David Davis, Conservatives and Hypocrisy

David Davis and the Conservative blogosphere have made much of how they hate CCTV and the DNA database - conveniently forgetting that these things were introduced by the last Conservative government.

David Cameron used to be a special advisor to Michael Howard when Howard was Home Secretary under the last Conservative government. In this 2002 biography of Cameron, it boasts that

[Cameron] helped to devise the scheme which has delivered thousands of CCTV cameras to towns across Britain.
 
So now we know whom to thank for the introduction of CCTV into British towns and cities - the leader of the opposition!  David Davis was a member of parliament at this point (he was first elected in 1987) - so if he objected to CCTV, why didn't he go to the Home Office, take Cameron by the lapels, give him a shake and tell him in no uncertain terms that he objected? Why didn't he voice his objections to the then Home Secretary Michael Howard?

The Conservative manifesto of 1997 was also explicit:

* Closed circuit television has proved enormously successful in increasing public safety.

We will fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge to support the installation of 10,000 CCTV cameras in town centres and public places in the 3 years to 1999. We will provide £75 million over the lifetime of the next parliament to continue extending CCTV to town centres, villages and housing estates up and down the country that want to bid for support.

* Our national DNA database - the first in the world - now has over 112,000 samples on it. 3,300 matches have so far been made between suspects and crime stains.


David Davis ran for parliament on this manifesto in 1997, and the good burghers of  Haltemprice and Howden voted for him, presumably because they approved of all these things. Was Davis lying to them at the time by endorsing this manifesto?  

Then in 2005, the ID Card Bill was going through parliament. Michael Howard, the Conservatve leader at the time said, "The Party will give its support in principle at this stage"

The Bill went through the Commons on 224 votes to 64. Conservative MPs, including David Davis, who was Shadow Home Secretary at the time, did not vote against the bill.  Instead they abstained.  If he really felt so strongly against ID cards, why on earth didn't he vote against?

Davis has made much about detention without trial, grandly citing Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus in his resignation speech. But he was happy to ditch Habeas Corpus and vote in faviur of 28 day detention.

On almost all these points he has shown himself to be inconsistent and contradictory. One can't help feeling that the real reason he resigned is to upset David Cameron, fearless pioneer of CCTV!




Display: Sort:

More David Davis Hypocrisy (#1)

David Davis' blog, 16 June 2008: "And freedom of speech – the hallmark of any democracy – has been stifled by repressive laws. Peaceful protesters have been prosecuted for demonstrating outside Downing Street"

David Davis' votes, 7 February 2005: In favour of making unauthorized demonstrations illegal in the vicinity of Parliament.

Re: More David Davis Hypocrisy (#2)

Good point. If anyone knows any other anomalies in Davis' position, please post in the comments.

I have a feeling that Davis will be in fact fighting against himself in this election.

Re: David Davis, Conservatives and Hypocrisy (#3)

I'm afraid this is wishful thinking. Davis is not against DNA, CCTV, but against the excessive use of them. For example on DNA he is concerned about innocent people who have been acquited having their DNA data held for 100 years.  There are now over 5 million people on the DNA database, hence a "one in ten million chance" of a false match will have a 50% chance of matching a completly innocent person.


As for ID Cards, to abstain when your leader says you will give support in principle is as far as anyone can go without risking losing the whip.

Re: David Davis, Conservatives and Hypocrisy (#4)

The DNA database is exactly the same as when it was set up under Major. The 97 manifesto mentions 110,000 samples of which 3000 were matched - i.e. 3000 of the 110,000 were guilty. This is a similar ratio to that of fingerprints on the fingerprint database. <i>Anyone</i> who is a suspect is fingerprinted and their data kept in case they crop up later, regardless if they are innocent of the crime they were fingerprinted for. And this has been the case for decades.

Fingerprints are a unique biometric marker just as much as DNA is. No-one objects to the fingerprint database, so why object to the DNA database?

As for ID cards - you claim Davis would have lost the whip from the Conservatives if he had voted against. Incredible! 20 Labour MPs voted against ID cards and they didn't lose the whip. Some Labour MPs voted against 42 days and they haven't lost the whip. In fact Labour MPs keep rebelling over all sorts (this is the most rebellious governing party in UK history) and they haven't lost the whip.

Your defence of Davis is that the Conservative Party is so Nazi-like in it's discipline that he would have lost the whip just by voting with conscience and that he didn't have the guts to stand up to them. This doesn't say much for either Davis or the Conservatives.

Re: David Davis, Conservatives and Hypocrisy (#5)

You seem to require an explanation of the value of privacy from the most basic level...

One of the things about the tradition of English liberty (and I mean English specifically in an historical context) was the ability to go about your business untroubled by the state provided you did not break the law of the land. This included, incidentally, (and I think it is in Churchill's History of the English Speaking People) the right to travel under an alias. So that is one argument for not putting innocent people on DNA databases etc - basically, why should anyone know your own private business (including what lethal genes you might carry and what cancers you might die of).

Also, we leave a trail of DNA everywhere we go. Cross contamination is a perennial problem, and as has been pointed out - the more innocent people on a database the higher the possibility of false matches occuring by chance.

Maybe you would like us to have a chip inserted into us so that the state can know where we are at any moment - it might give useful information about our emotional state if it were sophisticated enough... at what point do you draw the line Snowflake5 - or don't you draw a line anywhere?

The other point is that information held by the state on the individual alters the power relations between the state and the individual - and it is a non-reciprocal relationship. We are transparent to the state, but the state is not completely transparent to us, and elements are very opaque. If we assume that the state is, and always will be benign, that might not be alarming - but is it intrinsically benign and will it remain so? No doubt you will scream paranoia. But it is only a few years since we were condemned for torturing prisoners in Northern Ireland by the European Court of Human Rights.

It may sound a cliche, but they say the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Re: David Davis, Conservatives and Hypocrisy (#6)

These arguments against the DNA database could have been made right from inception. So why didn't Davis make these points? Why did he actually run on a manifesto that promised to expand it? Was he lying to his constituents during the 1997 election?

The issue here is Davis' integrity and consistency. If he really was the defender of liberty he claims to be, he would have acted at the crucial points - protesting to Michael Howard about the DNA database in the mid 90's, voting against ID cards when the bill came to parliament, not voting in favour of banning demonstrations outside parliament.

But it seems that the man only discovered conscience when rumours started to spread parliament that Cameron had offered Nick Clegg the position of Home Secretary in the event of a Hung Parliament. All of a sudden Davis resigns etc etc.  Bah humbug! This is all about getting at Cameron, pure dirty politics, that's all!

Re: David Davis, Conservatives and Hypocrisy (#7)

Well, David Davis will have to defend himself - as he is more than capable of doing. But personally I think what he said in his resignation speech was right and, I suspect, inspiring to a lot of people outside the Westminster bubble.

I think Davis has not been my ideal libertarian in the past, but if he focuses attention on these important issues that is all to the good, and if he helps achieve the defeat or eventual repeal of the 42 days legislation I will cheer. This proposed legislation, from the party of which I am a member, is anathema to me, and I am sure, to many others in the party and in the country. Frankly it is a great shame that it falls to right-wing Conservatives to lead that opposition.