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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7450627.stm

All speculation entertained.

Well he's not thinking what I'm thinkng!

possibly he is thinking "I can't loose and it will generate a lot of anti-government publicity and totally undermine any kudos that the Prime Minister got from winning yesterdays parliamentary vote"

He's pilling the pressure on Gordon Brown.

The more things that keep coming the worse and worse Brown and the Labour's slide into second place in the polls becomes harder to recover from.

The stance he's taking isnt going to help over the issue of detention without trial, the bulwark against that is the House of Lords.

Plus by securing a pact with the Lib Dems he's not taking the risk of losing his seat.

Te only losers outside of the the Labour party will be the people who have to pay for the election process.

A politician acting on principle. No wonder everyone's shocked.

Hear, hear to that. I caught the back end of his speach and it sounded like a principled stand against the creeping police state that this Government has imposed on us. Supported by the LibDems as they won't put up a cnadidate against him.

It also stregthens the case against the Government using the Parliament Act to force the DUP tainted legislation getting onto the Statute Book.

Full statement from the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4120888.ece

What's the betting Labour try to turn this into a damp squib by refusing to contest the bye election.

He does have a large majority, so you might argue it's essentially a gimmick.

sprout

It's a tory gimmick I wouldn't blame them for refusing to contest it. Though of course a victory would be a huge boost for Labour it just isn't going to happen.

Well, cynical popularity bid or principled stand or a mixture of the two, I still have to agree that the current government is taking security measures and surveillance too far.

Yes, and that's the nub, Bouncy. Whatever his other reasons and his weighting of them, that's the one we should take note of.
If it means that people who've been looking at only the surface, take a deeper look then he's done a valuable job.

I understand your confusion - a politician acting on principle.

It does happen occasionally. Mo Mowlen was known to do it, Frank Field still does it, Tony Benn did it, even serial womanisers like Robin Cooke knew where the line had to be drawn.

This government is a disgrace to the Houses of Parliament.

Every person who had one of those little stickers on their car saying "Don't blame me I voted Labour" should now be made to have "Oh Dear Lord I am So Sorry !" tattooed on their foreheads.

It's a stunt, undoubtably, but it's done with what I think are good intentions. Davis made an excellent point in his resignation speech that the reasons Brown wants to extend holding without charge (again) are ongoing ones meaning that the government can keep arguing for more and more time. Ultimately, Habius Corpus and the rule of law are being undermined and there has to be a point where Parliament says "no, that's your lot" and that hasn't happened.

I'm just glad to see the UK starting to follow the US lead in returning civil liberties to their respective populations.

I think this is bizarre. I'm against the 42 day rule and in favour of more independent behaviour from politicians of all shades of opinion, but this decision to stand down and re-fight his seat is an odd one.

It would make sense for a member of the *government* to resign and return to the back benches over an issue of principle. It would even make sense for a member of the *governing party* to be so appalled by some act of the government that they resign the seat that they won in that party's name and re-fight it. It would even make some modicum of sense if an opposition MP resigned her seat over a government policy that her party had also supported.

However, for a member of the *opposition* to resign over something that the *government* did and their own party opposed (however opportunistically) just strikes me as odd. What's the point? What if everyone did this? What if Tory MPs started resigning and refighting their seats whenever something was passed by the government that they didn't like (such as the Embryology Bill or Gay Rights)?

The only justification for sitting MP to resign his seat and re-fight it is if there has been some change in their position or the position of their party that requires them to seek a fresh mandate from their constituents. Changing parties would be an example, as might be opposing a major policy. There is no need that I can see for Davis to seek a fresh mandate. His views as a right wing libertarian are a matter of public record and he's voted exactly in the way that his constituents would have expected.

I can accept that this might well be a principled decision, so I wouldn't want to dismiss it as "just" a publicity stunt - though I think that's what it is. It's certainly either brave or foolhardy - the Lib Dems won't contest the seat, I'd be amazed if Labour does, and he'll either win by default against the Loonies or end up fighting a populist "lock everyone foreign up for ever" candidate.

But there's no precedent or justification for resigning and refighting his seat that I can see.

Surley the point is when he gets reelected and he will (even if Labour gets four times the support they got last time which isn't going to happen) he can then say that the public is on his side on this issue and that makes the government look more out of touch. A mini referendum if you will.

I don't understand the people you have called this decision brave though. He has one of the safest seats in the country and Labour is at an all time popularity low. His nearest rival the Lib Dems were clearly not going to stand against him.

Sorry for sounding so cynical but as much as I don't want to see the 42 day thing become law this looks to me like a child taking the football home because the other team scored.

Kelvin Mackenzie says he will stand if Labour don't which might not make it easy for David to win but if he doesn't it would be a huge shock.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7452264.stm

possibly he was thinking something clever - only to counteract the time when he wasn't thinking

As I see it, Davies intention is probably to actually have a debate on the issue. Apart from a lot of slogan-chanting from either side there's been precious little serious examination of why we should/shouldn't extend holding-without-charge to 42 days. Davies, in running for re-election, will turn his campaign into a proper debate on the issue. It's one we're in dire need of, to be perfectly frank.

I agree that this is someone standing up & saying "Enough is enough". This govt, like others before them, horsetraded on something that fundamentally affects the rights of each & every one of us. £1.2bn to the DUP allegedly, (Broon's making quite a habit of spending our money to get his way.)

And it's met with dismay and confusion by MPs from all sides. I'm not surprised. Some of them would only recognise a principle if it had a £ sign.

And there is a risk to Davies. Labour if they were smart, (well, there has to be a first time), would continue to play up the "Tories in turmoil" line and paint Davies as a wrecker and an egotist. Voters in that constituency may be True Blue, but they could vote for a Labour candidate safe in the knowledge they could kick him out again in two short years. Labour don't even need to win. They just need to stop him dramatically increasing his majority.

Davies has little to gain from this politically. He has a lot to lose.

And he's prepared to lose it in standing up for something he believes in. No wonder so many MPs are dismayed.