h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yeah Zagreb, well educated people like you may think that, most people in this country will be more excited by the thought of lower fuel taxes and not really bother much about Habeas Corpus, that's if they dont assume its a new goth metal band.


Sure its going to generate debate. Debate about Gordon Brown being unpopular. If anyone here thinks that Davies' seat is really in danger Id take *any* odds you care to offer that he wil keep his seat.

Davies' contempt or the electorate is much the same as any other politicians. What will his stand do...nothing. Its a calculated move to draw attention to something that would have been todays chip wrappers by now.

Fact is that despite having similar votes on detention people werent that bothered before and Davies didnt make the same stand then did he? He let the Law Lords *do* something. It just happens that rubbishing Brown in the polls between now and the next election is a better move than rubbishing Blair over much the same thing. The Tories know that Labour dont have another big hitter in the wings and so want us to see Brown in a bad light. Whereas before they were keener to rubbish Labour and their spin machine.

Politics and voting is about headlines and Davies is just grandstanding. He's int eh right, but that makes not one iota of diference to his real motives.

Most people don't give a stuff about habeas corpus.

Most people are idiots.

I actually watched the whole debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday. The first time I've sat down and watched Parliament at that length probably since the Iraq vote - five years ago?

First thing that struck me was quite how good it was (with reference to what Zagreb said about the lack of debate). Restored at least some of my faith in that aspect of the Parliamentary system, in fact: it was well-informed, logical, rigorous, there was no grandstanding or even much in the way of party politics going on. A proper discussion of the issues, points being batted back and forth reasonably, arguments being refined and tested on the hoof. Davies was especially good.

Second thing - I heard not one serious attempt to defend the government's position. It seemed to come down to the Home Secretary saying 'trust me' (and then absenting herself from the rest of the discussion)... oh, and a couple of people asking how opponents of the amendments to the bill would feel if someone released from detention after 28 days blew up their grannies on day 29 (this was rightly ridiculed as a serious argument).

Last thing - by my count, somewhere between 20 and 30 MPs sat through the whole thing. Out of 646. You had the usual suspects on Labour's backbenches, a number of what I would describe as Tory hardliners (people who'd be happy to lock nearly everybody up indefinitely if they heard a serious case made for it - this wasn't that), a strong Northern Irish and ex-services presence (who wanted to stress how disastrous internment had been in Ulster), a scattering of Lib Dems... The full spectrum in other words - and there they were, weirdly agreeing with each other. Getting less weirdly impassioned and even overtly angry about what they probably knew was going to happen.

So, at about ten to six, the place started filling up, the House divided and all the MPs Ming Campbell had just referred to as 'the noddies' trooped through the lobbies and did exactly what they had been told or had just been bribed to do, having, I imagine, not the faintest idea about any of it.

The noble representatives of most people.

Sickened me, frankly. I mean, I know full well that's how it works, especially when you've got a government as sickly as this one, but if you sit there for a couple of hours and listen to what this handful of people are saying, they may be egomaniacs, but some of them genuinely are principled egomaniacs, doing the job they're paid 60 grand a year to do. Made me think that if you don't sit through the debate, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. Made me wonder if the whole sorry spectacle didn't sicken Davies too.

I don't think 'stunt' and 'principled stand' are mutually exclusive. Has Davies banished all thought of political advancement and preening at this point? No. Is he serious about this issue as a genuinely important one, worth doing something downright bizarre to highlight? Yes.

Well said, Trin Tragula

Excellent post Trin.

Out of interest, were the impassioned Northern Irish MPs who spoke about internment the DUP?

Be fair though, that was people on both sides of the debate doing that. You make it sound as if that was just those that voted in favour of the bill turning up at the last minute. Where as in actual fact both sides did that.

I don't recall any DUP, no

The leader of the SDLP (whose name I don't remember) - there was a Tory MP I'd never heard of before who'd been a serving army officer in Belfast in the 1970s.

>>Be fair though, that was people on both sides of the debate doing that. You make it sound as if that was just those that voted in favour of the bill turning up at the last minute. Where as in actual fact both sides did that.<<

Oh no, absolutely - the Tory 'noddies' were just as much on automatic pilot as the Labour ones. The point I was making was that they were coming in at the end of a couple of hours of *no one* making a coherent defence of what it was the government were asking for and plenty of people making excellent cases as to why...

1. It was unfair.

2. It was constitutionally illegal (using the Commons as a court in hearing these cases of further detention will, if it happens, have all sorts of wacky ramifications - do you want elected MPs having a say in individual judicial decisions?).

3. It was a breach of parliamentary precedent (having asked for 90 days, got 28, the same government in the same parliament coming back to the House and asking it to reconsider, then forcing its hand - just not done).

4. It would be self-defeating, along the lines of internment.

5. Nobody in the police or the security services seemed to see the need for it and many had actually spoken out against it.

... which nearly nobody had heard.

I agree that the detention bill is wrong.
However resigning and then restanding in this way is not good. Everyone knows he will win but he will use winning to imply that this bill is very unpopular when it may well not be.

There are times when government must go ahead and do things that 'the people' don't want, simply because government knows things that we don't or can't. That's why government is there - to look after our interests.

That is an implicit understanding.

Given that that is true, there is always a tendency for authority to push the bounds of that understanding - cases of local authorities using terrorist legislation to spy on or impose on citizens. Cases of Authority refusing to do what they were voted in to do (a referendum).

In this case, 'the people' think that 28 days is not long enough, simply because the situation is serious and *any* legislation that looks useful is useful.
Most people don't understand, or won't acknowledge the greater importance of individual freedoms.

It's been pointed out that there are existing mechanisms for extending the 28 days (or even 14, or 7) when appropriate.

What we have here and now (and for the past several years) is an administration that seems hellbent on clipping your-and my- wings in order to bring us under greateer control.

Might it not take some personal sacrifice in order to bring this to wider attention? Something like, say the suffragette movement?

This Davis man is not stupid.
I do sometimes think that the electorate is.

>Fact is that despite having similar votes on detention people werent that bothered before and Davies didnt make the same stand then did he?

A few people are saying this and missing the point. It's one thing to say "the government should have a certain amount of time - within limits - that they can hold someone without charge because they have reason to believe they're a threat and need time to collect evidence", it's quite another to keep arguing for a limit and then a few months later saying even more time is needed. As Davis said, the problem is that the arguments the government comes up with can, ulimately, justify indefinite holding and he probably has the suspicion that they'll just keep adding more and more time.

>Second thing - I heard not one serious attempt to defend the government's position. It seemed to come down to the Home Secretary saying 'trust me' (and then absenting herself from the rest of the discussion)...

Something that really got my back up (and seems to have upset Parliament itself) was Brown's claim that Parliament had a duty to back his government. No it doesn't, Parliament has a duty to do absolutely nothing a head of government wants. The only people I can think of who argued this in the past were Charles I and Oliver Cromwell.

>oh, and a couple of people asking how opponents of the amendments to the bill would feel if someone released from detention after 28 days blew up their grannies on day 29 (this was rightly ridiculed as a serious argument).

This might well be what Davis was referring to re: the government's argument. Ultimately, what's stopping them blowing someone up after 43 days? The whole point of these emergency powers is supposed to be to prevent an imminent attack or to allow for the collecting of evidence so a suspected terrorist can be properly charged (rule of law and all that). The government arguments are ultimately for unlimited holding which is unacceptable in a state under the rule of law. It's no hyperbole to say it's the sort of thing a dictatorship would have.

I think it's interesting how much the media are out of touch with what I perceive to be public opinion on this.

Had a quick peruse of the papers in the supermarket, even the Mail is saying Davis is grandstanding, read Nick Robinson's blog. Strangely Polly Toynbee says he's right. The Sun has put up a candidate to stand against him. Only The Independant seems to feel he's genuinely acting on principle.

The public seem to believe he's reacted out of conviction - lets hope he can get a platform on question time or similar.

I think MPs know what way they're going to vote long before the issue gets debated in the house. And now matter how cogent the arguments or how brilliant the debating, I seriously doubt whether any of that has an effect on the outcome.

The DUP were not the most vehement critics of internment when it existed in NI - if there was a deal it seems as if Brown was ensuring that they voted the way they would have anyway.

Yes - and that's the point - they know which way they're going to vote because thy've been told ! Quite how this represents their constituents escapes me.

Well, if they've been told by their constituents prior to the vote, that would be representation of the constituency.

So should they be conducting a mini-referendum of their constituents before every vote? What if they did that, but then were swayed by some powerful arguement made in the house to vote otherwise?

But they're not swayed by anything except what the party says !

You'd think after one mans lies led us into a war they'd be less prepared to just stick their name to anything.

I'm disgusted that so few MPs could be bothered to debate such a historic ruling.

Hmmm. Surely constituents know what party the candidate is representing, and that any voting in the house is likely to be along party lines! (OK I'm maybe crediting voters with more intelligence than they deserve.)

And I hardly think that the total number of lies told by politicians down the years has been "one".

I'm sure there have been plenty - but few that led directly to taking the country to war.

However my complaint here is about the whip system. Surely if an MP is selected to represent a party, they should be confident that he will vote in the best interests of his constituents, with regard to party policy.

Instead all parties employ a sytem to ensure the party votes in line with the whims of the current leader ~ look at Nick Clegg and the farce over the Lisbon Treaty.

Now that Labour has said it won't run a candidate against Davis it will be interesting to see if Kelvin Mckenzie runs, sponsored by Moredick. Please Bob let McKenzie loose his deposit as a comment on the Sun in particular and tabloids in general.

Returns to his own dream world with fingers and everything else crossed