David Davis 'is to resign as MP'

[cookie_monster]

Very interesting

 

BBC NEWS | Politics | David Davis 'is to resign as MP'

[somabc]

Yet another cynical stunt by the Tory Party. Are they going to go round trying to drum up more by-elections now?

[Diello]

Yet another cynical stunt by the Tory Party. Are they going to go round trying to drum up more by-elections now?

 

Far less cynical than Labour!

 

The real problem is that all the mainstream parties are moving more to the centre ground. Davis doing this because he's against keeping suspected terrorists locked up for longer? That's very much a liberal/left-wing move. With the Tory's moving more to the centre ground, and people becoming more disillusioned over immigration etc., it leaves the country without a right-of-centre voice. Then people wonder why the BNP is getting more support?

 

This country needs a viable right-wing opposition before we get run any more into the ground!

[mattx]

This country needs a viable right-wing opposition before we get run any more into the ground!

 

You need a good opposition for a democracy, not necessarily right wing or left wing - just a good one !! [ Which both the Tories and Lib Dems arn't ]

[Diello]

Indeed - Just the nature of politics generally means you need a party on each side of the spectrum.

[somabc]

Indeed - Just the nature of politics generally means you need a party on each side of the spectrum.

 

You mean like the Democrat (Right) & Republican (Right-er) Parties?

[somabc]

Labour should not put up a candidate, then they can show the whole thing is a pointless charade. If the tories and lib-dems are not putting one up then why should they bother?

[sparkeh]

Labour should not put up a candidate, then they can show the whole thing is a pointless charade. If the tories and lib-dems are not putting one up then why should they bother?

 

Eh? The Tories are putting one up - David Davies. Its kinda the point that it will look like a public vote on 42 days.

 

 

Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.

 

He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.

 

I for one would like to believe that David Davies is doing this as a matter of principle. I think he is.

Edited June 12, 2008 by sparkeh

[torledo]

Labour should not put up a candidate, then they can show the whole thing is a pointless charade. If the tories and lib-dems are not putting one up then why should they bother?

 

that's the worst possible thing labour could do....if they do not contest the seat it will be spun against them to make it look as if they care little for campaigning on the issue of civil liberties and protecting the nation against the threat of terror.

 

On the whole the feedback has been a positive one in favour of Davis stand....it's a personal one made on the back of his strong conviction that labour coerced rebel mp's into voting in favour...as it was they relied on the DUP to get them home.

 

i would say the charade has been the labour govt. we've had for the last 10 years who have swept every debatable issue under the carpet....from tuition fees to iraq and now to id cards and 42 days.

[somabc]

Eh? The Tories are putting one up - David Davies. Its kinda the point that it will look like a public vote on 42 days.

 

The Tories are not putting a candidate up. Davis is standing as an independent. If he was standing for the tories it would be an even bigger waste of time as the sitting MP he has no need to resign and seek re-election. As for it being a referendum on the issue of 42 days well only the people of Haltemprice and Howden will be able to vote on the issue, hardly a public referendum is it?

 

General Election 2005: Haltemprice and Howden

Conservative David Davis 22,792 Votes 47.5% of the vote +4.3% swing

Labour Edward Hart 6,104 Votes 12.7% of the vote –3.0% swing

 

Turnout 48,029 Votes 70.1% of electorate +4.3% increase on 2001 election

 

BBC NEWS | Politics | David Davis resigns from Commons

 

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, who will take over as shadow home secretary, rubbished reports the Tory leadership was split on the issue and said a future Conservative government would repeal it.

 

He said he would be campaigning for Mr Davis in the by-election - but added it would be Mr Davis' own personal campaign and he would receive no financial support from Tory HQ.

Edited June 12, 2008 by somabc

[somabc]

that's the worst possible thing labour could do....if they do not contest the seat it will be spun against them to make it look as if they care little for campaigning on the issue of civil liberties and protecting the nation against the threat of terror.

 

On the whole the feedback has been a positive one in favour of Davis stand....it's a personal one made on the back of his strong conviction that labour coerced rebel mp's into voting in favour...as it was they relied on the DUP to get them home.

 

i would say the charade has been the labour govt. we've had for the last 10 years who have swept every debatable issue under the carpet....from tuition fees to iraq and now to id cards and 42 days.

 

This has nothing to do with the 42 day issue! It is merely a publicity stunt. And what is wrong with the DUP voting with the government? The whole issue should have been a vote of conscience with no Whip. If the DUP want to vote with government well they are elected MPs so why shouldn't they?

 

It will work like this -

 

Davis stands as independent, Labour fields candidate and we spent weeks in the newspapers discussing the (single) issue, making Labour look bad.

 

Davis wins election (for his own safe tory seat remember) rejoins conservative party after a suitable period of time (ie when the press stops paying attention) This will not affect the bill passed last night. If the conservative party wants to stop it being passed they should be using the House of Lords, not throwing their dummy out the pram in a massive waste of taxpayers money. The whole point of the House of Lords is to provide oversight when the commons decides to pass daft laws such as this one.

Edited June 12, 2008 by somabc

[Diello]

We only need to look at this current Gov to see "a massive waste of taxpayers money".

 

No one complained when Martin Bell did it.

[somabc]

We only need to look at this current Gov to see "a massive waste of taxpayers money".

 

Citing other examples of wasting money does not make this 'exercise' any less of a waste of money. How much do you think it costs taxpayers to run an election?

 

No one complained when Martin Bell did it.

 

Completely different! Martin Bell was not an MP when he decided to run as an independent. He was a prominent journalist who decided to take a stand against sleaze by running against Neil Hamilton in Tatton.

 

The only way that comparison would hold up would be if you had say Shami Chakrabarti (Director of Liberty) run against Gordon Brown in the next election to highlight the violations of Human Rights by this Government.

Edited June 12, 2008 by somabc

[torledo]

 

It will work like this -

 

Davis stands as independent, Labour fields candidate and we spent weeks in the newspapers discussing the (single) issue, making Labour look bad.

 

 

And what's wrong with that, the govt. doesn't exactly need any help in shooting itself in the foot and looking bad...

 

as for the waste of money charge, we've had a decade of incomprehensible waste on a national scale. I hardly think New Labour apologists should be using the 'taxpayers money' charge against a campaign, in the case of David Davis' own camapaing, that will be privately funded.

 

I haven't checked the news for an hour so i was unaware that he was standing as an independent, but it makes sense if it's an issue of personal conviction.

 

The whole point about the vote was that it wasn't a vote of consience....labour whips were doing there upmost to ensure there were as few rebel mp's as possible, ministers themselves effectively tried to bribe their way out of an embarrassment with so-called 'concessions'.

 

Civil liberties is an issue at the next election, but pursuing an agenda that appears to be tough on terrorism through policies that have questionable impact on reducing the threat of a terrorist atrocity is not the way to go about getting votes.....it's almost as if the broon govt. is using the bush technique of 'well, we're crap in every other aspect of domestic and foreign policy, let's scare people witless and give the illusion of being tough on terror through measures that are either unnecessary'

 

Labours focus on the 42 days is straight out of the 'How to lose friends and not influence people' book (Authors D. Rumsfeld, G.W Bush, T. Blair).......

 

...it's the clearest sign yet of a govt. that knows the economy isn't going to improve to dig them out of the financial hole they've dug themselves into, they're looking in totally the wrong areas for ways to reverse their fortunes.

 

how bizarre that they seem to be so proactive with this whereas on the real issues that concern people such as the economy they seem to have very little to say other than the mantra of 'global conditions'.

 

Good luck to davis, let's hope the media give the campaign the attention it deserves.

 

btw i've not read anything about David davis standing as an independent, somabc, i think he'll stand as a tory.

Edited June 12, 2008 by torledo

[cookie_monster]

This has nothing to do with the 42 day issue! It is merely a publicity stunt.

 

I watched the live speech on TV outside the commons, they wouldn't let him address the house as he resigned. It looked genuine i'm not his biggest fan but i think he really feels about this issue so i think and hope you're wrong.

[srochford]

And what is wrong with the DUP voting with the government? The whole issue should have been a vote of conscience with no Whip. If the DUP want to vote with government well they are elected MPs so why shouldn't they?

 

Agreed. I find it very frustrating that we now have politics at the level where anyone who has a view is called a "rebel" if that view doesn't match that of the party leaders.

 

Of course you expect MPs to be in general agreement with the party leaders - why join the party if that's not the case - but surely we want politicians who can think for themselves, can argue a case and make up their minds. If that's not allowed to happen we might as well not bother with parliament. You have elections every 5 years and whoever wins just does what they please for the next 5 years.

 

The same is true with all the talk of "indecisiveness" and "U Turns" - surely it's better that a politician listens to what people are saying, accepts that their first thought was wrong and changes things. I am absolutely certain that many of my "first thoughts" are wrong; I listen to other people and I then do things differently as a result of listening, consultation etc. Why is it seen as weak when politicians do the same?

[somabc]

btw i've not read anything about David davis standing as an independent, somabc, i think he'll stand as a tory.

 

 

So lets see he was the elected Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden and he has resigned to stand as the Conservative MP for Haltemprice and Howden. Is every MP going to do that from now on? Does anyone see a problem with that? Its not how our political system works! Would you resign your job and immediately reapply for it on the same terms? If he does not stand as an independent he is really taking the p***

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2118091/David-Davis's-42-day-detention-resignation-'may-backfire'.html

Edited March 20, 2010 by witch

[torledo]

i think there's a difference between listening and making knee-jerk reactions....the latter is what brown seems to be doing.

 

here's an angle on the DUP and the whole question of 42 days as a vote of conscience....in that it wasn't. Labour MP's were rebels because they went against the party whip....this wasn't one of those situations were MP's were allowed a free vote.

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/may/42daydetentiondup.htm

[somabc]

I think we should have a rule such that, if an MP resigns their seat then they cannot run for that seat again.

[mattx]

We only need to look at this current Gov to see "a massive waste of taxpayers money".

 

Why just this gov ? The Tories did the same back when they were in power. After they sold the family silver [ British industries ] they had to borrow more which caused massive un-employment and boom and bust economics.

This gov, past and future ones will all do the same as I'm afriad the pratts we end up voting in to run this county are nothing more than failed manager types who have lost touch with the common person. And at the end of they day its the 'common person' who keep this country going !!

MPs are just talk, talk and talk and NO action. [ Apart from a VERY select view ]

[mattx]

And what is wrong with the DUP voting with the government?

 

Just a reminder to all that when Major was PM - [ Remember him, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer who advised Maggie to enter the ERM which caused black Wednesday on the 16th September 1992 - so when you harp on about current gov wasting tax payers money - Major managed to waste 3.5 BILLION - yep you heard correct, 3.5 BILLION in ONE day !! ]

The Ulster Unionists voted with the Tories as Major at one stage had a majoity of 1.

[mattx]

I think we should have a rule such that, if an MP resigns their seat then they cannot run for that seat again.

 

I think we should have a rule that NO party is allowed more than 2 terms in office.

 

And as for the 42 day law, I seriously think that many MPs have not heard of the Charter of Liberties or the Magna Carta. Quite disturbing.

 

And whilst I am on my MP bashing hour, can someone tell me why MPs want us to have ID cards etc, and also be able to hold people without charge for 42 days [ which will NEVER get through the house of Lords ] but they don't want the general public - [ the likes of you and me who vote for them & pay for them ] to look at their general expenses ? They did in fact try to pass a law exempting themselves from the freedom of information act.

Again, is it me or is that quite disturbing ?

Edited June 12, 2008 by mattx

[Diello]

I seriously think that many MPs have not heard of the Charter of Liberties or the Magna Carta. Quite disturbing.

 

All written before modern day terrorism. Desperate time, desperate measures, and all that. The problem is, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they didn't make harsh measures, and that resulted in another attack, they'd be accused of being soft and not wanting to rock the civil liberties brigade.

[mattx]

All written before modern day terrorism. Desperate time, desperate measures, and all that. The problem is, they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they didn't make harsh measures, and that resulted in another attack, they'd be accused of being soft and not wanting to rock the civil liberties brigade.

 

Modern day terrorism is just a propaganda weapon all govs use to get an element of control over the people of a country.

All modern day Govs hype terror for fun, profit - and power.

Money, power and the combined power of mega corporations [ energy, military industry and contractors, pharmacuticals, etc ] and the politicians owned by them to literally control public perception through the media which it also owns is allowing our constitution, our founding principles, and possibly our very futures to be destroyed.

[cookie_monster]

I think we should have a rule that NO party is allowed more than 2 terms in office.

 

No I think that’s silly look at America, there has been many cases where they have wanted the current administration to carry on but they can't. If the public want the current government to stay then they should be allowed to.

 

 

 

Major managed to waste 3.5 BILLION - yep you heard correct, 3.5 BILLION in ONE day !!

 

Pocket change compared to the current war 'effort', he tried to accelerate the end game of getting Britain into Europe but it didn't work out. It could of gone the other way and he would of been revered (possibly not for the right reason).

 

 

As for the 42 day bit, as far as i've read MI5 say they haven't asked for this so why are the government pushing so hard?