"In a dramatic upset..."

(ha ha, only joking) ....David Davis was easily re-elected in the by-election , and I am pleased that common sense Yorkshire folk were not swayed by the nonsense about global warming the Green candidate kept talking about.

Unfortunately Davis received several thousand fewer votes than at the General Election and therefore does not have the overwelming "mandate" opposing the issue/s which triggered the by-election in the first place...but nevertheless, a good result.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Speaking of by-elections...

The results are in for Henley, a 2% swing to the Conservatives (more or less) and the Labour party in FIFTH place ...gosh...(what was I saying the other day about Gordon Brown being the 'temporary' Prime Minister of Britain?)

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

David Davis officially hands in resignation... but Labour say they won't fight by-election

By Daily Mail Reporter
18th June 2008

David Davis stepped down as an MP today and attacked Gordon Brown's 'gutless' decision not to put up a Labour candidate in the coming by-election.

Within seconds of Mr Davis's declaration, Labour confirmed it would not fight Haltemprice and Howden on 10 July.

But Culture Secretary Andy Burnham declared that there was a 'bloody good case to be made' for making the ex-Tory MP pay the full costs of the by-election and attacked those - including Labour MPs - who had 'fallen' for the Davis 'stunt'.

He also said he found Mr Davis's relationship with Shami Chakrabarti, head of the human rights organisation Liberty, 'curious'.

He told Progress magazine: 'I find something very curious in the man who was, and still is I believe, an exponent of capital punishment having late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti.'

Mr Davis officially handed in his resignation this morning after announcing last week that he would be standing down as an MP and Shadow Home Secretary.

He insists his decision to fight a by-election in his constituency on the single issue of civil liberties is not 'madness' but if he loses, it could mark the end of his lengthy political career.

Speaking today on the steps of the Treasury, Mr Davis declared that he had no regrets and challenged Mr Brown to put up a Labour candidate for the forthcoming contest.

He added: 'If he doesn't do so, the British people will see him as gutless.'

But barely a few minutes after the formal resignation, Labour confirmed their intention not to put up anyone to challenge him.

They claimed the by-election, forced by the shadow home secretary's decision to resign after the Government narrowly won a vote on controversial 42-day terror laws, was an unnecessary waste of money.

With the Liberal Democrats already ruling themselves out, he is left facing potential candidates including a market trader, a beauty queen and a member of the Monster Raving Loony party.

Dianne Hayter, chairman of Labour's National Executive Committee, said: 'We do not believe a parliamentary by-election should be held at taxpayers' expense to resolve tensions at the top of the Conservative Party.

'This is a phoney by-election that is completely unnecessary and the Labour Party will not be taking part in what is a political stunt.'

She claimed that Mr Davis had done a deal with Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who said last week that his party would not contest the by-election, and never intended to put his seat at risk.

'The Labour Party is happy to spend every day until the next election debating with the Tory Party on 42 days and whether it is right to use CCTV and DNA evidence against criminals,' she went on.

'But a phoney by-election is not the forum for these debates.'

After submitting his application to Chancellor Alistair Darling for the stewardship of the Three Chiltern Hundreds - the necessary formality for resigning a Commons seat - Mr Davis threw down the gauntlet to Mr Brown.

'The majority of the British public want to see an election, want to see a candidate put up, twice as many as don't, so this is a debate that has to happen,' he told reporters.

Mr Davis said the majority of his constituents understood he was making a principled stand in defence of civil liberties.

He insisted that he had been mindful of the risk that he could lose his seat if Labour put up a strong candidate, but added: 'There was no doubt in my mind this was the right thing to do - I have rarely been so sure of a principle in my life.'

He acknowledged that Labour's refusal to put up a candidate would diminish the significance of the by-election vote.

'If he doesn't put someone up, what he does is he reduces the importance of the actual vote, but he will increase the importance of the debate.

'Because I'm afraid the public at large care about the erosion of freedom, care about the database stuff, they care about the surveillance state, they care about the idea that innocent people might spend six weeks in prison without being charged.'

In a statement, the Treasury confirmed that Mr Davis had been granted his resignation application.

'The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today appointed the Right Honourable David Michael Davis to be Steward and Bailiff of the Three Hundreds of Chiltern,' it said.

'The Chancellor has also granted Mr Davis's request to be released from this appointment today.'

Mr Davis had requested to give up the post as well today so that he is free to win re-election to the Commons.

Meanwhile Mr Davis's supporters distributed a new poll showing that 51 per cent of the public felt Labour should put up a candidate.

The YouGov survey found that only 24 per cent felt Labour should not put up a candidate.

YouGov contacted 1,435 British adults yesterday and today, weighting results to the profile of all voters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027419/David-Davis-officially-h...

I may sue over David Davis slur, civil rights chief warns Minister
By James Chapman
19th June 2008

A civil liberties campaigner has threatened to sue the Culture Secretary over 'smears' about her relationship with Tory David Davis.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, wrote to Andy Burnham and the Prime Minister accusing Mr Burnham of 'debasing' his office.

She warned of libel action unless she is given a full written apology.

Miss Chakrabarti was appalled by Mr Burnham's claim that she shared 'late night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls' with Mr Davis as they opposed the Government's anti-terror plans.

Last night she wrote to the minister - one of Labour's rising stars - accusing him of 'innuendo and attempted character assassination'.

Miss Chakrabarti, 39, who is happily married, demanded he apologise unreservedly for his 'tawdry' remarks to her and to Mr Davis's wife of 35 years. Downing Street said the row was a matter for Mr Burnham.

But there was no sign he was ready to issue the apology that Miss Chakrabarti would like. His spokesman simply repeated 'regret' if she had been caused any 'personal offence'.

Mr Davis stood down as an MP on Wednesday in protest at the Government's plans for 42-day terror detention to fight a by-election in his East Yorkshire constituency.

The former shadow Home Secretary is known to have discussed anti-terror legislation and other civil liberties issues with Miss Chakrabarti in the run-up to last week's Commons vote.

After his announcement that he was quitting the Tory frontbench, some critics privately suggested he had fallen too closely under her influence.

Mr Burnham used a magazine interview to express surprise that the pair were in alliance, given Mr Davis's Rightwing views on issues such as capital punishment. It was 'very curious in the man who was, and still is, I believe, an exponent of capital punishment having late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti', he said.

But Miss Chakrabarti revealed she had tried to talk Mr Davis out of resigning rather than encouraging him to do so. In her letter, she told Mr Burnham he had 'set out to smear my dealings with the former shadow Home Secretary'.

The Liberty chief, who has been married for 13 years, said it was the minister's own behaviour that was ' curious...coming as it does from a Cabinet minister; let alone someone with a partner and family of his own.'

'By your comments you debase not only a great office of state but the vital debate about fundamental rights and freedoms in this country,' she said. 'Indeed you seem reluctant to engage in that debate except in this tawdry fashion.

'I look forward to your written apology as I'm sure does Mrs Davis.

'If on the other hand you choose to continue down the path of innuendo and attempted character assassination, you will find that the privileged legal protection of the Parliament chamber does not extend to slurs made in the wider public domain.'

Any legal damages would go to Liberty, she said.

Mr Davis has accused Mr Burnham of being one of Mr Brown's henchmen 'out and about to attack me personally rather than engage in rational debate'.

Mr Burnham's spokesman said: 'An interpretation has been placed on Andy's remarks that he did not intend.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027708/I-sue-David-Davis-slur-c...

Now the socialists are suggesting Davis should pay the cost of the by-election out of his own pocket.

What hypocrisy considering the by election in Sedgefield was considered 'legitimate'.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Loathing of elections has led British democracy to atrophy

Unchecked by any formal constitution, power drifts to the centre, where the will of the people is treated with utter disdain.

Simon Jenkins
The Guardian, W
Wednesday June 18 2008

While these cases are clearly different they share a feature noted by such political observers as Bernard Crick and Jerry White - "fear of voting". It is every politician's dread at having to "meet his maker", the electorate.

In most countries that dread is disciplined by a formal constitution. In Britain it is not and democracy has duly atrophied. That is why Britons have fewer elections and fewer elected representatives than any other democracy in Europe. The tradition of monarchical deference is alive and well. As the week has shown, any chicanery will do to deny people's will.

Have you noticed how the political establishment hates elections? It regards them as vulgar, foreign, exhibitionist and unpredictable. To those in power they are mere concessions to mob rule. If electors did not insist on them, elections would have been abolished long ago as Victorian gimmicks to appease proletarian sentiment.

There is no other explanation for Westminster's reaction to Ireland's weekend vote on the Lisbon treaty and to David Davis's resignation over 42-day-detention. Nor is there any other explanation for the welcome that will be given to Hazel Blears's forthcoming local government white paper. This will, it is rumoured, reduce the 95% of elections still held in Britain (local ones) to largely consultative status, to clear the ground for Gordon Brown's Putin-style appointed regional government.

In the case of Ireland, the rule is clear. Any change in the constitution of Europe requires unanimity among the nations of Europe. Irrespective of what moved the Irish electorate, the treaty has failed and must be redrafted. Yet Britain, France, Germany and the rest are proceeding with ratification as if the vote had gone the other way. They are saying that Europe's constitutional framework - good or bad - can be disregarded when inconvenient, for instance when democracy has rejected what they want.

Both the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have blatantly reneged on an election promise to hold a referendum on the constitution after an earlier version was defeated in 2005 by French and Dutch votes. At the time Tony Blair and Gordon Brown instantly declared the constitution dead, adding that there could be no question of "bringing it back with a few amendments".

This time Ireland's rejection of a virtually identical proposal is met with an opposite response. Ireland is regarded as too small to matter, or too stupid to know what it was doing, or too irritating to worry overworked Eurocrats who might have to renegotiate the rejected document.

The treaty is defunct when rejected by a member of the Union. Yet I have heard commentators argue that 5 million Irish cannot be allowed to stand over against 500 million Europeans - as if the rule was not really a rule and as if the 500 million had ever been asked their view. None had, for the obvious reason that they would have agreed with the Irish. A writer in the Financial Times even depicted Ireland as a snivelling little country that should be kicked into the sea. That is how Belgium and Poland were once treated. European super-statehood seems to drive people mad.

Every time the new European constitution has been put to a popular vote it has been rejected. A YouGov poll yesterday indicated support for full EU membership in Britain is down to 29%. The reasons are many, but the contempt shown by Europe's governing elite for the wishes of Europe's peoples is dangerous. It indicates how far a noble postwar ideal has strayed into oligarchy and contempt for democracy.

The European Union's inability to clean up its governance, to audit its administration and to put its reform to public scrutiny has reinforced voter scepticism for politics generally. Members of the European parliament are now helpless popinjays, as incapable of controlling Brussels as of limiting their personal greed.

Davis's decision to stand down as an MP and fight a byelection over 42-day detention produced similar revulsion in Westminster. All political ambitions are mixed, but Davis was clearly shocked by the devious way in which the Labour government trampled on civil liberties last week. He decided to express that shock in the most public way available to a politician, to invite electors to debate with him and vote him back to office.

Westminster politicians and lobby reporters derided Davis as an exhibitionist, a loner and crazy. Why did he not wait for parliament to handle the matter? Why not stick within the club? Did he not realise that the public disagreed with him over 42 days, as revealed in Westminster's favourite franchise, the polls? Worst of all, Davis was currying favour with mere voters, as if he were consorting in the servants' hall.

By Sunday, when thousands of members of the public (and celebrities) had rallied to Davis's flag, Westminster was gulping and wondering if it had missed something. It had. As in Ireland, the public liked being asked its view. That is why 80% of people want a referendum on Lisbon, irrespective of their being more evenly divided on its virtues.

Blears's impending white paper on "local empowerment" is rumoured to be equally anti-electoral. With the rest of Europe moving ever further down the road to local devolution, Blears believes that only central control can yield better public services. The 2004 Planning Act and subsequent acts stripped local electorates of any discretion over their environment. Now their remaining powers are to be supplanted by forums, meetings and consultation sessions, subject to superior veto.

Pronouncements with such ironic titles as "empowerment", "organic change" and "strong and prosperous communities", from David Miliband, Ruth Kelly and Blears, have reduced English local government to agency status. An analysis of recent legislation - Botched Business, by Michael Chisholm and Steve Leach - depicts ministers with the same executive arrogance as the governors of Guantánamo Bay.

Today's councillors must contract with Whitehall, not with their voters. Blears's proposals will have no truck with elective discretion or tax devolution. The present Treasury minister, Yvette Cooper, wrote in 2004 that localism means "nimbyism and divisive inequalities". To her and her colleagues, Lenin was right and democratic centralism was all the accountability needed for better public services.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/18/foreignpolicy.eu1

"He added that criminals and groups such as al Qaeda were using '21st century methods' (ie. islamofascism) and governments must use '21st-century methods' (i.e. anglofascism) in response." Holding someone for six weeks without charge is a '21st century method'? More like a method from the dark ages!
................................................

Liberty is being kept safe from terror, says Brown as Davis warns of continuing threat to civil liberties

By Daily Mail Reporter
17th June 2008

Gordon Brown tackled David Davis's campaign on civil liberties head-on today with a warning that the public's most basic human right was to be kept safe from terror.

In a speech on 'liberty and security', the Prime Minister defended his decision to push ahead with the 42-day detention of terror suspects without charge, but stressed the need to balance protection with long-held British freedoms.

Addressing the Labour-supporting think tank IPPR, he said that 'the first liberty is to be free from fear' and stressed that he would not back off tougher measures to combat crime and terrorism.

He added that criminals and groups such as al Qaeda were using '21st century methods' and governments must use '21st-century methods' in response.

That meant allowing police the time needed to decode complex computer messages used by plotters against the state.

Mr Brown said that at every stage of his plans, from 42-day detentions to the use of CCTV and DNA databases, safeguards to protect civil liberties had been introduced.

His speech came as a poll showed that Mr Davis had won public support for his decision to fight a by-election over the 42-day issue.

The nationwide IpsosMORI survey for the Independent found that 35 per cent would vote for the former shadow home secretary if they lived in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency.

Some 23 per cent said they would not support him, while 33 per cent said they would not vote and nine per cent replied 'don't know'.

But the poll, the first national survey on the issue since Mr Davis announced his decision last Thursday, also found that voters were split over whether he was right or wrong to resign.

While 39 per cent believed he was right, 48 per cent said he was wrong, and 13 per cent replied 'don't know'.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne revealed today that he found out about Mr Davis's decision only minutes before Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was informed.

He admitted he had been shocked by the move but praised his colleague's 'courage and bravery'.

'He is fighting a crusade on this issue and I wish him well with that. He's an extremely principled man,' Mr Osborne told GMTV.

Mr Davis is set to formally resign tomorrow after Prime Minister's Questions, by taking up the Chiltern Hundreds, a convention designed to allow an MP to vacate his seat.

He will not be making a speech in the Commons.

IpsosMORI found that men (51 per cent) are more likely to think that Mr Davis was wrong than women (44 per cent).

A majority (51 per cent) of 18-24-year-olds believed he was right to resign, with 31 per cent saying he was wrong.

The figures were reversed among older voters. Among those aged 65 and above, 54 per cent believed he was wrong and 32 per cent right.

Mr Davis said: 'This debate has only just begun. But already, we are seeing declining support for 42 days, as the arguments are aired and the public engage on this vital national issue.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027112/Liberty-kept-safe-terror...

A challenger for David Davis
By Tim Walker
16/06/2008

David Davis may finally have found a worthy opponent in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election.

Step up to the plate, David Craig (the nom de plume of Neil Glass).

He is the author of Squandered, Who Cares? and Plundering the Public Sector – his contention is that Gordon Brown is "wasting over one trillion pounds of our money" – and is standing on what one can only call an anti-MP platform.

The author, who was, funnily enough, a contemporary of Tony Blair at Fettes, says the 42-day issue is not important to ordinary people as they are unlikely to be affected by it.

"What is important to normal taxpayers is that we are governed by greedy and wasteful MPs who are overpaid and waste billions of pounds of our money at a time when the cost of living is spiralling out of control," he storms.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2141350/A-challenger-for-David-Da...

From The Times
June 16, 2008

The British are still lovers of liberty

But let's not forget the EU is as much a threat to our freedom as the surveillance state

William Rees-Mogg

My wife, Gillian, is the chairman of the trustees of St John's Smith Square. Last Thursday evening, the hall was being used for the BBC's Question Time. We were watching the discussion from the balcony; David Dimbleby kindly invited us to supper after the show. The last time I had seen Question Time live is now 25 years ago, when Robin Day was in the chair.

On Thursday evening, the Irish had voted on the Lisbon treaty, but we did not yet know the result. David Davis had announced that he was going to resign his seat in order to fight a by-election on issues of liberty. Only one member of the panel seemed to regard the Davis story as really important; that was Shirley Williams, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords.

She spoke of Mr Davis's decision with considerable sympathy, more sympathy than I would have expected. Not for the first time, her judgment of a political issue was better than mine. The British people feel very strongly about the current issues of liberty; I admit that I think that Baroness Williams underrates their concern about liberty in Europe.

After supper, we drove down to Somerset late in the evening. Friday was, for me, a very enjoyable day. I had not expected the Irish to vote “no” to the Lisbon treaty; that seemed too good to be true after every other democratic defence against a bad treaty had failed. Only last Wednesday, the House of Lords had voted down Britain's promised referendum by 280 votes to 218.

I found myself voting for the referendum in the same lobby as Margaret Thatcher, just as I had when I voted for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. I thought it was shameful that the Labour and Lib Dem peers would not honour the manifesto commitments of the 2005 general election. But, then, I had thought it shameful when Tory peers tamely obeyed their whips and voted down a referendum for Maastricht.

Saturday was a perfect Somerset day; we sat in the garden from lunch to tea. Two of our grandchildren were staying with us and two more had come across in the morning. Our youngest daughter, Annunziata, who is the Conservative candidate for Somerton & Frome, went off to canvas in villages near Bruton, including Pitcombe, where our eldest daughter lives, and Shepton Montague, where a lot of our ancestors are buried. Annunziata was able to bring back to us a fresh and up-to-date report on public opinion in southeast Somerset.

As I expected, the Irish vote had been greeted with delight. Earlier in the year, we had a local referendum in Somerset & Frome on the Lisbon treaty. Eighty-seven per cent wanted a referendum on the treaty and 88 per cent stated that they would vote “no” if a referendum were given. The local MP, David Heath, resigned from the Lib Dem front bench in the Commons rather than follow Nick Clegg's three-line whip to abstain.

What I had not foreseen was the impact of the Davis resignation. Annunziata found that Lib Dem voters identified most strongly with the Davis campaign, to the point at which Mr Davis seemed to be validating the Conservatives as a party prepared to fight on liberal issues. There seems to have been a similar reaction among Labour rebels, some of whom say they will go up to Haltemprice and campaign for him. Pragmatists may have failed to recognise the impact of his personal declaration or the strength of public feeling on libertarian issues.

For the Libs Dems themselves, there is a snag in this, or perhaps two snags. The first, as Lady Williams immediately saw, is that Mr Davis is not campaigning on right-wing issues, but on traditional issues of personal liberty. The second snag is that Europe is itself a liberal issue, but one on which the Liberal Democrats as a party are on the anti-liberal side.

If the Lib Dem peers had voted with the Conservatives in the Lords, the Lisbon Bill would have gone back to the Commons with a clause providing for a British referendum. We would not have had to leave our liberties for the Irish to protect.

The origin of the Lisbon treaty was the constitutional treaty, which was drafted by the European Constitutional Convention, which was controlled by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as its chairman. In the Convention, the democratic deficit, which was supposed to be eliminated, was deepened and entrenched.

The constitutional treaty was put to the vote in several European countries. Spain voted “yes”, but France voted “no”, as did the Netherlands. The European people do not want to transfer further powers away from their elected parliaments to the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels.

The EU responded to the French and Dutch votes not by recognising the public concerns about liberty and democracy, but by trying to avoid any public votes in the future. In every country except Ireland, this policy of avoiding democracy was successful, though there are still a few to come. The avoidance of a referendum was even successful in Britain, where all the major parties had committed themselves to a vote. Only the Conservatives honoured their commitment.

What may happen next? There will be an attempt to rescue the substance of the Lisbon treaty in some form or through some subterfuge. Brussels, like the Clintons, is extremely reluctant to recognise defeat. The European politicians want their legal identity, their extended powers, their president, their foreign minister. They want the status of a national state. But referendums will go against them, as the referendum went against them in Ireland.

The Prime Minister has no feeling for these developments in public opinion. He is creating an ever larger surveillance state and accepts the European democratic deficit. There is now no national consensus to ratify the Lisbon treaty and it would be a grave blunder to do so.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/ar...

The first being the defeat of state control of the means of production, the second being the state control of the behaviour of society.

The first war was won by Margaret Thatcher, however even she allowed the second type of state control to continue.

Perhaps David Davis will be the first politician (after Margaret Thatcher) in the UK to start the second battle to roll back state control!

...say about David Davis.

I believe Cameron is sincere when he says that he supports Davis. No matter how socialist David Cameron appears to be, you must keep in mind that he still does consider himself a Thatcherite.

I must say I am at a loss as to what David Cameron's problem is ...surely an overwelming victory at a by-election is a good thing?!?!

Why the negative sentiment from the David Cameron 'inner circle'? ...*confuzzled*

Elitism, forever!

Here he defends his decision with BBC political interviewer Andrew Marr.

Part One

Part Two

Poll reveals huge public support for David Davis's decision to force by-election over Government terror laws

Support: The poll reveals David Daivs would enjoy 11 per cent more of the votes in his constituency if a General Election was called now

By Simon Walters
15th June 2008

David Davis has massive public support for his shock move to force a by-election over the Government’s decision to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge.

And he is set to win a historic and decisive victory in his Haltemprice and Howden seat, near Hull – as the first opinion poll carried out in the constituency proves.

The ICM survey for The Mail on Sunday shows overwhelming backing for former Shadow Home Secretary Mr Davis.

It reveals that he would easily beat former Sun Editor Kelvin MacKenzie – who has said he plans to contest the seat on a ‘pro-42 day’ ticket – by 67 per cent to 14.

And significantly, it shows there is widespread support in the constituency for Mr Davis’s claim that the Government has turned into a ‘Big Brother’ state – while violent criminals go scot-free.

Following sharp criticism of Mr Davis from Labour and Tory enemies alike, the former SAS reservist received a series of boosts as:

* Sun owner Rupert Murdoch disowned Mr MacKenzie’s campaign after he insulted ‘shocking’ Hull.

* The chairman of the pressure group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, praised Mr Davis – and is to help a ‘Celebrities for Davis’ operation.

* Labour rebel Bob Marshall-Andrews and other Left-wing MPs will support Mr Davis in the election.

Mr Davis’s decision to resign his seat stunned friend and foe.

Most of his closest political friends and allies were kept in the dark about it and have described it as ‘madness’ and ‘a rush of blood to the head’.

A source very close to David Cameron, who defeated Mr Davis in the Tory leadership contest three years ago, called the maverick MP ‘selfish and arrogant’.

But the ICM survey shows that Mr Davis has strong support from his constituency.

Labour is expected to refuse to field a candidate against Mr Davis – and the survey shows why.

In a straight fight between Mr Davis and Labour, Labour scores a mere 11 per cent – three fewer than Mr MacKenzie in a similar head-to-head contest with Mr Davis.

Labour would also be thrashed in the seat if a General Election was held now.

According to the poll, Mr Davis’s support would soar to 59 per cent with the Liberal Democrats on 26 and Labour on a dismal 12 – an 11 per cent swing to the Tories since the 2005 Election.

Asked if they agreed with his decision to resign over the 42-day terror law, 57 per cent said ‘Yes’, compared with 32 who said ‘No’.

Among Tory voters, more than seven out of 10 said Mr Davis was right to force the by-election – in stark contrast to Mr Cameron’s attempt to stop him.

The poll also indicates overwhelming support for Mr Davis’s claim that Labour has turned Britain into a ‘Big Brother’ state.

Nearly six out of 10 back Mr Davis’s claim that Britain is now riddled with official snoopers, with one in three against him.

Significantly, eight out of 10 young voters say Mr Davis is right on this issue.

Overall, those polled do not agree with claims by Tory critics that the by-election is a ‘publicity stunt’.

Nearly seven out of 10 say Mr Davis has acted in a principled way, with fewer than one in four disagreeing.

Ms Chakrabarti paid tribute to Mr Davis for defying ‘the wrath of political and media empires combined’.

She writes in today’s Mail on Sunday: ‘Some opinion polls suggest an overwhelming majority of people in favour of 42 days, but when you offer proportionate alternatives, the reverse is true.’

Ms Chakrabarti and Mr Davis have worked closely to stop the 42-day law and their unconventional alliance has angered the Tory leadership.

One Shadow Cabinet Minister said: ‘David seemed to take more notice of what Shami Chakrabarti thought the Conservative party should be doing than he did of the party leader’s views.’

She is expected to use her influence to persuade celebrities to campaign for Mr Davis in his seat and may join him on the campaign trail.

Leading showbusiness figures who have criticised the law include comedian Rory Bremner, ‘Mr Darcy’ actor Colin Firth and actress Honor Blackman.

Leading barrister and Labour MP Mr Marshall-Andrews risked disciplinary action by Whips after pledging support for Mr Davis.

Mr Marshall-Andrews, who voted against the 42-day law, said: ‘I applaud David Davis’s decision to resign and fight a by-election on the single issue of civil liberty.’

He criticised Labour’s refusal to contest the by-election, adding: ‘The election will transcend party politics and I have written to David Davis to inform him that I will be happy to accept any invitation to speak during the course of his campaign.’

Mr Davis said he was delighted by Mr Marshall-Andrews’ support.

‘He is one of many figures from other parties including Labour and the Liberal Democrats who have said they will come and support me,’ he said.

In spite of his private fury with Mr Davis, Mr Cameron has promised to join the campaign.

But Mr Davis may find few other Tory MPs at his side.

Several of his closest allies have disowned his actions.

‘It is madness. He must have had a rush of blood to the head,’ said one.

‘He didn’t bother consulting us because he knew we would have told him not to do it.’

Another said: ‘He can’t stand playing second fiddle to Cameron and has been looking for a spectacular exit for some time.

'This is more about David’s need for attention.’

Some of Mr Cameron’s advisers say he is better off without Mr Davis.

‘We never really trusted him and now we don’t have to worry any more about massaging his giant ego,’ said one.

‘He will be forgotten very quickly.

'The idea that he will return to the Commons as a people’s hero and grab the leadership the moment Dave stumbles is a joke.’

The campaign could see members of the public caught up in recent terrorist incidents on opposing sides.

Rachel North, 37, who survived the 7/7 atrocity in London in 2005, threw her support behind Mr Davis, calling Labour’s refusal to field a candidate ‘disgraceful’.

But John Smeaton, 32, the baggage handler who foiled a terror attack on Glasgow airport last year, said he would fight to unseat Mr Davis.

‘It is a political stunt and if they want me to give a hand, I would do so,’ he said.

lICM Research interviewed 501 adults in Haltemprice and Howden by phone on Friday.

Interviews were conducted across the constituency and the results have been weighted.

ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026487/Poll-reveals-huge-public...

Good article, Marcus...yes, it would be good if there were a lot more roundheads who stood up for things. 

Elitism, forever! 

The Daily Telegraph

Conservative David Davis is following in Oliver Cromwell's footsteps
By Simon Heffer
14/06/2008

The clique that runs the Conservative Party, and those who toady up to it, cannot grasp why David Davis has walked off the front bench, and out of Parliament, to stand up for what he believes in. Dave Cameron and his friends have made a point of not believing in anything since they took power in December 2005, it being their understanding that that is the best way to clamber up the greasy pole in modern politics. This contrast of action and inaction is becoming familiar in the Tory party, and seems to me to have quite ancient roots.

As a Cromwellian myself, I smell the legacy of the Lord Protector in what Mr Davis has done. The Roundheads wouldn't much have liked Gordon Brown's plans to lock people up for six weeks without charge, nor his plans to issue them all with identity cards, nor to watch them wherever they went by closed-circuit television, nor to bypass Parliament as regularly as this Government has done since 1997, nor to reduce the democratic rights of the English by allowing interference in their domestic matters by Scots and Welsh whom they do not elect.

But, of course, Mr Davis is not merely in an ideological quarrel with the Government, however much that is the basis of his decision to have this campaign. He is also making a point to the cavaliers - in every sense of the word - in his own party.

Few people quite get the significance of Mr Davis to the Tory party since he lost the leadership contest two-and-a-half years ago. The façade of unity has been just that. It has been helped by the pitiful performance of Gordon Brown, and will be helped further by the fact that, whatever it might seem at the moment, Mr Brown's troubles are far from over.

Many on the Right have been angry at Dave's refusal to put together not necessarily specific policies, but a coherent framework of ideas within which policy can be developed. By not voicing his own concerns on this front Mr Davis has been in a strong position to tell others they had better not voice theirs. It should not be imagined, by the way, that the dissidents are all backbenchers. Some are even in the shadow cabinet.

The cavaliers in the Tory party have two failings that ally them with the supporters of Charles I. First, they wish to preserve the established order - in this case, Dave's being the "heir to Blair" says it all, as does his determination to adhere to Labour's spending policies should he become prime minister. Second, they tend to live rather comfortable lives - trust funds, private school education, weekend places in the country - that don't always cause them to understand what the last Lord Chancellor used to call "ordinary people". I am not surprised Mr Davis finds their anything-for-a-quiet-life attitude rather vexing. So should we all.

It is important he has a contest with a high-profile opponent so that he can highlight the dangers that he feels threaten our society. For that reason, I applaud the decision of my friend Kelvin MacKenzie to run against him in the by-election. Mr MacKenzie is a profoundly serious and intelligent man who chooses, rather like a thinking man's Boris Johnson, to dress himself up as a comedian.

He argues that 42-day detention is right, and that law-abiding people such as him have nothing to fear from the clampdown on our liberties. Just as we used to say a Right-winger is a liberal who has been mugged, so Mr MacKenzie might swiftly review his love of authoritarianism when he gets his first fine for putting his bin out on the wrong day, having been fingered under a provision of the anti-terrorism laws.

A cavalier attitude to such nonsense is not a good idea. Mr Davis wants to make this, once more, a country that Roundheads like him, me and many of you are happy to live in. This will become an ever more popular cause, which is why this certainly isn't the end of his political career.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/14/do...

Why can't an American politician do this?

Why do we let this crap go on?

Bravo Mr. Davis.

Scott DeSalvo

Whether you think you can, or think you cannot, you're probably right!!

Today David Davis has written an article for the Daily Telegraph on why he is doing this, it expands on his earlier statement, but also adresses also the criticisms and cynicism in the media since he made the announcment.
.................................................

I'm fighting to defend our basic freedoms, says David Davis
By David Davis
13/06/2008

Yesterday, I announced my intention to resign from the House of Commons, which I have served as an MP for 21 years, and also as shadow home secretary, a position I have held for almost five years, in order to fight a by-election in my constituency of Haltemprice and Howden. Why?

On Wednesday, we witnessed a severe blow to liberal democracy in this country. On the one hand, Gordon Brown extended the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 42 days, sacrificing one of the most fundamental freedoms of every British citizen - the right not to be held in prolonged police detention without being told the charges against you. He sacrificed a fundamental liberty without a shred of evidence that it was necessary. And he did so against the advice of many security experts who warned that it may fuel the very extremism we are trying to defeat.

On the other hand, in pawning off one of the crown jewels of our democracy, the Prime Minister stooped to the lowest level, with widespread reports that he threatened and bought off just enough voices of dissent within his own party to sneak this measure through. Despite the frenetic excitement around Westminster, this was a sad day for the mother of parliaments.

We already had the longest period of detention without charge in the free world. Now it has been further increased - by half - just as we approach the anniversary of the Magna Carta, which has guaranteed the freedom of the individual from arbitrary detention for nearly 800 years. David Cameron will continue to lead our steadfast opposition to 42 days - which will now continue in the Lords - and I look forward to campaigning with him in Haltemprice and Howden. But this week we crossed a line. And I feel duty bound to take a personal stand to resist this sustained assault on the fundamental freedoms that millions in this country died defending.

For one thing, having secured 42 days based on the most generic of security arguments - technology, complexity, unpredictability - this Government will be tempted by the politics of terror to keep coming back for 56, then 70, then 90 days. That is why I believe we must draw a line now.

The truth is that, while 42 days marks a watershed, it is only the latest in the steady, insidious and relentless erosion of our freedoms over the past decade.

We will soon have the most intrusive ID card system in the world. There is a CCTV camera for every 14 citizens - despite growing evidence of their ineffectiveness as deployed. We have the largest DNA database in the world, larger than any dictatorship, with thousands of innocent children and millions of innocent citizens on it.

The Government has attacked the jury system, that historic bulwark against unfair law and the arbitrary abuse of state power. Shortcuts with our legal system have left British justice less firm and less fair. The Government hoards masses of personal data on insecure databases, opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers, but also exposing personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.

The state has security powers that clamp down on peaceful protest, and so-called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate - while those inciting violence get off scot-free. A 15-year-old boy was recently charged on the spot for holding a banner describing scientology as a "dangerous cult", but extremists such as Abu Hamza are left free for years to incite violence and vitriol against this country.

There are now 266 state powers allowing officials to force their way into the home. Six hundred public bodies have the authority to bug phones and emails and intercept the post. Forget the security services: councils and quangos conduct 1,000 surveillance operations every month, using powers that ought to be the preserve of law enforcement agencies. Officials in Poole spied for weeks on a family taking their children to school, to check that they lived inside the catchment area. Even our rubbish can now be examined by neighbourhood spooks.

None of this has made us any safer. Violent crime has doubled in 10 years, and the Government continually briefs blood-curdling assessments of the terrorist threat. It is a myth to believe that we can defend our security by sacrificing our fundamental freedoms - one I intend to puncture over the next few weeks.

I am fighting this by-election as the Conservative candidate, but on vital national issues that transcend party politics. I hope to attract support from across the political spectrum, and the country at large. I look forward to taking on those who say the British public do not care about liberty - this campaign will be about leading a national debate, not pandering to polls. At stake is my own career as a Member of Parliament, but more fundamentally a long overdue debate on the preservation of liberty in this great country.

There will be those that cast aspersions on this endeavour, and those who try to suggest divisions within the Conservative Party. Yesterday, Westminster was foaming with speculation about a rift between me and David Cameron. It is nonsense. We have been united from start to finish on 42 days and wider security policy. We agreed that a Conservative government would immediately repeal 42 days, in the absence of the most compelling new evidence. And I am fully committed to David Cameron's fine leadership of the Conservative Party, including the excellent appointment of Dominic Grieve, one of my closest friends, as shadow home secretary.

So, as I return to Haltemprice and Howden, I lay down this challenge to Gordon Brown and his Government. Labour must put up a candidate to debate and defend their draconian track record. Anything else would demonstrate supreme political cowardice and contempt for public opinion.

I challenge the Prime Minister and any other member of his Cabinet with the courage of their convictions. I will debate with any one of them - any time, anywhere - what Gordon Brown euphemistically referred to as the "next chapter of British liberty".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/13/do...

...cynical political hacks they are.

Most of them are merely asking if this is damaging for the Conservative party and how many political points the Labour party can score form it.

The Labour Government may well just ignore him and not field a candidate. The media, instead of calling the Government cowardly or defunct for not challenging him are simply following the lead of the Government and calling David Davis "eccentric" and "unhinged".

Anything except actually debating the issue that David Davis is trying to raise.

Of course I hope that David Davis has a good strategy to keep this issue in the media spotlight for a long time and forcing a national debate. We will just have to wait and see.

The reaction from the socialists is typical and instructive.

JACQUI SMITH, HOME SECRETARY

Faced with a crucial decision on the safety and protection of the British public, the Conservatives have collapsed into total disarray on what is their first big policy test since they have come under greater scrutiny. David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned.

DAVID BLUNKETT, FORMER HOME SECRETARY

David Davis's behaviour is a pure piece of political theatre, even more bizarre than John Major resigning as leader of the Tory Party in order to stand again against his own colleagues. This is childish and immature and it is not worthy of a major political party to engage in such theatre.

DAVID HILL, FORMER LABOUR COMMUNICATIONS CHIEF

This has been a quite extraordinary day. We began with it [42 days] apparently being a problem for Gordon Brown... Before we know it we have Tory division and confusion... David Davis sounded slightly unhinged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7450683.stm

... is David Cameron's deputy too? Goodness! What has Cameron said about this?

Here's the Libertarian Alliance's presser:

___________________________

David Davis MP: Libertarian Alliance Gives "Unconditional Support"

The Libertarian Alliance, the radical free market and civil liberties
policy institute, today gives its unconditional support to David Davis,
The Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party, who has resigned to fight a
by-election on the issue of the 42-day detention law. Though much more
radical than he is on issues of civil liberty, the Libertarian Alliance
hails Mr Davis as a brave and decent man.

Note: On the 11th June 2008, the House of Commons approved a clause in
the Counter-Terrorism Bill to allow detention without charge for up to 42
days, or six weeks. 36 Labour MPs voted against the Government. The
measure passed only because of lavish bribery to other potential rebels
and to the Irish Members. The following day, David Davis announced he
would resign his seat and fight the resulting by-election on the single
issue of the erosion of civil liberties during the past decade of Labour
rule. This would provide some British people at least with a vote on the
increasingly terrible actions of this Government.

Libertarian Alliance Director, Dr Sean Gabb, says:

"The Libertarian Alliance is a non-party organisation. That is, we find
much to oppose in all the main political parties. On this occasion,
however, we give our unconditional support to Mr Davis as an individual
candidate in his fight for our liberties.

"We have been repeatedly told that suspects will only be detained for six
weeks without trial in the gravest cases affecting national security.
This is a lie. We were promised that the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 would only be used in cases of national security.
Instead, it is used by just about every local authority in the country to
spy on ordinary people. The effect - and almost certainly the purpose -
of this law will be to create a new weapon of administrative detention.
It may be used against the occasional terrorist suspect. Much more often,
though, dissidents and other 'trouble-makers' will be told to shut up or
face arrest on suspicion of terrorist offences. They will be held without
charge for six weeks, then released without charge. In the meantime, they
will have lost their jobs and reputations; their lives will be in ruins.
All this - and without the shadow of due process.

"Anyone who believes such wickedness is beyond the imagination of our
rulers is either ignorant of human nature in general or blind to what
this Labour Government has done since 1997.

"In deciding to fight a by-election on this issue, and the general issue
of the Labour police state, David Davis has shown himself to be a brave
and decent man. His fight is our fight. Regardless of normal party
affiliation, it is the fight of everyone who believes in liberal democracy.

"We note that some people are already crying up Mr Davis as a 'radical
libertarian', - as if these words falsified what he was saying. We find
this bizarre. All he is demanding in essence is a return to the legal
situation of the early 1990s. It is a sign of how illiberal the political
consensus has become in this country that he could possibly be called
'extreme'.

"We are the extremists on the civil liberties spectrum. We agree with Mr
Davis in calling for repeal of all 'hate crime' censorship laws and the
restoration of due process. But we go much further. We also call for
repeal the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which turns every professional
adviser in the country into a police spy. We call for an end to the 'war
on drugs', which is fuelling organised crime. We call for the repeal
repeal of the Firearms Acts, which leave ordinary people defenceless
against violent criminals. we call for repeal of the race relations laws,
which do more than anything else to restrict freedom of speech and
association.

"Where civil liberties are concerned, Mr Davis is a moderate. We say this
not to criticise him, but to expose the fatuity of his critics.

"Again, we wish him well. We call on the Liberal Democrat and UK
Independence Parties not to field candidates against him in the
by-election, and for the contest to be one between light and darkness - a
contest in which whatever Labour candidate dares stand in defence of his
Government's record will lose his deposit and pass into the oblivion that
Gordon Brown himself deserves."
The Libertarian Alliance believes:

That no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law:
That due process should include no detention without charge after 48
hours, together with all other Common Law protections abolished or eroded
since around 1988
END OF COPY

Note(s) to Editors

Dr Sean Gabb is the Director of the Libertarian Alliance. His latest
book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England,
and How to Get It Back, may be downloaded for free from
http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3. It may also be bought. His other books are
available from Hampden Press at http://www.hampdenpress.co.uk.

He can be contacted for further comment on 07956 472 199 or by email at
sean@libertarian.co.uk

Extended Contact Details:

The Libertarian Alliance is Britain's most radical free market and civil
liberties policy institute. It has published over 800 articles, pamphlets
and books in support of freedom and against statism in all its forms.
These are freely available at http://www.libertarian.co.uk