What have 'toffs' got to do with it?

It's not democratic because he's resigned to fight his own safe seat and he's already got his main opponents (the Lib Dems) to withdraw.

Are you a Tory presumably?

[ Parent ]

There is a good reason why we don't make decisions issue-by-issue, by Plebiscite.  Because when looked at in abstraction voters can come to inconsistent and mutually exclusive positions (not unlike David Davis!) - eg. if you ask whether our fundamental liberties and freedoms need protecting they will tend to say yes.  But if you ask whether people found guilty of heinous crimes should suffer the death penalty, a majority would also be in favour.  But what if there was a miscarriage of justice?!  Surely that would be worse than an innocent man sitting in jail for 42 days, however traumatic that might be. 

Parliament - which has a responsibility to look at the whole picture and not individual measures in isolation - is the body that we elect to make such decisions.  This single-constituency referendum is a stunt because  yoters in Davis's seat aren't representative of the nation as a whole, they aren't 'typical' etc.  For example, they all live miles from any likely target of terrorist attack.  [b]All[/b] voters will have a chance to excercise their judgement at the next general election, and will have to balance the significance of 42 days in the context of the whole performance of the government. 

[ Parent ]

The point though, Doktor, is that Labour AREN'T pro.  We have a PPC for that seat.  I'm given to understand that he is opposed to 42 days.  Along with most other Labour members.

I say we either fight it with the selected PPC (there would be no justification for having a different candidate) - and in doing that we would move the fight into different areas entirely as both candidates would be anti 42 days - or we say 'this is a silly stunt and we're having nothing to do with it.'  Whichever we do we should do it quickly. 

[ Parent ]

Because that case is for the whole country to decide - not for just a few thousand voters somewhere south of Hull!

[ Parent ]

From what I've seen, most people in his constituency are completely bemused as to why they're being asked to vote for their MP again when there's no reason to do so.
Have you got some sort of kamikaze death wish for the Labour party here?!

[ Parent ]

I'm interested in the first point.  Can you give me any examples?  I'm intrigued why they would have done that (from a purely academic perspective) and which era it was.  I've never come across an example of that (other than where they were 'elevated' to the Lords).

[ Parent ]

Oratorhunt

I am completely opposed to the death penalty and disagree with much that David Davis advocates as a right-wing Tory. However, on the issue of 42 days and the relentless erosion of civil liberties he outlined I am completely behind him. I think he has done something principled and audacious. His party leadership do not like it any more than ours. But I think, on this issue, he is right.

If the Labour leadership, who have created this apalling legislation and forced it through parliament in a shabby way, do not have the guts to have it defended at a byelection then I think it reflects very badly on them indeed. (And if our PPC is opposed to the 42 days legislation as well then that is fair enough).

You know as well as I do that, ordinarily, whatever kind of seat it is, safe Tory, safe Liberal, or marginal, we would fight it. Not to do so smells of political cowardice and all will see that.

You say the dice are loaded, which is true, but a swing to Labour with a pro-42 days Labour candidate would provide some vindication for Brown's position. The line that Davis is already taking, that Brown is avoiding elections is a disastrous one for us because it has a horrible ring of truth about it. Brown has created this mess almost single-handedly.

For me personally, the 42 days issue, like Iraq, is of such importance that it cuts across narrow party-political allegiances which is why I support Davis in this very particular case. And although it is not comfortable to support a right-wing Tory, especially one who supports the death penalty, I believe it would be a good thing to have an eloquent opponent of the 42 days legislation back at Westminster because this is legislation that very much needs to be consigned to the dustbin. Don't forget, he has already apparently consolidated the Tory commitment to repeal the legislation if they are in government.

I will campaign at the General Election for the return of a Labour Government as I have done throughout my adult life. But, on this occasion, and on an issue of supreme importance, Davis is right. I believe that the public will begin to see that too. I also believe that Bob Marshall-Andrews, other prominent Labour figures, and those from other parties, or from Liberty, who back Davis in this instance are correct.

My ambition is for Labour to change tack and ditch these awful authoritarian positions, which make me sick to my stomach, and which obscure all the good things that we are doing.

[ Parent ]

I think it is wrong to dismiss this by-election as a "stunt" for two reasons:

1. The issue raised of 42 days and civil liberties is far too serious to be dismissed cheaply in this way.

2. You yourself suggest that Davis will be returned to parliament in a weaker position, so rather than a "stunt" it is a considerable sacrifice (unless you think he is so stupid that he could not forsee any adverse consequence).

I am surprised that the issue of "taxpayer's money" keeps cropping up (a real Tory concept if ever there was one - as if only those who pay tax own the state and have the right to decide spending - "public money" might be better?). Weighed against the state imprisoning people without charge for 42 days and overturning 800 years of habeas corpus I would have thought this was a minor issue. It seems that the price we might place on liberty is the cost of a byelection...

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]