The shrewd counter-move for Labour, speaking purely from a position of political strategy, would be to dismiss it as a stunt, say that he's demeaning/trivialising the electoral process, and refuse to put up a candidate.
I imagine his motives are internal party politics, but the banner he has chosen to make a stand under is a liegitimate one.
I think it's quite possibly both; even Tories can take a principled stand, and if that happens to advance his own position, win-win. Which is why I'm aghast, because I regard Cameron as the lesser of two people-I-really-don't-want-in-No.-10.
And yes, I'd just about come round to "don't fight the by-election" myself. I fear they won't have the nerve.
They were already doing that an hour or so after the speech, or at least one MP was doing so in a manner that suggested to me it was a put-up job.
I think his motive is at least partly genuine principle-of-the-thing - I get the impression this is an issue he feels strongly about, and there's a significant chunk of the Tory electorate who will be all for banging up those dirty terrorists without trial, the innocent have nothing to fear, yadda yadda.
Nasty situation for the Labour candidate, because who in their senses is going to want to fight a by-election defending 42 days?
But the Prime Minister keeps telling us how popular it is! Surely a golden opportunity for a bold and principled socialist to defeat a bleeding-heart, soft-on-terror quisling.
The awful truth is that a significant portion of the electorate are to the right of David Davis. I don't think they'd actually go as far as not voting him back in, though.
But IIRC, YouGov polls have shown that a majority of the electorate actually want the 42-day limit. So it seems a dicy issue for him to fight on, if that's really what he is doing (and not just making a leadership bid). Furthermore, constituencies are notoriously averse to being called out to vote for what may seem to them, if those polls are true, insufficient reason. Furtherfurthermore, if as I heard rumoured, the LibDems nationally are telling their local party not to stand against him, they are risking an enormous raspberry from said locals (and again, possibly, from the electorate, who tend to get iffy about team orders).
I doubt Cameron wanted this. Why, in any case, do it now - since we all know it's liable to be stopped by the Lords and if not by them, by Europe?
Nick Robinson's blog supplies me with this nugget: "George Lansbury, 1912: The Labour MP for Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley resigned to fight a by-election on a platform of votes for women. The Labour Party disapproved of his resignation and Lansbury lost the contest to the Conservative candidate by 731 votes."
A significant portion of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are in favour of 42 days. While Davies was always opposed to it on principle, many of his colleagues only went along with him for the prospect of inflicting a high-profile defeat on the Government. It is open to question whether the Conservative Lords would solidly oppose it.
Which is at least one good reason for Davies making this move: he makes it harder for the Tories to backslide on the issue.
Could Labour stop him resigning? Isn't there that stuff about you can only resign if you take a paid Crown post etc, and you need the chancellor of the excheq to rubber stamp it ?
Just think how many lines you'd have to do in a six-week detention, though.
Loving the idea that people can be arrested detained before committing their criminal acts. Just think how many people won't be stabbed to death on their doorsteps now.
Wait, didn't this happen in a Tom Cruise film? I can't recall how it worked out, but I seem to think "not great" was the answer.
Me, I'm watching political developments with a slight nervousness because there's a bill going through (with all party support) which I want to pass. This complicates my feelings no end!
Wait, you mean there's a *limit* on how long you can detain suspected terrorists? As in, it is possible to do something illegal to suspected terrorists? Really?
I guess it's possible even over here. How novel. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo)
And in other good political news, though of the unlikely-to-bear-fruit sort: Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Bush. (http://www.truthout.org/article/kucinich-introduces-impeachment-articles-against-bush) I don't believe I've seen mainstream press coverage of this yet...
I did catch the "Al-qaeda documents left on train" headline and shook my head in awe. What is it with civil servants leaving social security data on laptops in cars to be stolen or forgetting security documents on trains?
The BNP isn't putting a candidate against him because they agree with him? Did I read that right? I'd have thought they'd be all for locking up Asians....
Just think: eventually a law will be passed allowing indefinite detention from the moment of birth. Then everyone will be locked away in solitary confinement for their entire existence, and Perfect Safety will at last be achieved!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Nasty situation for the Labour candidate, because who in their senses is going to want to fight a by-election defending 42 days?
no subject
who in their senses is going to want to fight a by-election defending 42 days?
Well, they could always ask Anne Widdecombe.
no subject
I imagine his motives are internal party politics, but the banner he has chosen to make a stand under is a liegitimate one.
no subject
And yes, I'd just about come round to "don't fight the by-election" myself. I fear they won't have the nerve.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I think his motive is at least partly genuine principle-of-the-thing - I get the impression this is an issue he feels strongly about, and there's a significant chunk of the Tory electorate who will be all for banging up those dirty terrorists without trial, the innocent have nothing to fear, yadda yadda.
no subject
But the Prime Minister keeps telling us how popular it is! Surely a golden opportunity for a bold and principled socialist to defeat a bleeding-heart, soft-on-terror quisling.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I doubt Cameron wanted this. Why, in any case, do it now - since we all know it's liable to be stopped by the Lords and if not by them, by Europe?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
You would think so, but...
A significant portion of the Parliamentary Conservative Party are in favour of 42 days. While Davies was always opposed to it on principle, many of his colleagues only went along with him for the prospect of inflicting a high-profile defeat on the Government. It is open to question whether the Conservative Lords would solidly oppose it.
Which is at least one good reason for Davies making this move: he makes it harder for the Tories to backslide on the issue.
no subject
Just think how many lines you'd have to do in a six-week detention, though.
no subject
I MUST NOT THINK FREELY. I MUST NOT THINK FREELY. I MUST NOT THINK.
no subject
In theory, yes; as you have said, an appointment to the Chiltern Hundreds has to be authorised by the Chancellor.
(Beano Johnson went to the Other Place).
no subject
arresteddetained before committing their criminal acts. Just think how many people won't be stabbed to death on their doorsteps now.Wait, didn't this happen in a Tom Cruise film? I can't recall how it worked out, but I seem to think "not great" was the answer.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Me, I'm watching political developments with a slight nervousness because there's a bill going through (with all party support) which I want to pass. This complicates my feelings no end!
Whoa, stop press!
(Anonymous) 2008-06-12 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)I guess it's possible even over here. How novel. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080612/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guantanamo)
And in other good political news, though of the unlikely-to-bear-fruit sort: Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Bush. (http://www.truthout.org/article/kucinich-introduces-impeachment-articles-against-bush) I don't believe I've seen mainstream press coverage of this yet...
I did catch the "Al-qaeda documents left on train" headline and shook my head in awe. What is it with civil servants leaving social security data on laptops in cars to be stolen or forgetting security documents on trains?
Dwim
Re: Whoa, stop press!
Interesting idea, isn't it?
I only heard about the Kucinich story through my friends list here on LJ.
What is it with civil servants leaving social security data on laptops in cars to be stolen or forgetting security documents on trains?
I suspect there are problems of motivation within the civil service.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject