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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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