional circumstances is an attack on our freedoms.
Complain about this comment
#84
Sad thing is that, if you are in a police state, you don't need to draw the line. You just hold on to people until they are incapable of doing anything physical (although you can't be sure they would be unable to influence others).
Fact is that we assume there should be limits - which were fairly short for many centuries. 28 days is a heck of a long time already.
Let's accept that technology and the more complicated world we live in could possibly justify 28 days. That's already an arbitrary number. A month of someone's life. (A child born, a parent dead, a house lost, etc.)
Pushing past it, with no charge, leads into Kafka land. You weren't quite there on day 28... almost made it on day 42... what will be the next extension? Back to 90 days?
Any involvement of Parliament to "justify" a continued extension of a holding period would be a nonsense. No details could be provided, for fear of prejudicing a future court appearance, so no reasoned acceptance could be gained. (Rather Politburo approach don't you think?)
I have some doubts about the European Court's view on the proposed legislation. That will only be tested once a case has been brought.
Frankly, I'd prefer to adopt a position a little like the French, where there could be a charge related to "suspicion of terrorist acts", accompanied by the ability to continue questioning a suspect. And find a way to make electronic interceptence/ surveillance information acceptable in court, where necessary and under judicial review.
At least the suspect would be able to know what he was charged with and build a defence, even if we had to gain the right to continue to question the suspect as evidence was being pursued. (Which I find quite reasonable under any circumstances of potential criminal activity, as long as full recordings are made and legal representation is available.)
For goodness sake, we have people living here, given assylum and then preaching hatred against us or our culture, who we can't get rid of because their own "rights" could be breached if sent back to countries where they were already branded as criminals.
It's getting out of hand.
This from someone who has voted Lib/Lab/Tory/Independent depending on the national or local electoral circumstances.
But still believing that core liberties should not be given away on a whim.
Complain about this comment
Why is it so many keep repeating the mantra the Iraq war was an illegal war.
Under that definition all the wars the UK have fought have been illegal since the second world war - the war in Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, the Gulf War, The Falklands and Suez, all illegal.
Please tell me of a legal war, I'm all ears...
Complain about this comment
The point was, and still is, that a lot of people in this country wanted and still want a serious debate on the erosion of civil liberties.
The media wasn't interested in that, much more fun to stir the pot of dissent within the Westminster Tory ranks by rubbishing David Davis' attempts to create a national debate and characterise it as the first crack of a Tory fissure.
It makes one begin to suspect that the media doesn't want to allow a debate about liberty and privacy as it may have unforeseen negative consequences for them. Perhaps this was one of the motivations behind all the spoiling tactics that were deployed or mooted.
Complain about this comment
Can't wait for a posting to get through moderation.
But just wonder where statesman Brown now stands, when the UN has turned down his grand-stand move to have UN sanctions against Zimbabwe.
Anyone who has ever been in a business environment knows that the delivery is much, much, harder than the promotional froth.
I've been on both sides of the delivery/froth equation. Brown has never been in business where money has to be earned, not simply taken from the long-suffering.
It would be interesting to know just how many of the government and opposition have spent real time in the real world of wealth creation, rather than the tax-payer supported environment.
Time for a quick survey, Nick?
Complain about this comment
Nick Robinson is a twerp. Get rid of him.
Complain about this comment
Just look at the news today about councils and their selling of data and you'll understand the kind of thing that david davis was on about.
It was central government that forced councils into selling people's personal data back in 2002.
So, the councils are abusing the powers that they've been given by labour (eg using anti-terrorism legislation to spy on people for littering etc), but that's compounded by the mind-blowing stupidity of central government who are also forcing councils to break the data protection laws.
It's the general approach of labour which people are so annoyed about; total incompetence with data, compounded by forcing through legislation which itself is illegal under various human rights and other data protection laws.
For a lot of these things, the laws themselves are illegal (as the Lords often point out), most of these things can be challenged in European/International courts because a lot of them violate so many basic overriding/superceding human/protective rights.
We're very lucky with our current Information Commissioner; he's always been relatively independent and reasonable. After years of being hampered by labour constantly refusing to give him the powers to do his job he's now finally been given enough media spotlight to be able to push things through that he needs to be able to do his job. Listen to what he says because it all makes sense and is perfectly reasonable/right.
Complain about this comment
While we're at it, someone in Labour had better reel McNulty in. Arrogant television appearances do not go down well.
How about a debate with him and DD together?
Maybe he is taking lessons from Seb Coe.
My argument is that if the police have sufficient evidence to arrest someone, why does it then require a further 42 days before charging them?
Complain about this comment
I think Nick's analysis is basically correct, but a bit too strong.
I don't think David Davis would be a destabilising force, just a much-needed strong back bench voice.
David Cameron's not as weak (or as stupid/arrogant) as Brown, and I can't see anyone ever becoming as weak as Brown to be honest, so I don't think a strong tory backbench team would ever be a really bad/damaging thing; it'll be healthy for democracy.
Unlike Brown, Cameron will listen to reason/logic; he might end up with a different opinion to someone, but he will at least listen to the arguments and consider them, and is willing to change his mind if he thinks he was originally wrong.
Compare that to Brown who refuses to ever listen to anyone unless his own job is in imminent threat, and who just uses dogma without ever using logic/reason.
I'd like to see a more balanced view from the BBC about this. Constantly saying that Davis is mad but never bothering to talk about labour's policies or the fact they didn't even bother to debate those policies or field a candidate is not a good thing.
Complain about this comment
"It's human nature to compete for power (despite Ed Balls attempts to award prizes to all the losers)"
Really?
Ed Balls is renowned for stupidities, but I must have missed this particular one.
Complain about this comment
I still think Davis has only achieved a farce of a by-election and a weakened position in which to fight his version of the "freedom" cause he has fought it for.
Meantime the debate on the bill he resigned over goes on in the Lords, and the amended bill is unlikely to progress until later in the year.
Is he a hero, a drama queen or a fool?
As a listener of news and current affairs programmes, rather than a reader or a watcher, I go by the apparent conviction and the timbre of the voice.
The drama of the resignation excited the media and convinced many people of Davis's sincerity.
I remain unconvinced. In my opinion, if he really meant what he said, he would have recinded his resignation, remained as shadow Home Secretary, thus fought his cause from a far stronger position and avoided this inglorious and wasteful by-election. He has made one step forward, but two steps backward.
Although the Davis "pawn" has not been knocked off the board, it is now in a worse position strategically. Any party or single cause really needs a champion who thinks out the consequences of every action and all possibilities before he makes his move. "Fools rush in... "
Complain about this comment
Well... what an awfully long way of saying you were wrong Nick...
Could have just put, "whoops, sorry everyone..." I'm sure David Davis would have accepted the apology.
Complain about this comment
Nick, I agree with the others that you've got too close to the Westminster machine. Its not just you of course, other so-called politicical commentators have fallen into the trap. Instead or reporting your own opinion, you regurgitate Westminster propaganda.
SOCA, RIPA, and all the other anti-terror or serious crime laws that have been passed, have been passed without any political commentator informing the public on just how much liberty they will lose as a result.
David Davies stood up and made a stand. He made the public aware that there isn't a case for 42 day detention and (as they have done with several other bills in the past) the government is pushing it through against all advice. For that he should be commended.
Wake up Nick: the public want balanced, unbiased, informed commentary from their news correspondents. Not Westminster propaganda packaged and promoted as some soap opera.
Complain about this comment
Anonymity in Criminal Proceedings (The Right to know and face your accusers)
Master Sun Tzu, in a time before Christ stated “ O divine art of secrecy through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible and hence we can hold the enemies fate in our hands”
Notwithstanding, the disjointed and confused state our Criminal Justice system is in through endless legislation, we have undoubtedly become “Tough on Crime” but appear to have spent little or no time, with the notable exception of the Building Schools for the Future programme, tackling the various “Causes of Crime”.
The clamour to simultaneously broaden anonymity for witnesses, whilst Society has developed a macabre obsession, fuelled by elements of the written and broadcast press, to promote the victims of crime is disturbing. There is good reason why we had reached, after 1200 years, the complex legal framework we had in 1997. Inherent within the system was the public prosecution in the name of the Head of State not the victim.
Removing anonymity is one step away from issuing juries with brown paper bags to wear, professional witnesses replacing inarticulate or unwilling accusers and remote Prosecutions by the Monday club at the Chelmsford County Hotel. Special Measures should be used sparingly in extremis especially when the Crown’s case rests solely or largely on the testimony of a witness and nothing else. We have Special Measures and necessary but often over used Public Interest Immunity and witness protection.
We must always separate the Crime however heinous from the legal principle. Many great intellectuals and jurists over the ages, of all persuasions, have developed our incomparable legal system without the aid of Daily Mail columnists or focus groups. According to Edward Teller “Secrecy once accepted becomes an addiction”.
Government need to provide the funds and a central Information Exchange. The funds need to be dispersed pro rata to the Primary Schools in the Boroughs corresponding to the origins of the current under 20s prison estate. We have, unfortunately, to accept this generation is lost, until they grow out of crime and therefore focus on preventing the next generation {see Graham and Bowling Home Office Study number 145 for the factors why most of those who grow into crime do so}.
This is no time for Gladstonian Liberals, Doctrinal Communists or Right Wing Reactionaries. A new progressive consensus from the Youth Offending Team, Social Workers, Housing and the Voluntary Sector is needed to address each areas particular problems and each child’s unique situation and then provide various degrees of loco parentis.
The judiciary must decide the sentence and if that means prison for those who brandish and or use knives then this is a necessary mark of failure for all of us. Having previously practised at the Criminal Bar for 3 years the Judges do get it right 97% of the time. We need an end to the social life sentences passed by some elements of the community that prevent people moving on after punishment and assist the younger children in making the choice to follow a life of crime. There are “too many runaway trains that people can’t get off”.
Complain about this comment
The notion that the actions of an mp sitting in one of the safest tory constituencies in the country has sparked a national debate about civil liberties is so deluded it's hilarious.
What is clear is that the best thing Davies could have done is stay in the shadow cabinet and promise to repeal the legislation if the tories win the next election.
Simple and effective.
Why didn't he do that?
Also, as someone who not a member of a political party, can anyone explain what the official tory party policy on 42 days now is?
If indeed there is one.
Complain about this comment
Well, it was Zhou Enlai, not Deng Xiaoping, but the story is apochryphal anyway. I think Davis' actions were unwise coming so close to another high profile non-contested election whose "winner" has convinced no one.
Whilst I do not wish to imply Davis is as morally bankrupt as Mugabe, I do think this lunacy was always going to be a gift to Labour at a time when the Tories should be showing a united front and trying to convince the country they have the team to govern responsibly.
Complain about this comment
This story is now a dead duck. For goodness sake give it up!
Complain about this comment
Destabilizing influence? Well, I assume there are about 600 odd destabilizing influences for the party leaders...The fact is that leadership of a political party is now, and always has been, a bit of a con trick. You get to lead just as long as you bring success. So you have to sound authoritative, use patronage wisely and seek to reduce your dependence on the backbench mavericks as time goes on. Somewhere along the way, you move from being an Ian Duncan Smith to being a commanding figure like Macmillan.
If anyone should be worried about that, of course, it is the current occupant of No 10, who does not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the next election - and his backbenchers know it.
Complain about this comment
Maybe some of you are right when you say BBC politics is to close to the Westminster village. But most you have seemed happy with that situation while it suited you. Now the two Davids are under attack you cry foul.
David Davis appears to be a hypocrite. He bleats on about Habeas Corpeus which is nobody should imprisoned without charge. Not nobody should be imprisoned for more than 28 days which he has accepted and voted for.
He is pretending to be a civil libertarian Liberal but wants to bring back hanging.
It is UP TO 42 days. if it came up to 28 days and for whatever reason that I can't understand they need 30 days. Emergency powers would need to be invoked. Maybe it is better to have up to 42 days as a 2nd last Resort. With strict guidelines and certain openness(no names put out obviously) to the media and good compensation if someone is an innocent victim of this. As long it doesn't take our eyes off 28 days ball and it becomes a norm.
Complain about this comment
#101.
Also, as someone who not a member of a political party, can anyone explain what the official tory party policy on 42 days now is?
Policy is: use emotive language to create fear, invoking such things as magna carta, (when in fact the tory party policy on 28 days was in favour), but in reality they will not pledge to remove it because they know it is right.
all parties are opportunists. however, the tories seem to be taking this to new extremes.
the main reason i can see for the tories opposing this was that they hoped Brown would lose, and hence damage him further in the eyes of the public. Thats why they tried so hard to ensure the whole parliamentary party voted against the government. how many tory MPs voting on their conscience would have supported the bill? I suspect that no deals would have been needed if that had been the case. nearly all of the MPs who have suddenly become so conscious of our rights voted for 28 days.
i find it hard to believe someone who supposedly protecting our rights who has voted against all sorts of rights legislation, for example gay rights and the repeal of section 28.
Complain about this comment
57 carrotsneed quangoes, No carrot I was'nt forgetting Clare Short shes doesnt begin to compare with Robin Cook, and David Davis doesn't begin to compare with her.
Complain about this comment
92 RogerSlade, no your the twerp I think on a cross party vote we would rather get rid of you, as Ann Robinson would say " you are the weakest link Goodbye!"
Complain about this comment
87. jimbrant.
We are all quite happy about DNA being used to identify a rapist, thats the easy bit that appeals to the public on mass gives it credibility.
How do you feel about:
• State analysis of DNA to discover criminal tendency.
• DNA records being sent to other countries so they can run comparative checks. Perhaps to the US as part of the war on terror of course. Nothing too sinister.
• The records getting lost and falling into the wrong hands.
• Private companies who analysis the DNA for the police hanging on to your records for their own commercial uses. That has happened already.
• Your Dr having full access to it and calling you in for compulsory, advance chat about a few little problems you are likely to suffer from in the next few years and your expected life span. After all prevention is better than cure.
• How easy it is to plant someones DNA at a crime scene and effectively then having to prove your innocence.
You have to look at where this is going over the next 20 - 50 years, all in the name of health efficiency and crime fighting of course, nothing sinister.
You have to look well beyond the benefits of finding a few rapists.
Im not saying youre wrong, what Im saying is we haven’t even begun to explore the possibilities and once your DNA is on file there is no going back. It’s a bit this blog on the web today, it will be out there some where for ever.
I wont trouble you again on this subject, I can see from your position that you are relatively untroubled by all this simply because it will clear up a few crimes. Just consider where a DNA database will go over the next 50 years and ask yourself do you trust the state to bring in the necessary safe guards.
Personally I would trust the state to walk my dogs without close supervision, you have a lot more faith in them than me, but do you have that much ?
If we get this wrong, some day you may just be faced with a hologram shop assistant, who can identify you through cctv and face recognition software, reminding you, quietly of course, that the stores records show you might be running low on haemorrhoid ointment and that its on BOGOF today.
Actually that sounds quite fun to me, but some might not like it.
Complain about this comment
107. grandantidote
Shame I quite like her, she added spice.
I love all Mavericks.
Complain about this comment
94 neil small, " My argument is that if the police have sufficient evidence to arrest someone, why does it then require a further 42 days before charging them"
why does it take 28 days DD voted for that.
Complain about this comment
grandantidote 107
Touche! Nobody, absolutely nobody compares with Clare Short - thank the Lord!
Complain about this comment
95 getrid ofgordonnow,
"Cameron will listen to reason/logic; he might end up with a different opinion to someone, but he will at least listen to the arguments and consider them, and is willing to change his mind if he thinks he was originally wrong."
Thats only one of his problems, he changes his mind like the wind changes direction, its got nothing to do with arguments its all about band wagons and which one to jump on.
Complain about this comment
Quote us some concrete examples of where GB changed his mind because he admitted he was wrong and then give us some further examples of DC changing his mind to jump on a bandwagon and we will give you a considered reply to your charges.
Complain about this comment
"Help! Gordon Brown may not be a liar
The Prime Minister is living in his own warped view of the world, where he is never wrong.
When I was a schoolboy we would play word games aimed to trick other boys into saying something self-incriminating. You might invite your intended victim to repeat the word “ink” followed by the word “iced”, faster and faster until he realised (to mocking howls) that he was saying “I stink, I stink, I stink”. A more savage variant involved requesting an Afrikaner to say “choose my lace” in Afrikaans – with a result too appalling to print.
A means of playing such games at the Commons dispatch box has still to be devised; but, with ingenuity, someone may yet manage to persuade the Prime Minister to repeat the words “up”, “eyes” and “crude”, in that order, as fast as he can. The sound of Gordon Brown apparently declaring “I screwed up! I screwed up!” would bring screams of delight and a ripple of national pleasure.
For a cruel sport is emerging at Commons questions and in media interviews. It’s called Making Brown Say It. The sport is sadistic because the things people want to make the Prime Minister say are not in themselves new or interesting. They are things known to all but which for some baffling reason Gordon Brown himself finds it extraordinarily difficult to say. Making him say them becomes the challenge; watching him wriggle the reward.
It all started last October when, conscious that he lacked a personal mandate and that the polls suggested he could win a snap general election, Mr Brown made plans – then shelved them when opportunistic Tory promises undermined his confidence of victory. There is embarrassment but no disgrace in conceding that you don’t call an election when your opponents may steal the victory, and few sentient Labour MPs saw much problem in admitting as much.
Background
The age of personal vitriolic abuse
Brown: I'm the best man for the job
Brown turns to Blairism to save his future
Gordon Brown: words and deeds
But would the Prime Minister? Somehow he just couldn’t. Sniffing blood, journalists then invited him to deny, “hand on heart”, that falling poll ratings had influenced his decision. Thus cornered, he did deny it. David Cameron skewered him with the same question; and again he was unwilling to acknowledge reality. This made him look idiotic.
Since then the list of mistakes and misfortunes that Mr Brown won’t acknowledge has grown too tedious to detail. Northern Rock, a range of tax twists and U-turns, the recent notorious abolition of the 10p tax rate (where Brown still fails to use the word “I” when acknowledging mistakes) . . . the instances are various. But they have one feature in common. Study his phraseology as a psychotherapist rather than a student of policy might, and this leaps out at you. What Brown really, really, won’t say is that he has been pressured by anyone else into doing anything he did not want to do in the first place; or that on any central question it is his own judgment that has been wrong.
Pressed, he will allow that circumstances have changed and decisions varied or revisited in light of the new situation. Pressed further he will admit that mistakes “were made” or that “we” made mistakes. Pressed even harder he will even use the “I” word and admit to failures of diplomacy, tact, consultation or explanation. But what he cannot allow is either that he has been pushed around, or that a big decision was wrong at the time he took it.
This twin refusal, like the two arms of a nutcracker, puts a man under intolerable pressure. If you can admit you’re wrong, then you don’t need to admit to being pushed by others, but only by your own intelligence, to alter course. If you can admit to being pushed by others you don’t need to admit you were ever wrong: you’ve altered course for collegiate reasons, against your best judgment. But if you are to insist both that your first decision was right, and that your second thoughts do not arise from arm-twisting, you get into an awful tangle when challenged to explain your change of mind.
It was in just such a tangle that Gordon Brown faced John Humphrys on the Today programme and Adam Boulton on Sky News after the 10p tax announcement. He will have known he would face questions about Alistair Darling’s Budget U-turn, raising the tax threshold to compensate for pain inflicted by abolishing the 10p rate.
How would he reply? By saying he should never have invented the 10p rate? Or never have abolished it? Or would he say that this week’s policy shift would not have been his preference, but it was affordable, and he was therefore bowing to parliamentary anxiety and national concern?
Incredulously he told his interviewers that the £2.7 billion tax cut, financed by borrowing, was a response to the world economic downturn: a measure to stimulate domestic growth by putting extra money in people’s pockets. Brown said he wanted to ease the financial squeeze being faced by hard-working families. Asked why the need for this had only been discovered since the Budget, he could give no answer. It was pitiable.
It was also scary. I’ll tell you what scares me, and scares (I believe) a wider public who may not always be consciously aware why. It’s not the thought that the Prime Minister may be lying. It’s a more disturbing thought: that he may not. That under the terrible internal pressure created in his own head by a refusal to accept either that his will may be thwarted or his judgment questioned, the PM is having to warp the external world to make it fit.
Could it be that it is to himself, and not to us, that Mr Brown is unable to acknowledge reality? That he really doesn’t now think he did change his mind about that snap election for fear of losing it? That the main reason for a Budget U-turn was a need he suddenly saw for economic stimulus? That Wendy Alexander was not calling for an earlier referendum on Scottish independence? That the May local and mayoral elections were not a tremendous rebuke to his administration?
We expect politicians to lie. We don’t like it but we understand it. Caught between the world as it is and the world politicians keep promising to make for us, we do see what drives them to misrepresent the world, rewrite the promise, or both.
Conversation between the public and our politicians is eased by the half-intended, half-acknowledged wink. And if in their kiss-and-tell diaries politicians later paint a picture of private sniggers and sneaky lies, it’s almost reassuring. At least it suggests that if the covers come off we’d all agree on what we see. When a man blushes, something is shared."
But a cold, angry repudiation of the evidence itself, a look that suggests a different prism, a different picture; a strange, knotted, jaw-clenching, fact-defying, interview-wrecking rejection of what the rest of us see plain as daylight . . . this disturbs more deeply than everyday mendacity ever can. Where could a national conversation with such a man begin?
Somebody else's words but worth a look nevertheless.
Complain about this comment
114 waldorf , try Northern Rock on for size
Complain about this comment
# 115 Waldorf try 10p tax being as you brought it up.
Are you saying that this attempt at a character assination is your work or is it some thing you copied just to bore us, or did you save a compilation of Tory posts and merge them into this diatribe.
Which ever it was its nothing absolutely nothing that we haven't heard on a daily basis on these blogs.
If you want to impress get some new material
Complain about this comment
Ever heard of the term 'in denial'?
Complain about this comment
Interesting piece. One inaccuracy, though, I think. As I recall, the comment about the French revolution came from Chairman Mao
Complain about this comment
Anyone familiar with English prose and Literacy examination work (even Yr 6 Sats) will see that the piece has a proper beginning , middle and end and so cannot have been pieced together from bloggers comments. The fact that it repeats what has been said many times before on here and in the media unfortunately doesn't make it any the less true.
Complain about this comment
Funny isn't it how some people when they are in danger of losing an argument resort to personal abuse. No names no pact drill like.
Complain about this comment
re: 116 grandantidote wrote
"114 waldorf , try Northern Rock on for size"
ok; Brown was responsible for that because he was in charge when the financial institutional rules were being devised/altered/broken/transferred and he refused to listen to the experts who warned him constantly about it being a potential problem.
The "credit crunch" in the uk is essentially entirely his fault for not policing the system properly. It's no good just blaming the Americans because he had the power to limit the liability/damage when he was told of the dodgy practices going on in uk banks. Instead he sat back and did nothing for years.
If he'd policed the system like he was supposed to then Northern Rock would have been properly audited and it never would have reached the stage that it did.
It finally went to the wall because of his incompetence at the treasury, and then he spent months dithering about what to do, finally bailing it out with over £100billion of our money.
so, thanks for your example because it's a good one when it comes to Brown's incompetence, dithering, and illustrating the damage he's created in his wake.
any other examples you'd like to give?
Complain about this comment
ps: 117 grandantidote
Please don't assume that anyone who criticizes Brown/Labour is a tory.
If the current government acts negligently then anyone who sees it for what it is has a right to criticise the government, they don't have to be tories.
If Gordon Brown dropped a nuke on london and then someone said "that was a bad thing", are they a tory? No; they just know when someone's a damaging idiot.
Complain about this comment
#105 dhwilkinson:
I'm certainly not bleating now that the Tory Davids are suffering. I hate all political parties in equal measure.
I've always said that since the Iraq dossier affair and the resignation of Gilligan and Dyke, BBC News has only ever espoused the Labour version of any events and has rarely challenged the "official" version. The BBC was bullied by the government to toe the line.
Hence the David Davis resignation was reported as "odd", "whacky" or "a farce", when the country at large recognised it as something totally different.
There is something to be said for allowing people to serve in Westminster either as MPs or as correspondents, because the place seems to generate a skewed version of reality.
Complain about this comment
Re #123 getridofgordonnow
Eloquently put.
We are indeed not all Tories. The 2nd last thing we want to replace the "clunking fist" is Blair lite and BluLabour.
Complain about this comment
122 getridofgordon now.For goodness sake are you a complete nutter or only three parts of you, So now GB is resonsable for Northern Rock, the credit crunch, and I guess the world recession and food and oil shortage and the fact that your granny can only have two eggs for breakfast.
Northern Rock were responsible for their own downfall, the tories are always telling us he interferes too much in our affairs,
Alistair Darling and GB stepped in to save NR because if they hadn't then it would have gone under which would have led to a run on the other banks that would have been unsustainable, David Cameron agreed with this intervention, the government then gave the oportunity to other banks and organisations the chance to buy NR and a number came forward but they all wanted to buy it for a song and GB and AD were not going to let that happen they discussed whether it would be a good idea to temporalary nationalise the bank, Cameron thought this was a good idea, then when the press turned it into a hot political potato he decided that now was the time to jump on the band wagon which he did. now did you honestly think that any company was going to step in overnight and say yes we've got billions to spare we'll buy it, if you do your dafter than I think you are, by the time several companies had made offers after studying the books some months had passed so no reasonable offers so we'll nationalise it for a hell of a lot less than a 100 billion pounds . thats what they did and NR is doing as well as any other bank in the present climate and have already paid a substantial amount back into the government coffers, in the meanwhile Dave was trying to put the fear of God into people by telling them it will cost every family in the country £2,000 . I havn't had my bill for two thousand yet have you?
Complain about this comment
120 Waldorf so you could'nt resist the grammer thing, and you accuse me of personal abuse, by the way my intelligent friend it's "No name no pack drill" not pact drill I tell you that so that you wont make fool of yourself in the future, Now to get to your mamoth piece and I asking if it was yours, can I remind you that you said
"Somebody else's words but worth a look nevertheless"
To which I replied "Which ever it was its nothing absolutely nothing that we haven't heard on a daily basis on these blogs.
If you want to impress get some new material" you were the one that said its someone else's words, so why are you griping when I as where they come from and tell you I dont agree with them.
Complain about this comment
Re #126 grandantidote
Wow! Was that straight from a Treasury press release or did you think that all up for yourself?
If the latter, care for a wager on how much Labour will increase their majority by in Glasgow East?
Complain about this comment
124 delphius1 wrote:
"..BBC News has only ever espoused the Labour version of any events and has rarely challenged the "official" version. The BBC was bullied by the government to toe the line.
Hence the David Davis resignation was reported as "odd", "whacky" or "a farce", when the country at large recognised it as something totally different."
Grandantidote@126
"...Dave was trying to put the fear of God into people by telling them it will cost every family in the country ?2,000 . I haven't had my bill for two thousand yet have you?"
____________________________________
Actually GA it was BBC News that was responsible for reporting equivalent of 2000pounds per taxpayer. with a picture of a crowd with £2000 figure over their heads.
The BBC that is under the thumb of New Labour according to delphius1 and others.
Now the Conservatives are on the receiving end justifiably. The liberal left bias complaints are flooding in as usual.
Complain about this comment
127:
So now you jump on typographical errors to try and gain the upper hand. Congratulations you got me. Thanks for the advice but I don't need it. Just to stop yourself making a fool of yourself in the future it's reasonable not resonsable, opportunity not oportunity, grammar not grammer and temporarily not temporalary. Are we even now?
Complain about this comment
Sorry responsible not resonsable. It's so difficult to make some of these words out.
Complain about this comment
131 Waldof actually I was quite angry and tired as my wife is not too well but I think you exaggerate my spelling mistakes, the only reason I corrected you was because you had done the same to me. we have been through all this nonsense before , do you really want to go through it again? its spelling mistakes which I usually check before posting this time I didn't.
Complain about this comment
128 brownedov , what the hell as Glasgow east got to do with it.?
Complain about this comment
129 D H Wilkinson Dont often disagree with you but I have heard DC use the £2.000 thing in parliament and heard a number of Tory front benchers including Gideon on Tv several times.
Complain about this comment
132:
Explanation accepted. You're right it's getting a little childish now and I'm as much to blame. Hope your wife gets better. Good night to you both. Trust that you are enjoying the cricket annihilation of South Africa. After what they did at The UN they deserve it.
Complain about this comment
Re #133 grandantidote
"what the hell as Glasgow east got to do with it.?"
Well personally I hope it will be another stake in the heart of the whole sick edifice that you clearly love: the illiberal, right wing, anti-democratic, untruthful, authoritarian scoundrels who hijacked the once-honourable Labour Party.
My point, however, was that if you really believe the claptrap you wrote at #126 you'll probably believe anything, even that your own Maggie will save your hero's bacon.
Complain about this comment
136 brownedov Sorry old chap but I cant converse further with you at this Time as I dont respond to crazy rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
135 Waldorf, I'm glad that you understand.thank you for your good wishes for my wife.
I am thoroughly enjoying the cricket but not for the reason you suggest, they have no more control over their government than we have over ours, only at the ballot box but I take your point, it's a monumental error on the part of their government and it wont be forgotten I hope.
Complain about this comment
grandantidote
Re #138: A genuinely sensible contribution for once.
Re #137: Reading some of your other posts, I'd never have guessed.
Complain about this comment
139 Brownedov,
Re #137: Reading some of your other posts, I'd never have guessed.
Seeing the gulf between us I would never of expected that you would.
Complain about this comment
Grandantidote@134 about dhwilkinson@129
I don't doubt that Cameron and Osborne used the idea. But the figure was started I think by the journalist who broke the story Taking the figure for the money at risk by nationalising the bank, Loans and Guarantees of £100bn and dividing it up amongst taxpayers. £1000 each.
This started the myth on forums like this and HYS that every taxpayer would be paying £1000 extra tax and people thinking that they were shareholders in the bank. There is no chance of 100bn being lost so this £1000 per taxpayer was pointless. Cameron and Osborne probably read this myth here or somewhere else and tried to exploit it.
The comment 129 was more about the other ridiculous myth that spreads on these forum type sites that New Labour is in control of the BBC. Anyone who says this has clearly not watched BBC News since before September last year. Or is a Conservative or SNP ally with their fingers crossed for a Conservative government to help their referendum.
Complain about this comment
122 getrid...
I do not wish to go into this too far. For fear of suffering the wrath of RobinJD again. I am beginning to doubt your neutrality. Your name and the "bailed out with £100bn" is a giveaway. Are you SNP?
Just to clarify the Bank has not been given £100bn only about 25bn in Loans. £100bn is only at risk figure and there's no chance of all of that money being lost. The bank is now owned by the government. that money will be paid back and the bank will be sold on.
You are clearly too focused on your hate to notice that the same kind of problems are going on all over the world. Including 2 banks in the United States currently who may be nationalised. As if they go under they will cause problems. Remind you of anything? They aren't anything to do with the Labour party though or in a Labour heartland. So they probably don't count.
Complain about this comment
following on from the last comment, with a republican president, USA bank regulation is a notorious hotbed of socialism!
regards the Northern Rock,
A.) the government will make a profit
B.) the damage done by n. rock failing would probably exceed any money the gov.t could theoretically lose.
Complain about this comment
141/142 D H Wilkinson, I agree with you on practically every thing you say the only difference being that if I remember correctly forgive me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall Dave Cameron bringing up the £100 billion and the £2,000 thousand for each hard working family at PMs question time and I have heard him and several Tory front benchers use this term on a number of occasions on TV.
Complain about this comment
143Moderate progressive,
Regards Northern rock, absolutely spot on.
Complain about this comment
brownedov and similar.
Chill Winston!
If Honest John Major feels sorry for Gordon, and Gordon hates to be compared to Major (one of the greatest icons of mediocrity this country ever produced) then we will probably hear reports of Brown preparing to throw the towel in at conference later today.
Complain about this comment
"So, on the morning after the by-election night before what's my verdict now?"
No one cares.
Complain about this comment
For John Major to say hat Gordon Brown was praised too much during his time as Chancellor and vilified too much in his time as PM is probably just about right. He also added that things tend to even themselves out quite fairly in the end.
Complain about this comment
For John Major to say he has compassion for Gordon in a human sense must be the final nail in the coffin for Brown. Major who was absolutely vilified by Blair and Brown has just played a cracker. I bet Gordon will still be fuming about this for a long time. Never mind.
Complain about this comment
re: 142 dhwilkinson
I won't take the bait when it comes to the personal attacks on blog members because it lowers the level of debate, but I will say that, in response to your comments about me being focussed on hate I think that's the wrong way round.
I'm focussed on debating the points of incompetence of the government, whereas your posts prove that you're focussed on spreading hate of fellow blog members who you (often mistakenly) believe are tory purely because they criticise Brown/Labour.
People can read the threads then they can make up their own mind about who they think is being reasonable and who's being focussed on hate.
I'm merely pointing out the incompetence of the government (and Brown), for the reply to start personal attacks proves that pointing out those incompetences hits a raw nerve.
Did it cost over 100billion in physical cash/bonds, or was it only 25billion in physical cash/bonds plus 100billion of potential liability? I don't know because I'm not a government accountant, but I think that's irrelevant when it comes to the general debate. If you're saying that incompetence which causes 25 billion is ok but 100billion is not then what's the reasoning for that?
You're using the spurious Brown tactic of blaming the Americans for all our woes. Brown was personally in charge of the economy and the policing of all the uk financial institutions for the 10 years leading up to the first bank crash we've had for many years. He was the one who was personally responsible for making sure that banks don't have policies which are too high a risk. He self-evidently completely failed in his responsibilities.
Yes, there is a limit to the amount of "interference" that a government should have over banks, but the government is supposed to ensure that the system generally is policed in such a way that the risk of collapse is not allowed to become unduly large.
He was warned for years about his transfer/deletion of relevant powers causing problems, and was shown the warning signs of the risks but he failed to listen.
Complain about this comment
re: 142 dhwilkinson
Another point is, just because the credit-crunch is also a problem in the usa, that doesn't mean that we can't do something about it on home ground or that we couldn't/shouldn't have done something to limit the risk years ago.
The "it's also a problem somewhere else so it can't have anything to do with us" argument is spurious.
We have our own rules in the uk; we could have protected ourselves against the risk which was filtered over here via the complex financial situations that were going on.
The government could/should have said that banks shouldn't exceed a certain level of risk (perhaps unless they explicitly told all their shareholders and customers that they were no longer covered by government protection due to their high risk, ie a "deposit/invest at your own risk; this company is operating on a very high risk basis" message). And if the banks couldn't audit/report their risks then they shouldn't be allowed to continue trading.
These are really basic financial rules that should be part of any financial system.
Complain about this comment
150/151getridofgordonnow,
There was no incometence that cost 25 billion because the money is in effect a loan to save the banking system in this country and the cash will be returned and is in fact being returned as I write.
I am surprised that D H Wilkinson even bothers to answer any of your posts as they are and no mistake one of the worst examples of unmitigated hate and vilification that can be seen on these blogs.
Considering that you say you want to debate the incompetence of the government, I dont see much debate in your posts, its become such a habit that I dont think you could stop it if you wanted to.
If you think that the posts on this thread show you to be a reasonable deep thinking man then perhaps you should read with an open mind the posts from labour supporters on these blogs I can promise you that you wont find the deep hatred from us towards any politician from any party that you and some of your peers display towards GB and the labour party. I am afraid that its become an obsession. Incidentally I am no financial wizard but even I can see your assessment of the lead up to this recession is beyond belief considering it comes from some one that likes to think that he knows what he's talking about.
Complain about this comment
re 152 grandantidote:
I think I'd simply redirect you to this posting on the veto topic because it says it all:
88 Grawth
Other people reading the threads can make up their own mind, I'm not going to rise to the bait because life's too short and it would just diminish what a public political forum is supposed to be about.
Complain about this comment
So David Davis won an uncontested by-election, did he?
His campaign to capture the public imagination was a damp squib, so now what? What's he going to do with his win?
I will feel short-changed if he doesn't resign and call another by-election when the Bill passes through the Lords. As a man of principle, he ought to resign a third time when Her Majesty signs off the legislation. And then, when the police actually use the power to keep a suspect in custody for more than 28 days, he should resign a fourth time.
I can't wait to see what happens at the Conservative Party Conference. No doubt he will upstage his leader.
Complain about this comment
154:
I can't even begin to imagine the vilification that David Davis would receive from friend and foe alike if he resigned four times. Quite apart from anything else the cost to the taxpayer would be four fold. So I don't think you will be getting your wish. If you disapprove of his motives so much what is it to you that he might upstage DC at the forthcoming conference? It isn't likely to happen for a number of reasons. Not only has DC supported him in his move he has also intimated that a job might be found for him on the Front Bench of the next Government. Secondly he did so relatively badly in the leadership challenge against DC that he would have very few backers amongst the rank and file Conservative MPs if he ever wanted to resurrect that challenge. Why spike a horse when he is well in the lead?
Complain about this comment
So, Peter Mandleson tried to get you sacked did he, Nick? I'll bet you were quaking in your boots.....!!
Complain about this comment
Nick, I still think your analysis is wrong. Certainly the election did galvanise a lot of comment outside the mainstream media. I just wish it had gotten more attention by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Nick. Will the BBC be covering the Glasgow East by-election at all? It would be nice to see something of the "race" before the results are made public.
Complain about this comment
153 getridofgordonnow
your reference to grawth on the veto topic.
If you wish I think you might take a look on that blog I think I have answered all the salient points, I am quite sure that you wont agree with me but isn't that what these blogs are about , airing our differences. This is not and not intended to be a mutual admiration society.
Complain about this comment
159
The sun is shining and my gammy leg is holding up quite well, so all's right with the world. Yes, let's have a mutual admiration society then we can all feel good.
Complain about this comment
David Davis shot at the wrong target. He should have gone for the 'Referendum' that didn't happen. He would have achieved the same result, but the outcome would have slayed both Brown and Cameron with one stroke.
Complain about this comment
150/151 getrid...
No bait intended. The Northern Rock was down to 2 things the credit crunch and the risky strategy of the bank. That relied on borrowing from other banks. It asked for a lender of last resort facility available in secret to banks in Europe and The US I believe, and this was leaked to the media.
Lets not go in to the media's part of the blame for the Run on the Bank that followed, and the media spin of the the 2000gbp per taxpayer and BBC User Generated Conted for allowing this myth and the story in general to grow through ill informed hate filled content.
So now 2 of the biggest banks in the United States could be nationalised. Looks like its Back to 1970s Britain for the Republican party ;o)
Complain about this comment
162 dhwilkinson wrote
"The Northern Rock was down to 2 things the credit crunch and the risky strategy of the bank."
True, and that was down to Gordon Brown not policing the uk financial system properly, and that's the point I was trying to make, see my post about how/why it was Gordon Browns job to not allow risk to become unduly large.
Yes, it was Northern Rock's own fault they ended up where they did, but equally it was Brown's fault for allowing them to operate on such a high risk basis while having the general public's investments/deposits. It simply should never have happened. Ultimately it was Brown who should have stopped it from ever getting to the stage it did. He failed.
For the credit crunch generally he was either completely unaware of how the financial systems were working, or he failed to do anything about it when he should have done, either way it's basically his fault.
Complain about this comment
re: 159 grandantidote
"I am quite sure that you wont agree with me but isn't that what these blogs are about , airing our differences. This is not and not intended to be a mutual admiration society."
This blog's supposed to be about political discussion, and people should be able to feel free to have/express differing opinions and to have a debate without fear of getting personally attacked for those opinions. ie feel free to attack the opinions, but don't attack the people.
By saying that I believe that Brown is incompetent that does not mean that I'm a hate-filled nutter, or a tory, or that I have a personal hatred towards fellow blog members who might like Brown.
Complain about this comment
So who was right? - was the question.
The right of habeas corpus, perhaps?
Complain about this comment
We won't know who was right until the 42 day law itself is tested or the anti West aggression escalates in retaliation.
Complain about this comment
Nick,
Sorry but you still don't seem to "get" why people were so angry at you and "Westminster Village" as a whole.
By labelling Davis as "mad" just hours after he made the announcement you allowed the Government not to engage in any discussion. In fact you didn't challenge their decision not to stand a candidate once. You just accepted that it was the sensible thing for them to do.
Unfortunately, the public supported Davis and agreed with him. We wanted to hear why the Government was so keen to remove our civil liberties and I'm sorry to say, you let them avoid the question.
Whilst the effective killing off of the Bill is a glorious thing, it still begs the question why you and other journalists all accepted teh Governments line so easily. Why did you remain so silent ? Why, Nick, did you continually run a single line of "it must be bad for the Tories" whilst ignoring the discussion we ALL wanted to have ?
To mangle a JFK quote - if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem. Can you guess where you are Nick ?
Now I don't expect you to attack the Government at every turn but I do expect you to show some balance in your coverage. In this you failed as you ended up a Government stooge.
Complain about this comment
Politicians think the public is disinterested in politics. I think the public is disinterested in politicians.
When David Davies wished to force a discussion in the highest definition of the public interest - Civil Liberties - a significant sector of the public got interested.
Labour avoided discussing the issue by refusing to defend their policy in a public forum and instead launching a series of Ad Hominem attacks on Davies.
You failed to factor the debate on the issue because you wrote a story concerned solely with the process. To the best of my knowledge you still haven't blogged on the erosion of civil liberties.
In the event that the government fails to respond to the opposition on matters this significant, we must rely on the 4th estate to table these questions. Instead we keep getting something that reads like the Westminster edition of Hello magazine.
Nick. Dare to go after the big game. That's what the public want.
Complain about this comment
test
Complain about this comment
169:
I sympathise. Occasionally you can post a comment on here and it disappears into thin air almost immediately. One of my contributions was 'Testing' to see if there was anybody out there. Frustrating isn't it?
Complain about this comment
After all its only politics folks...........
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS