QFT: Step too far?

AngryVoter Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Hey folks, me again with my "Question From a Tory".

 As ever, don't mess around with "Hur hur Tory Troll" posts and stuff, I want people's opinions on this matter. Partially over Davis but also about a certain councillor...




http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2008/06/idea.html#links

So, putting this more to LabHome, than Luke.

Do you think trying to find an "independant" candidate supporting the 42 days who is a Terrorist attack victim perhaps taking things a step too far in the 42 days issue on which Davis is to solely fight his campaign?

We've all debated this 42 days issue here, and a number of people became a little more sceptical of the legislation when one considers terrorist attacks [and deaths] in comparison to the "day to day" of life [and death].

 Now, personally and having read up on David Davis, I realise that, yes it's a stunt, but it's not politically motivated. It's a personally motivated "stunt" on his principals in an issue he evidently feels genuinely and incredible passionate about.

Have we all really slipped that far into cynicism that we brand a man who finally decides to take a stand a loon? Egotistical? Mad? What happened to at least the grudging respect that the political divide used to have?

 



tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
QFT: Step too far? | 5 comments (5 topical)

Re: QFT: Step too far? (#1)

by otware on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:36:27 AM GMT

I think the Labour Party needs to distance itself from this kind of nonesense policy Finding a victim of 7/7 or whatever to run against Davis is just idiotic, it turns a by-election that should be trivialised to sideline Davis' and his personality stunt into something very bitter and nasty. Is the debate Labour really wants to encourage one where the Labour side is represented by some dubious populist? If that's the best Labour has to offer then stand aside and let Kelvin Mackenzie the 420-day champion (!) put the same nauseating message across.


Re: QFT: Step too far? (#2)

by ppbarrett on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM GMT

Agreed. If we put up an 'emotive' candidate, we're just buying into the cheap publicity game and come the election we'll be tarred with the same brush as the Tories.

 The best thing for us to do (I think, I'll gladly welcome corrections) is to not stand a candidate, not campaign in the area and allow Labour members to free vote, just so we can hopefully put this issue behind us, and perhaps get some wind in our sails as the Tories (hopefully) fight tooth and nail about libertarianism vs. authoritarianism.

Also, not campaigning (as opposed to just not standing) means that we don't have to have our party be as closely tied to the pr*ck that is Kelvin MacKenzie.


[ Parent ]

Re: QFT: Step too far? (#3)

by HOWLERMONKEY on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:19:55 PM GMT

He can still be personate and wrong.....

"Only a peasant could believe that stones fall from the sky, because there are no stones in the sky!"

Antione Lavoisier adsressng the French academy of science in 1769

.........................................................................
Metiorites accepted 1803
.........................................................................


Re: QFT: Step too far? (#4)

by TonyH on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:33:26 PM GMT

I think advocating this counter productive law in the first place was a step too far. I think using marketing to smear anyone who disagreed with this stupid law as "soft on terror" was another step further still. I think actively cajoling the craven and unwilling to vote for a measure they should disagree with was a chasm-leaping step further then that.

Finally, appalled and looking for anyway to forgive or contextualise the terrible anger and disgust I feel for the party leadershit - I see that he has turned to none other than the DUP - who should know better but, of course, don't - to pass this abomination...

...Angry voter how far "too far" is, is not measured in 'steps' anymore.

Mind you - I'm in no way fooled as to how the Conservatives arrived at their position. If they were entitled to any of the moral high ground they seek to occupy and are squawking about - they'd have pledged to repeal the law once in office. Needless to say - they haven't.


Re: QFT: Step too far? (#5)

by AngryVoter on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:28:04 PM GMT

"In his first announcement as the new Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve confirmed that the Conservatives will repeal 42 days pre-charge detention if it is passed."

- Conservativehome and Newsnight.

 "Mr Grieve said the Opposition was committed to repealing the present 42-day proposals if they became law and he denied there was any disagreement within the shadow cabinet."

-The Telegraph. 

 "Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, whom Mr Cameron has appointed as the new shadow home secretary, rubbished reports the Tory leadership was split on the issue of 42 days and pledged to repeal the measure if the party gained power."

- The BBC

Just to help correct that misconception, TonyHannon, most of these quotes are buried right in the depth of the articles, that are largely about David Davis. All the television media attention has been on Davis and the Tories [as the Tories actually like it right now] rather than the next Brown relaunch, which was supposed to happen this week with 42 days being passed.
 

Angry voter how far "too far" is, is not measured in 'steps' anymore.

I, sadly agree. It's a shame that our politics seem to still be mired from the footsoldiers when the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties are now getting back in touch with the electorate, Brown with his phone calls and Cameron with the "Cameron Direct" initiative. 

Mind, I feel this idea, coming from a Labour Councillor is as bad as the Tory Councillor who said that women on benefits who have children should be steralized. Asking, or actively looking, for someone who was a victim to mock Davis with is too far for me. But still. 


[ Parent ]

QFT: Step too far? | 5 comments (5 topical)