The David Davis freedom debate: what debate?
Let's see if I can break the habit of a lifetime and take something that a politician has said at face value. (I exaggerate, as you know, but only slightly ...)
It's just four weeks since the man who once thought he was destined to be the leader of the Conservative party, David Davis, dramatically resigned as an MP because, he said, he felt he had to do something to halt the "relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms".
Last night - surprise, surprise, after neither Labour nor the Lib Dems could be bothered to put up a candidate against him - the good voters of Haltemprice and Howden sent him back to the Commons to pick up from where he left off. Except that now he will languish on the backbenches, and his reputation, at least in the Westminster village, has suffered a substantial dent.
My point is this: Mr Davis said - and let's just for a moment assume that what he said was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - that he wanted to give British voters "the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of the day ... the ever intrusive power of the state into their daily lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law."
This is how he set out his case: "We will have the most intrusive identity card system in the world, a CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, and a DNA database bigger than that of any dictatorship, with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.
"We've witnessed a sustained assault on jury trials, that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary abuse by the state; shortcuts with our justice system that have left it both less firm and less fair -- and the creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers."
This is all serious stuff. So did the nation rise to the challenge? Did we have the debate? Did we rally in support of the Lone Tory Ranger as he rode into battle against the power of the state? Er, no, actually, we didn't.
Many of us, I suspect, would agree that deciding how to strike the right balance between the need to ensure our security and the need to guarantee our freedom is, as Mr Davis said, "one of the most fundamental issues of the day". So why aren't we ready to answer his call for a national debate?
Is it because we think that the government has got the balance right, so there is no need for any further debate? (The opinion poll evidence, by the way, is highly contradictory.) Is it because the issue is so complex that we just don't know what to think, so we concentrate on trying to cope with rising household bills instead? Or is it perhaps because we're not really sure what David Davis was up to, and we're not in the habit of leaping to debate things just because an MP says he thinks we should?
When Mr Davis resigned, the media by and large were scornful of what was seen as a bit of shameless political grand-standing, an act of personal vanity by an MP bored with the humdrum nature of life as a front-bench spokesman. But the reaction in the blogosphere was overwhelmingly favourable ... at last, people said, a politician who is prepared to put his principles first.
So, I ask again, why no debate?
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~04~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Because he is right.
The by election was not a particularly edifying example of democracy in action - 26 oddballs and no big players in what can only be seen as a bit of a joke, but the outcome was better than might have been expected. Bob Marshall Andrews showed the way to those faint souls who trooped meekly into the government lobby against their better judgment, the Lords are picking the proposed legislation apart and the debate is still only simmering.
If the government uses the Parliament Act to force this through, it is clearly doing so in the face of growing opposition both within the establishment and increasingly the wider population. If, by the time it comes back to the Commons, some Labour MPs recognise a ground swell of public opinion, electoral self-interest may well take them where their consciences did not last time.
This iniquitous piece of legislation must be lost and while the by election may not have sparked a full blooded debate, the result may be a starting point.
If so, Davis has won more than a by election.
Complain about this comment
Very, very rarely is there not an element of self-interest in people's actions, and in politics absolutely never. There may have an element of all the motives you suggest in David Davis's action, but let us celebrate his courage and resolution in acting on his principles. Many of us watch with horror the galloping erosion of our civil liberties and human rights, and are powerless to do anything other than write to the press, politicians, and/or the Prime Minister. We
are aghast at his destruction of the NHS and the education system in line with his neo-conservatism, and we ask ourselves how he dares to impose these policies on those who put his Party in power as a Labour Party. Apparent public apathy could mask deep anxiety and frustration at the inability to stop him.
Complain about this comment
Why no debate?
Because this is an exercise in sophistry. Either that or David Davis is having a midlife crises of ego.
The world changed on 9/11/2001.
We now need all the protection we can get from these mad bombers of the fundamentalist group of Islam.
We need to give the police lots of time to trace connectors once they have a lively suspect on their hands.
We need CCTV to capture suspicious images.
We need the ID card sysem to keep track of people - why, weren't some of these suspicious types even working as doctos in the NHS?
I don't imagine that Britain will ever live under a group of dictators who are hungry for power enough to do us all harm by taking away fundamental rights. I do imagine that society is more and more filling in with suspicious characters and poor mental cases who want to kill people - for some, righteous reasons, for others, ust to see people blown to bits.
I am willing to give up some rights to be kept safe. So ought everyone who is an innocent.
What are we left to fight with when faced with suicides who are willing to give up their lives so easily to bomb the rest of us? Mad situations sometimes require (seemingly) mad solutions. If we are to be subjected to more strident security, so be it. I would bet that the Americans wished for more security and less rights if it would have helped avoid the awfulness of 9/ll.
Complain about this comment
Every time a terrorist strikes at our western way of life, he seeks to strike at our basic freedoms and rights. Every time those freedoms are curtailed in the interests of security, the terrorist wins.
Complain about this comment
I strongly object to the statement in the header above that "neither Labour nor the Lib Dems could be bothered to put up a candidate against him". That is neither fair nor balanced reporting.
At least in the case of the LibDems it is an unmerited calumny. Clegg immediately confirmed his agreement on the key issue of civil liberties and declared he supported Davis for the by-election and would not field a "spoiling" candidate despite the LibDems starting from 2nd place.
Labour dithered and as we know did not field a candidate but to say that they could not be bothered is far from the truth.
"They knew they would not win in Mr Davis' constituency and did not wish to draw more attention to their own policies" is about the most mealy-mouthed statement I can contrive which is not inconsistent with the truth.
In a balanced summary, I would also have expected at least a dishonourable mention for Kelvin MacKenzie's campaign in "The Sun" which supposedly started as one of principle but was soon backed-off when MacKenzie's realised that his expat employer could not bankroll him - some principle!
Thankfully, #1 & #4 threnodio and #2 powerfuleileenalanna are nearer the mark.
Nick Robinson is saying much the same thing as you on his blog. Are you really so tainted by your exposure to New Labour that you can no longer recognise principle when you see it?
Complain about this comment
Robin:
What did David Davis prove?
He is trying to unseat the current government of Gordon Brown in the next general elections.
Complain about this comment
Freedom vs. "security" seems to go in cycles that depend on perceived threat.
Perhaps, at the moment, perceived threat is high among the population.
This could explain the lack of public debate.
Complain about this comment
Freedom and security are relative concepts. On the face of it, the right to bear arms and the freedom to walk the streets in reasonable safety are incompatible, but they are both forms of freedom.
Complain about this comment
Where is the public debate on any issue of signifigance in the UK? Where's the debate on Lisbon or for that matter the EU? Where's the debate on how much power will be ceded to an extranational organization and who will write the laws Brits are governed by? In a society which is not comfortable with ordinary people taking matters into their own hands and viewing government as their servant instead of their masters, the instinct is to accept whatever the prevailing powers hands down to them. This is the antithesis of democracy. That Britain is now or ever was a democracy is a complete illusion as far as I am concerned. As for the government losing all of the personal data of a quarter of everyone in the country, where is the accountability? Where were the inquiries? Where were people fired? Fined? Sent to prison?
Complain about this comment
Re #9 MarcusAureliusII
I have to agree with you, Marcus, perhaps with one slight quibble. The 1832 Reform Act did provide a real opening up of democracy and allowed the Liberals to subsume the Whigs so creating a platform for the 2nd British Empire which lasted until WW2 while the Labour Party was coming up on the outside rail as a result of the Liberal split over Ireland.
Agreed that it didn't change our adverserial system of 2 "main" parties taking Buggin's turn to wreck the work of its predecessors. There's just a chance that this may be rectified after our next general election with Scots and Welsh voters likely choosing a different exit door from the craziness of NuLabour to English ones.
That could result in either:
1. The breakup of the UK with England likely maintaining the 2 party system while Scotland and Wales seek the lesser evil of independence within the EU.
2. A fundamental change in the polity of the UK driven by Tories seeking to maintain the union.
I would prefer the latter but I'm not holding my breath, as I suspect the current Tory leadership to be Unionist in name only.
Complain about this comment
David Davis is right. This is not a man who would have followed Bush et al into the Iraq war - he would have told him where to put it. Also traditionally backbenchers have a lot of power - they can say what they think unlike front benchers who have to do what they are told. Some of our biggest pieces of legislation have started out from the backbench - and it was Robin Cook's place too. He said he had forgotten how good the view was from the backbenches. He will be able to do a lot more than he would have been allowed to on the front bench in this campaign - I am very glad that there is someone now campaigning for civil liberties who is a bit of a heavy-weight. We need them. I speak as someone whose MP is the 160th most reliable Labour loyalist and who has been laughed at in the Commons for only doing what he is told to - including filibustering on demand - so David Davis is worth the money.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
In light of your comments, I repeat my question. Where is the PUBLIC debate? The debate in which the members of the public tell their MPs in no uncertain terms what they want them to do and threaten to vote them out of office if they don't do it? Where is the debate in the media where reporters ask tough questions of MPs about why they haven't held town meetings with their constituents to find out what they want such as whether or not they want a referendum on the EU? How many newspapers published and took apart the EU Constitutionn or Lisbon Treaty or even the opt outs piece by piece and examined what each part of it meant explaining to their readers what the implications for them would be if it were passed?
And where is the outcry of those who see the government as their servant who is not being obedient rather than as their master that they accept with grumbling rather than threats of removal?
Where I come from the UK does NOT pass the test of being a democracy by a long shot. But then why should it, it has no history of having thrown off a dictatorship, either a benign one or a tyrannical one by force. It has no idea what its inalienable rights are let alone the will to exercise them.
From July 4, 1776, the shot heard round the world;
"We hold these truths to be self-evident...that (all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
Britain's citizens don't even know when the next election will be held. That's up to the tyrant Gordon Brown to decide for them. Surely he will try to catch them in a weak moment when he is most confident of winning. But what difference, his replacement would be fundimentally no different than he is and would command the same unaccountable power.
Complain about this comment
#12 - MarcusAureliusII
I have very real issues about the democratic deficit in the UK but I think you should have a care about your comparisons. Governments can be driven from office without completing a full term and we do not routinely return citizens to their creator shot full of lethal injections then claim life to be among his unalienable rights.
Complain about this comment
threnodio #13
This debate is NOT about the death penalty. Save that for another time.
In the UK the government is only driven from office before its term is out (which is at the discretion of the PM) when there is a vote of no confidence by his own party. This points up one of the many more objections which precludes the UK from being a true democracy, no separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Clearly the checks and balances of competing interests of those in power to discourage them from colluding against the will of the people doesn't exist in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Not true MarcusAureliusII. The vote of no confidence is in Parliament, not his own party. A no confidence motion can actually be carried with only a minority of the party voting against the government.
You are right to point up the issue of the separation of powers but these have traditionally been maintained by the subtle 'tweeking' that operating with an unwritten constitution allows. I am happy to debate the relative merits of having or not having an written constitution but I think you will allow that, in either case, the quality and effectiveness of a system is always driven to some extent by the willingness of the incumbents to be bound not merely by the letter but by the spirit of the arrangements in place.
I am not sure that 'collusion against the will of the people' is especially helpful when there is no effective mechanism for measuring the will of the people at any one time.
The debate may not be about the death penalty but you chose to quote from the Declaration Of Independence.
Complain about this comment
One of the reasons that the debate didn't take off is because the Labour government chickened out of using the by-election to test public support for their security measures. Obviously Labour could not have won this by-election but they could have claimed support for their views if their candidate had done well and had caused David Davis to be returned with a much reduced majority. A lost opportunity, presumably demonstrating, by default, that the Labour government is unsure of popular support for its security measures.
Another reason is that the press treated the whole thing as a stunt rather than a serious opportunity for debate. I was extremely disappointed. Although we live in a democracy, there are few ways for individuals to demonstrate their opinions on single issues in a collective way. Demonstrations are one, but Blair's total disregard of the massive demonstrations against going to war in Iraq in 2003 shows how easy it is for politicians to ignore this way of the public expressing its opinion. When David Davis announced that he was triggering a by-election to focus debate on a single issue I was hopeful that this might prove a new and persuasive democratic tool, but the press and the Labour government turned it into a damp squib.
One positive outcome of the by-election (I hope) is that it forced David Cameron to come down off the fence on the issue of personal liberty. If, as seems likely, the next government is Conservative, I am now more hopeful that the ID scheme will be dropped. Although I do not believe we are in any immediate danger of a dictatorship, there are many other reasons to be alarmed about the ID scheme, such as its enormous cost. The one that makes all others pale into insignificance, however, is the risk to one's personal identity - the very real dangers of personal details being stolen by hackers, lost by negligent or incompetent officials, or corrupted or destroyed by inadequate computer software.
Complain about this comment
"Why no debate?" Maybe we've all given up - maybe we're too cowed. Maybe management theory/managerialism/double-talk/stonewalling in politics/the workplace has finally ground us down.
It's hard to bother when you simply can't reason with the people who run your life.
Complain about this comment
Marcus AureliusII - you wrote "Britain ....has no history of having thrown off a dictatorship, either a benign one or a tyrannical one by force. It has no idea what its inalienable rights are let alone the will to exercise them."
If that were the case, you would certainly be right to be angry. However, could I recommend that you check up?
Britain was the birthplace of the Magna Carta (I think that this gave us the right to a free and fair trial).
One hundred and fifty years before the French revolution and the American revolution, we, the English, had a rather long civil war and cut the head off our king. because he thought that he was divinely appointed as God's representative on earth and so could do what he wanted.
I think Oliver Cromwell pleaded with him, when he gave him the first White Paper (it was a piece of paper that was blank, that was why it was called a White Paper - and Charles the First had to sign it - he was signing what would be his own death warrant) Cromwell did not actually want to have to go through with cutting his head off, he wanted dialogue.
So Cromwell pleaded with him "Do you think, my liege, that you might be wrong?"
But Charles the First had absolute faith that he was right - he was divinely appointed - he had a Special Job here on earth - and so the British people had to cut the head off their own monarch to show they would not put up with self-imposed fairy-tales.
So it's not strictly accurate to say that we have not thrown off a dictatorship.
Not that Cromwell proved any better and he ended up behaving like royalty himself. He had himself crowned and his son was his successor. So then we got fed up and we invited Charles the Second back to Britain - but under reduced terms and conditions.
You should read Children of the New Forest by Frederick W Marryat.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS