So, David Davis has won the by-election, but....(24 Posts)
...what on earth was the point of it all?
Surely it was pretty obvious that the other Labour could turn it into a complete non-event as far as debate was concerned by not putting up a candidate. Which is of course what they did.
So the story is about DD and not the 42 day detention and civil liberties.
He has lost his place in the shadow cabinet, and I can't see Cameron wanting to promote him any time soon.
And it cost 80 000 of public money to hold the election.
So, a man of principle, or a bit of a fool?
I heard a woman on the radio this morning who said that she thought he was a good constituency MP but she didn't necessarily agree with him on the 42 days.
I think he is under the impression that the electorate really care about it which I don't think, in all honesty, they do
AND: the queen was supposed to be coming to Hull yesterday, and dp's school were doing the guard of honour and all the kids were super excited.
She cancelled because of the bye-election and now she's coming in the summer holidays and the school won't have an official role.
I think a man of principle. And the parly corrs and politicians just can't believe someone would stand up for what he believes in, so they slag him off for pulling a stunt. They started to back down when the saw the public response -all those posts on news sites, texts and emails offering support. Of course there are lots of people who think he's a twonk (although I bet far fewer than think the same about GB) but there are equally a lot of people who think 'good for him'.
He is a money wasting fool.
Even if Lab and Lib had fielded candidates it would not have said much about 42 days when he won - it was a very safe Tory seat. IME very few people choose who to vote for based on one issue, esp not an issue so far removed from everyday life, so it was never going to work as a referendum on 42 days.
He is an egotist. He was bored. The 42 day debate should have been left to Parliament where it is still raging between the Commons and Lords. What happens in the Lords and how hard they decide to push their views is much more interesting and important.
He is a man of principle but not principles I beleive in. He is anti CCTV etc at a time when crime is out of control. As shadow home secretary he never once raised the issue of rape and rape sentancing in all the hours of debate in the Commons. Those issues will affect my life alot more than whether the Gov use a power to detain a terrorist suspect for 42 days (I should say I am actually against 42 days).
Cameron is much better off without a man like Davis.
He's FOR capital punishment.
I find it quite hard to reconcile in my own head the fact that he thinks it is okay to kill someone but NOT to put them in prison for 42 days.
SWC - my mother was attacked and the man was caught thanks to CCTV. For us it worked.
I am well aware that 42 days is "not limited to brown people". Which is nice for my family who are not all white. However, I do not believe that the 42 days power would be used indiscriminatly. The 28 day power has yet to be used which says alot.
Whatever you believe about 42 days I think the by-election was utterly pointless. Absolutely nothing was gained. I doubt that anyone's opinion on civil liberties issues have changed as a result of it and I also think that he will have done little to raise awareness of 42 days as an issue, as I would also imagine that the majority of people who don't care about it won't care about a by-election either. I agree that he got a lot of support but what for? Either you agree with him or you don't. A by-election isn't going to change anyone's opinion. He would have been better off staying in the Shadow Cabinet and fighting his corner from there.
I think he's probably a bit of both really. I think the by-election was misguided. It really didn't serve as a platform to get his message across. He's not an inexperienced politician - surely it must have been forseeable. Or he should at least have taken some better advice on it. People talked about it for a couple of days, now they're only talking about him. He, and his political prospects, are the story.
I think it was poor judgement. WHich is not something I look for in a politician.
And TBH I find his views on capital punishment sit oddly with his other views as well.
Your tone is quite patronising SMC and it is putting me off entering a meaningful debate with you (I wll note that you are wrong about the circumstances of my Mum's attack).
However, the purpose of this thread was to comment on whether David Davis is a fool or not for calling a by-election and I will finish my involvement by re-iterating that the by-election was a waste of time and the important fight against 42 days should be left to the Lords where some very influential people (incl an ex Lord Chancellor, an ex Attorney General and an ex head of MI5) are leading the fight in a forum where they can acutally make a difference to the legislation.
he's a complete fool
what a waste of money
he comes across as an attention seeking, anti gay, pro death sentence twat who decided he wasn't getting enough of the limelight
and shame on the libdems for backing him!
Did he vote against equalising the age of consent for homosexuals?
Ho voted against equalising the age of consent, agaist allowing homosexuals to adopt and he defended Section 28 of the Local Government Act which prevented the teaching in schools that homosexual relationships are as valid as any other.
He is truly a defender of individual liberties then.
It is also interesting to note that this crusader for civil liberties vigorously supported the introduction of 28 days detention without trial.
from memory he did, and upholding clause 28 and against gay parents being allowed to adopt
tbh it's not all that that really bothers me
it's the whole attention seeking bid...I sort of think, if you really want to make a difference, stay where you are as shadow home secretary and fight from that position. Not this whole 'look at me' thing because now he's on his own. Don't forget he fought Cameron for the leadership and part of me wonders whether this was just a major bid to be noticed. Misguided though I think, in my eyes anyway.
I mean not that it doesn't bother me just that I knew that about him anyway iyswim!
(sorry, working so it took me a bit of time to get around to pressing post and everyone else had said what I was trying to say!)
Exactly. He wasn't someone who wouldn't get a hearing otherwise. He was shadow bloody Home Secretary!
I suppose you're right. I think it does say something rather unpleasant about his views on homosexuality though, if he sees those things as child protection measures. And it doesn't make me like him any more. But no, not really relevant to the civil liberty issue.
Join the discussion
Please login first.