If I were a Labour strategist, I’d be advising the government to say something like….
“This ludicrous publicity stunt is designed to change nothing except David Davis’s media profile.
“It shows that once again the Conservative party puts news headlines before the serious debate on national security. To indulge Mr Davis’s desire for publicity would be utterly pointless.
“If Mr Davis wants to have a serious debate about national security then he had every platform as Shadow Home secretary to initiate one.
“If David Cameron and his party wish to make their National security policy central to their election campaign, we invite them to do so.
“We welcome any serious debates on this matter but Mr Davis has decided to turn this issue into a political campaign stunt that can achieve precisely nothing. We will not waste our members effort, money or time on this sort of shallow self serving attention seeking.
“The people of Haltemprice and Howden have elected Conservative MPs for generations. If they now believe that an unnecessary by-election is a waste of time and money, we agree with them.
“The truth is David Davis doesn’t get to decide on what basis any election is fought, the voters in Haltemprice and Howden do.
“He has caused an election that is neither needed or wanted by his constituents. They now have the chance to choose an MP who puts their needs, not his own grandstanding first.
“If the people of Haltemprice and Howden want to elect an MP who puts them first, not their own self importance, many of our members will support them.
“If the people of Haltemprice and Howden want to elect an MP who put national security before publicity, many in the country will support them.
“This election will be expensive, time consuming and ultimately pointless. Mr Davis had the choice to represent his constituents or turn a row with his shadow cabinet colleagues into a media circus. He chose the latter. The people of Haltemprice and Howden will make their own minds up about that. We will let them do so in peace”
27 Comments
June 12, 2008 at 1:13 pm
That’s what I’d have done in your place also.
But I still wouldn’t have been able to look myself in the mirror or sleep knowing I had set up the legislative framework for future oppression and traded 800 years of English freedoms for narrow party advantage.
Its probably good news for your side as it gets Gordon out of the media cycle on the bribes required to get Parliament to sell out our freedoms. (Grinning DUP MPs arriving at the airport in NI rather undermine Gordon’s untruth de jour ).
I wonder which group of people will be the first unsuspecting victims of this ? It was a Labour party activist with the last load of terror legislation.
June 12, 2008 at 1:45 pm
‘Man in a shed’ is a touch more provocative than I Hopi but manners and circumstance demand you at least address his point.
I agree that this is a stunt designed to further the aims of the Tories as much as make any points about the erosion of liberties. But hey, they’re in opposition and New Labour certainly weren’t beyond similar antics in the mid-90’s – that’s politics.
The more serious charge is the one you’re ignoring – the government losing arguments but winning votes by virtue of backroom deals. Today the Tories look a little silly, shallow and opportunistic. The government look duplicitous, authoritarian and scared. I know which camp I’d rather be in ….
June 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Have you got the bollocks to express your own view, if any, on 42 days? I know, and have stated, what I think.
June 12, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Politics is about gestures and the suggestion that anyone can too New Labour for obsessive news management will not survive a glance at the massive spin wageroll which you are on. I somewhat agree that David Davies had a platform for a serious debate but then as the Labor Party is too busy debating English taxpayers subsidizing N Ireland in return for Brown’s premiership he has no-one to have it with.
National security is subject about which New Labour care not one iota .If they did they would not have presided over the Islamicisation of our country in the first place . They have not demonstrated that 42 days internment is required and your remarks about waste are somewhat undermined by the various Labour MP`s who have admitted that Labour wasted billions. ID cards is a good case in point
We will let them do so in peace.
Of course you will. You ran from the election , you hid from the referendum , you bribed your way to this travesty and you have become a Party with no further purpose .
June 12, 2008 at 2:58 pm
[...] might be a publicity stunt, hopisen, but it’s one that we need with this nasty [...]
June 12, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“National security is subject about which New Labour care not one iota .If they did they would not have presided over the Islamicisation of our country in the first place .”
Not going to let you get away with that one without explaining yourself.
What do you mean by “the Islamicisation of our country”?
Has Islam replaced Christianity as the state religion? Are there more Muslims in the House of Lords than Christians? Were there more people who described themselves nominally as Muslim than Christian in the last census? Are there more Muslim schools than Christian schools (or even more new Muslim schools than new Christian schools)?
Given that the answer to all these questions is “no”, I’d love to hear your rationale. Seriously. Go for it.
June 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm
[...] by David Davis’ stance while Unity is less so. Hopi has some media management advice for the government. Iain Dale thinks the dust has settled. | Trackback link | Add to [...]
June 12, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Indeed, tim f. It was exactly that “Islamicisation of our country” jibe that prompted me to scroll on by to the next comment. Well done, newmania!
June 12, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“the Islamicisation of our country”?
I mean that unrestricted and uncontrolled mass immigration ,often illegal , ( 4 x 97 levels )has altered the make up of the population most conspicuously by the concerntrations of sealed Muslim communities from which the bombers come. Yes I appreciate that the English are the largest ethnic group in most places but in London, for example , that is changing fast.
Labour do not care , this is not a country to them , it is a car park and anyone who has expressed any concern at this leap into the dark has been called a racist.
Now we have to be thrown inside by the state if we look funny so they can keep a lid in it , not that 42 days makes the slightest difference. Good job the Police never make a mistake isn`t it ,,,…..
Its about time someone said “Ils ne passeront pas” to this contol obsessed administration , not just on 42 days but on the insidious encroachment onto private space in so many ways . Now is as good a time as any for free England to unite against the Brownite authoritarians.
If Labour are going to skulk away and refuse to make their case in the open , then it will be another act of cowardice from this spineless useless fag end or worm people.
June 12, 2008 at 5:02 pm
You are a blithering idiot.
Do you not see the inconsistency in saying that the government is “control-obsessed” but has allowed “uncontrolled” immigration?
Immigration controls are now harsher than they’ve ever been in this country.
At any rate, immigration is clearly not the same thing as Islamicisation. The largest national grouping of “illegal” immigrants are Australians, not famed for their adherence to Islamic beliefs. Over 90% of Britain is white. In the whole country, there are only a couple of areas of London that are not white-majority.
You seem to be suggesting that a rise in the percentage of the population who are Muslims from “not very many” to “a few more but still not very many” constitutes “Islamicisation”. That is moronic.
June 12, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Asquith,
I find your language uncouth! On your point if you assume that on any subject which I don’t express an opinion I agree with the government, then you won’t go far wrong. It’s certainly the case here.
As for newmania’s and shed’s points – as far as I can discern them- they basically seem to amount to ‘you’re wrong so you should be ashamed of yourself so you can’t comment on this stunt’ – sorry but but this is ridiculous – 42 days is not the end of magna carta any more than the gerry adams tv ban was. I happen to think detaining suspected terrorists for a maximum of six weeks with judicial and parliamentary scrutiny is a pretty reasonable step. If david davis wants to disagree fair enough that’s his right – but since he was shadow home secretary, why resign to do so? The whole thing is as over thr top as this whole debate.
June 12, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Tried to comment more, but blackberry gave out.
For those who appear to believe that this destroys magna carta, 800 years of liberty and so on..
Can I ask what part of magna carta is being overturned? The bit about fish weirs, or the bit about the jews?
By the way a lot of magna carta was repealed in the 1870’s. Damn victorians trampling over our ancient liberties.
For those who believe that this is the grossest invasion of privacy ever, please explain how it’s more draconian than churchill, heath etc.
Look, I believe detaining suspected terrorists for six weeks is serious.that’s why you need judicial and parly scrutiny. But churchill detained 27000 people and sadly, sometimes it’s needed – so some perapective is important – what the government has proposed is a reaction to a pretty serious threat. The hysterical response of davis strikes me as ludicrous
June 12, 2008 at 7:47 pm
If you’re seriously comparing WW2 with now, you’ve just lost my respect big time.
June 12, 2008 at 8:31 pm
So, Davis has resigned. He’s called a hissy-fit by-election – the first in history apparently. Yes – this is an unprecedentedly vain and hollow piece of political bravado. It is historic. No one wants to fight him (who can blame them? he’s former SAS), no one understands why he has to fight a by-election to demonstrate his fondness for civil liberties; but he’s going to damn well do it anyway. No one – not Gordon Brown, not the Murdoch press, not hundreds of years of accepted Parliamentary practice, not common sense, not even David Cameron – is going to stop him.
Just think, though: what if they all start doing it? What if he’s just the first Tory MP to have this particular eureka moment? We’re all vulnerable to crazes, fads and bubbles. Imagine a Parliament in which the Conservative Party has done the decent thing and resolved to act as the kamikaze party… The remaining Parliamentarians appreciate the increased elbow space at the bars; there is a fire sale of Tory offices; Labour MPs stretch out in the Chamber, taking to sitting on both sides of the Speaker’s Chair; a wonderful spirit of bonhomie and harmony descends on the House of Commons. Without the Conservatives, MPs finally get round to doing all of the things that they had always been meaning to do, but had never been able to find the time for. A fair tax system is introduced. Child poverty is abolished. Comprehensive environmental legislation is passed. Nuclear disarmament begins. All of a sudden no one can remember why they used to think governing Britain was such a tricky business…
It could happen. If we want it bad enough it just might happen.
Read about Davis at greater length in my blog, just who the hell are we?, at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/
June 13, 2008 at 12:28 am
Septic isle – obviously I’m not comparing world war two to now. I’m pointing out that those who claim that the current proposals are the end of 800 years of english liberty are talking out of rear. The governments porposals might be wrong on many levels – and there are very good arguments to disagree with the government – but the the 800 years argument that seems to be pravalent on this thread is as silly as mr davis’s strop.
June 13, 2008 at 12:57 am
The thing is hopi sen, the govt doesn’t have ANY credibility to even pull this off. Gordon Brown goes on the record to say people shouldn’t panic biy petrol, and the next thing there are bigger queues!
If the govt had any credibility, then yes. But right now, its the Tories who look like they have the balls. I thought Davis’ speech was quite good myself. Brown doesn’t have the charisma to publically rebuke him and win the argument. And a press release won’t get far.
June 13, 2008 at 1:40 am
Look,( gentle eyes imploring hands ) I believe detaining suspected terrorists for six weeks is serious, that’s why you need judicial and parly scrutiny.
Hopi this scrutiny will take place when , they are say they are too rushed with other important things to make their case. If that is the position Parliament will just be relying on what the Police say .It’s a rubber stamp .
But churchill detained 27000 people..(adopts mockney to denote monet of levity)
…and order the death of millions eeerm shum problem wiv this analogy perhaps ?
and sadly, sometimes it’s needed – so some perapective is important – what the government has proposed is a reaction to a pretty serious threat.( Look mate eyes ) The hysterical response of davis strikes me as ludicrous
What perspective ? Do we have weapons of mass destruction aimed at us and primed to strike in minutes eh….shall we ask for the dossier ? Grow up Hopi the Police always want more power and so do New Labour , you try getting their grubby mitts off it once they have it . This was no more than manoeuvre to be right of the Conservative Party and latterly a scramble for survival. That explains the astonishing debasement of Parliament we have seen by this near lunatic Prime minister whose festering obsessive personality is a good deal more scary than the non chance of being blown up.
I kind of agree with you that Davies was acting with mixed motives ( well he was) but , as he has directed himself at the issue of state control I am glad of the outcome .I also agree that it is conceivable that there might be a reason for suspending civil Liberties I cannot see any earthly justification for it now . Sunny is right its matter of trust Now can you tell me that you really trust this government in properly representing the nature and scale of threat and prescribing measures accordingly ? WMD
Kelly…Sexed up….These are clue words for you to ponder containing a secret meaning about trustworthiness.
You borrow the well worn sneers about the Magna Carta and habeus corpus but you miss the point . The cumulative effect of ID cards , surveillance , state micro interference and high taxes have altered a balance . As an Englishman I used to be able to say and do what I liked , now I am allowed freedom only by the tolerance of the parent state. In other words we have gone back to something like serfdom. This is not a literal statement of course but a description of the relations between the state and the man drawing on history. Wartime is irrelevant and I am saddened that you are so barbarically obtuse in your response.
How much did it cost Hopi ? Dianne Abbot said Paisley and co were in negotiations all day . What was Brown doing , “Telling them about the dangers of Terrorism” ? Ha ha fucking ha . We`ll just add whatever it was to the billions already spent on Brown .
Davies is a side show here really , what we are seeing is a vicious desperation to hold power whatever it takes it is ugly and frightening to behold .
June 13, 2008 at 9:14 am
Out of interest newmania, I’m wondering why you bother coming on to this blog? I don’t mean that as an insult, but you disagree with everything written on it, so why checking it nearly every day?
June 13, 2008 at 9:17 am
Its not just about Magna Carta and 42 days.
Davis has an arguable point about the authoritarian direction of law over the last 20 years. He should know, he has been part of it. Society as a whole may go against him and his convictions as has happened before in errm Russia, China, Germany, Italy, Spain, Mozambique, Kenya…..the list goes on and on and on of populations that have been sleepwalked, beguiled or strong-armed into an authoritarian police state.
He may even be wrong and we still live in a benign liberal democracy. If “the people” want to live under authoritarian laws, OK that’s democracy but to make a very overstretched analogy, we are on the slipway and the bottle of champagne is in the Queens hand. This is just about the last chance to decide if we want to launch the ship.
What can happen when the rule of law and due process are used by authoritarians in a liberal democracy? Hmm lets see
Organised labour finds itself legislated against to reduce its potency.
Unpleasant but legal private activities are made subject of criminal Anti Social Behaviour Orders
Detention without charge for 6 weeks is proposed.
Inconvenient public protest has been severely restricted.
The State has collected under duress and retained the DNA of many, many innocent persons.
The State begins to collect large amounts of personal data on individuals (to be fair, that’s been going on since Doomsday, it was about tax then….well draw your own conclusions)
Proposals are brought forward for an end to the right to jury trial in certain cases.
Defendants are denied the right to confront their accusers.
The right to silence is eroded.
Personal communication data is collected and retained.
New offences are created that act to stifle debate on race, religion and sexuality.
I will save time in compiling an exhaustive list and suggest you visit the Liberty home page which has a fairly exhaustive list.
Now is as good a time as any to have a quality debate on the issue of what we want the State to be able to do and what areas (if any) we wish the State to roll back from. If the Davis campaign does nothing else, I would hope that it enables this debate and is not sidelined into sterile political counter-blasts on the narrow issues of detention and Magna Carta.
Roll on the next news cycle.
June 13, 2008 at 9:22 am
Hopi, 42 days was a stunt – a spectacularly stupid stunt that has now gone horrendously wrong for the government. It was designed to show them as “tough on terror” and they’ve only won as a result of what can only be called a very shady deal with the DUP. I know Gordon Brown has denied that there is a deal – but as everyone is quoting Yes Minister at the moment, I’ll add “Never Believe Anything Until It’s Been Officially Denied.” Right now, in any case, Gordon Brown is so dishonest and weaselly that I wouldn’t believe him if he said that rain was wet.
The reality is that Labour are now in a cleft stick. If they do not fight in Howden, then they are accused of cowardice and of running away from the argument – again (last October being the first). If they do fight, they will unquestionably lose (as has been noted, David Davis is fighting about the safest seat imaginable) and then the Lords will be emboldened to block the bill and disallow the Parliament Act – which, over fox-hunting (remember that?) was ruled not to apply to constitutional changes or to non-manifesto legislation.
Davis looks set to have completely outmanoeuvered Labour and made their serious splits on this issue headline news throughout the summer. And while there may be public support for 42 days detention – although it’s funny I’ve not met anybody who will admit to supporting it – I would remind you that everyone hates an openly divided party – still more one that is in complete denial of its problems. I know you’re a Labour supporter, but do wake up and listen here!!!
June 13, 2008 at 9:24 am
Sunny-
Oh, I don’t think Gordon Brown needs to do any more than repeat that everyone else in Westminster knows is true: that this is a stunt, that Cameron hates this happening, that Davis was frustrated and angry about the “tactical” tory response to 42 days and basically lost it with his leader and this is a childish and unescescary stunt which could well turn into a circus and will distract not add to a serious debate about national security.
June 13, 2008 at 9:47 am
Welshman- I think you’re confusing what you’d like to happen with what will actually happen. I think the scenario you describe is what David Davis would like to happen. The headlines today should disabuse you of the notion of that being what will happen.
There is no pressure on Labour to fight this by-election from the media, because the Lib Dems aren’t fighting it and the Conservatives aren’t officially fighting it. Also, we can quite rightly say that if the Conservatives wanted to make this the biggest political issue of the day, they can just do it politically, not by David Davis heading off on a solo suicide mission.
June 13, 2008 at 10:00 am
You’ve clearly not seen Paul Linford (http://paullinford.blogspot.com/2008/06/labour-should-stand-and-fight.html) then, Hopi – he agrees with me that Labour will look a bit stupid if they don’t field a candidate, particularly as there is a lot for them to gain from it. Don’t you agree that it’ll look dreadful if Kelvin MacKenzie of “Mine Fuhrer” fame stands up for your policies and you don’t? You’ve also clearly not paid attention to the press – the Conservatives ARE fighting this election, David Davis will be an official candidate for them.
The brutal fact is that if Labour funk this by-election on an issue that they have portrayed as so important it will still play into the Tory narrative of Brown being a weak and indecisive coward who has contempt for the electorate – for all that there will be some fall-out for them as well. From that point of view, I think you are the one who is confusing what you would like to happen with what will happen.
Much more seriously, it already looks bad with the public at large. Don’t worry about the media – worry about the voters. Stunt or not, Davis has managed to portray himself as a man of principle (whether justified or not) and in this age of cynicism with both politicians and the press, that’s going down well.
June 13, 2008 at 10:26 am
I love Paul to bits, but I’m afraid his blog doesn’t outweigh the front page of most national newspapers – at least not yet.
You seem to beleive that putting up a candidate to against David Davis is a matter of principle. it isn’t. It’s not as if the people of the country don’t know what the government is trying to do or that David Davis wasn’t in a position to debate this position before he resigned. This by-election is a stunt and why should we play along?
Look at it this way. If Neil Kinnock had resigned from parliament in 1981 to fight a by-election in the valleys on unemployment “on a point of principle”, – and challenged the Tories to run against him – would you think Margaret Thatcher would have taken it seriously?
June 13, 2008 at 10:38 am
No Hopi, I believe it’s a matter of necessity, not principle. Look at it this way – Gordon Brown has invested huge political capital, and not only political if all the stories are to be believed, in passing this policy, claimed huge public support – and then, given a chance to fight on a straight issue of this law, he ducks it? How does that look?
42 days, as I have said before, was a stunt anyway – did that mean the Opposition shouldn’t have played along with it? Would that have stopped it, or made any difference to the outcome?
Put it another way – are you really willing to allow a nutter like Kelvin Mackenzie to fight your battles for you? You suggest not. Well, the solution is simple. Field a candidate!!!
And incidentally, that bit about unemployment is meaningless – this is on a point of law – unemployment is a point of economics. Parliament makes laws (at the moment it’s making some shocking ones) but it’s not solely – I stress that word – responsible for economics.
In any case, unemployment in 1981 was comparatively low (lower than now on some estimates). Civil liberties are being badly eroded, right now, by the diktat of a desperate man trying to shore up his position, and everyone I know wants these tendencies checked.
June 13, 2008 at 7:51 pm
‘Ere ‘alf Breed
This Welshman supports 42 days, with proper safegards. If the chattering classes dont like this I am happy to drop the juducial safeguards.
GW
September 8, 2008 at 1:08 pm
[...] how this is bad news for David Cameron. That’s also spilled over into certain bloggers, like Mr. Hopi Sen, who was also unhappy with my own take on the affair in his comments. The senior Labour figures [...]