David Davis what a plonker?

[Guest JudgeMental]

 

Well, first the Liberals and then probably labour as well have decided to call his bluff and not stand against him....thus making him appear something of a joke and probably certifiable.

 

Now it appears that Rupert Murdoch has ordered his rockweiler Kelvin Mackensey (x sun editor) into training to stand against him lol. Kelvin is all over the morning news, turning a farce into a disaster and all at the tax payers expense - what did Davis expect on Friday the 13th*-)

 

Just goes to show once again how ego driven politics costs us all so dearly......

 

[Dave Newell]

As I understand it the lib dems, far from deciding to "call his bluff" have said they won't stand against him because they agree with his standpoint on the detention of terror suspects.

 

I don't quite see how this is "all at the taxpayers expense" though JM :-S Any candidates standing for election have to finance their own camapign.

 

"Ego driven"? perhaps but for once I will applaud a conservative for having the bottle to resign his post of MP and restand on one issue.

 

D.

 

P.S. I don't do politics.

[Guest JudgeMental]

I saw something last night and am sure they said that the by election would cost the tax payer £78,000

 

[malc d]

Dave Newell - 2008-06-13 1:32 PM

 

As I understand it the lib dems, far from deciding to "call his bluff" have said they won't stand against him because they agree with his standpoint on the detention of terror suspects.

 

I don't quite see how this is "all at the taxpayers expense" though JM :-S Any candidates standing for election have to finance their own camapign.

 

"Ego driven"? perhaps but for once I will applaud a conservative for having the bottle to resign his post of MP and restand on one issue.

 

D.

 

P.S. I don't do politics.

 

Can't quite see what there is to applaud Dave.

 

Davis had / has a safe Tory seat.

He resigns.

Stands for election back into the same safe seat.

Apparently no other main party will oppose him so he will have to argue his policies with himself.

I assume he will then be re-elected into the seat that he just resigned from.

 

So what will have changed ?

 

(?) (?)

[BGD]

Judge -

 

That's one view of what he's done.

 

The other is that David Davis is an extreme rarity in Westminster: a Minister and MP who actually possesses some personal integrity.

 

Someone who is prepared to resign his job, his salary, his perks, his pension, all on the line for a principle that he believes in fervently: the defence of the freedoms of individual citizens which are gradually being eroded away by the ever-increasing powers of the State.

 

How many other MP's (or indeed any of us) would actually be prepared to give up everything in order to defend the principle of citizens rights??

 

How many other snouts-in-the-trough MP's have ever done so??

 

I for one applaud David Davis for having the guts to actually walk the way he talks, and if I was amongst the electorate in his constituency I would campaign for and vote for his re-election; I personally view his stand against the Big Brother powers of the State as admirable.

 

 

 

 

 

[malc d]

BGD - 2008-06-13 2:03 PM

 

Judge -

 

That's one view of what he's done.

 

The other is that David Davis is an extreme rarity in Westminster: a Minister and MP who actually possesses some personal integrity.

 

Someone who is prepared to resign his job, his salary, his perks, his pension, all on the line for a principle that he believes in fervently: the defence of the freedoms of individual citizens which are gradually being eroded away by the ever-increasing powers of the State.

 

How many other MP's (or indeed any of us) would actually be prepared to give up everything in order to defend the principle of citizens rights??

 

How many other snouts-in-the-trough MP's have ever done so??

 

I for one applaud David Davis for having the guts to actually walk the way he talks, and if I was amongst the electorate in his constituency I would campaign for and vote for his re-election; I personally view his stand against the Big Brother powers of the State as admirable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't doubt that David Davis is a man of integrity, I just don't see what will have changed when he gets his seat back.

All the same laws will be there - what will have changed ?

 

(Incidentally, I agree with him about the "ever increasing powers of the state" - but they will still be the same after his election).

 

Plus: He's picked a bad time to do it. When he knocks on doors to discuss civil liberties I think people will be more likely to want to talk about the price of food, fuel etc.

 

 

:-|

[BGD]

Malc - I think 2 things will have changed, even if he wins his existing MP seat back:

 

1. David Davis will have lost his ministerial position, and the massive salary boost, car, driver, perks and pension that goes with it.

He's resigned (sacrificed) all that to fight personally on this point of principle, and he won't get it back.

 

2. If he wins, he'll be in a very strong position to influence the Conservative party, and other Conservative MP's in the House of Commons and House of Lords, that they should also resist further erosions in the rights of citizens versus powers of the State.

That informal, but very powerful influencing ability will be exerciseable both before and after the next General election.

 

 

I applaud also the Lib-Dem decision not to put up a candidate against him, on the basis that they agree with his stand against increasing State powers.

 

 

 

 

[crinklystarfish]

Like Bruce said.

I normally have only contempt for polititians. This one just joined my list of ones that might actually have a spine.

[malc d]

BGD - 2008-06-13 2:44 PM

 

Malc - I think 2 things will have changed, even if he wins his existing MP seat back:

 

1. David Davis will have lost his ministerial position, and the massive salary boost, car, driver, perks and pension that goes with it.

He's resigned (sacrificed) all that to fight personally on this point of principle, and he won't get it back.

 

2. If he wins, he'll be in a very strong position to influence the Conservative party, and other Conservative MP's in the House of Commons and House of Lords, that they should also resist further erosions in the rights of citizens versus powers of the State.

That informal, but very powerful influencing ability will be exerciseable both before and after the next General election.

 

 

I applaud also the Lib-Dem decision not to put up a candidate against him, on the basis that they agree with his stand against increasing State powers.

 

 

 

 

 

I still see it differently :

 

1) There is no need to give up all that - he could just campaign to publicise

his views and stay in his job.

Or, resign his 'shadow'position and stay in parliament.

( I doubt he would have "sacrificed" all that if he couldn't afford to).

 

2) WHEN he wins ( as it's a safe Tory seat ) he will have no more or less influence with his party than he has now. Probably less because he won't hold a shadow ministers job any more and ( presumably) will be relegated to the back benches.

 

 

We shall see.

 

 

:-|

[Tomo3090]

He and the Tories are in a win win situation. He is bound to win the seat back, probably with bigger majority because people will applaud his integrity. His shadow ministers pension is NOT at risk because they will get that anyway if he loses.

 

He will get back to parliament and because of his "pricipled, brave stand", David Cameron will promote him straight back into the shadow cabinet. Afterall, he will be a bigger threat to his leadership on the backbenches.

 

Despite David Cameron saying he didn't know what was happening, I bet he did! It makes good political capital as the Tories will be seen as standing for "civil liberties", The government will have to take some part in the election, even if it's just on Newsnight or Question Time, and all the while they get to show up Gordon Browns idiocy in proposing this rubbish in the first place and it stops the government geting over any other points because it's all the media will want to talk about in interviews.

 

"Yes Prime Minister, you have ended Middle East wars, fed the poor, cured AIDS, but what about David Davis? What a man of the people guy he is!

 

Brilliant politics and well done to who ever thought it up! :-)

[maggyd]

Tomo3090 - 2008-06-13 3:46 PM

 

He and the Tories are in a win win situation. He is bound to win the seat back, probably with bigger majority because people will applaud his integrity. His shadow ministers pension is NOT at risk because they will get that anyway if he loses.

 

He will get back to parliament and because of his "pricipled, brave stand", David Cameron will promote him straight back into the shadow cabinet. Afterall, he will be a bigger threat to his leadership on the backbenches.

 

Despite David Cameron saying he didn't know what was happening, I bet he did! It makes good political capital as the Tories will be seen as standing for "civil liberties", The government will have to take some part in the election, even if it's just on Newsnight or Question Time, and all the while they get to show up Gordon Browns idiocy in proposing this rubbish in the first place and it stops the government geting over any other points because it's all the media will want to talk about in interviews.

 

"Yes Prime Minister, you have ended Middle East wars, fed the poor, cured AIDS, but what about David Davis? What a man of the people guy he is!

 

Brilliant politics and well done to who ever thought it up! :-)

 

RUBBISH >:-) it is the powers that be that have requested the 42 days!! do you think that terrorists should be let back into the community just because the police havent been able to gather all the information it needs in the time allotted Al quida is laughing at us fighting amongst ourselves! why doesnt someone do some research into WHAT other countries are allowed? Its just another case of the Tories taking the opportunity to rubbish anything that Labour try to do THE MAN IS A PLONKER and I hope that his constituants see through him and remember what it was done for.

[twooks]

we get more and more cynical don't we?

 

I remember when politicians resigned voluntarily if they screwed up, and also on points of principle.

Just wish someone had had the bottle to do the same thing over Iraq.

 

Cook and Short didn't resign - not in time anyway - they stayed put and argued that by doing so they were in a position to influence events - and we all know the answer to that !

 

It's about standing up for what you believe to be right - something that rarely happens - and saying 'enough is enough' - something that is long overdue.

 

It is particularly surprising for conservatives - given the the Reverend Blair was the heir and supporter of Thatcherism.

Bit like the situation which took Martin Bell into Parliament - the other parties refused to stand against him in the election as well.

 

Interesting that Murdoch is sticking his oar in, unelected, clearly in it for the money, interfering in UK politics.

 

Anyone read 1984 recently, I suspect Davies may have done.

 

No, Davies is most definitely not a plonker! pity there aren't more like him.

Wish we lived a few miles further east!

 

B-)

[BGD]

Tomo3090 - 2008-06-13 3:46 PM

 

He and the Tories are in a win win situation. He is bound to win the seat back, probably with bigger majority because people will applaud his integrity. His shadow ministers pension is NOT at risk because they will get that anyway if he loses.

 

He will get back to parliament and because of his "pricipled, brave stand", David Cameron will promote him straight back into the shadow cabinet. Afterall, he will be a bigger threat to his leadership on the backbenches.

 

Despite David Cameron saying he didn't know what was happening, I bet he did! It makes good political capital as the Tories will be seen as standing for "civil liberties", The government will have to take some part in the election, even if it's just on Newsnight or Question Time, and all the while they get to show up Gordon Browns idiocy in proposing this rubbish in the first place and it stops the government geting over any other points because it's all the media will want to talk about in interviews.

 

"Yes Prime Minister, you have ended Middle East wars, fed the poor, cured AIDS, but what about David Davis? What a man of the people guy he is!

 

Brilliant politics and well done to who ever thought it up! :-)

 

 

 

Tomo - I believe his Ministerial pension IS in fact sarificed, because it will/would be based upon a combination of the level of his Ministerial salary and the length of time (in completed calendar months) that he holds/held that level of salary.

Yes, he has earned a portion of it from the calendar months he's been a Shadow front bench Minister to date, but he has voluntarily foregone the future months/years of accrual that he would have accumulated had he not resigned from his Shadow Home Secretary position.

 

He'd have been much better off financially if he'd kept his head down and just gone along with whatever others decided about our personal freedoms. But he decided on point of personal principle not to do so.

 

Let us not forget that David Davis is not one of the posh, public school, landed gentry Tories.

He grew up with a single parent in a working class environment, ex secondary school, etc.

 

So far as I can tell, he stood for parliament on principle, not simply because it's a cushy number.

Now he's resigned on principle, and is inviting all the electorate in the constituancy that he represents to either back him in a vote of confidence on how much central Government control they are prepared to accept over their lives, or fire him and get someone else who holds different views to represent them.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that his seat has become a safe one for the Conservative party mainly because it is he as a person who has occupied it for some time.

 

 

 

[Tomo3090]

Maggy, you say Al Quaida are "laughing at us" and you might be right, but that would be because our politicans have just done what they want them to do. i.e remove some of our basic human rights that have been around in Britain since Magna Carta was signed. The right to hear the charges against you and the right to have access to the legal system have just been signed away. But only for certain parts of the society we live in. If nothing else drives a wedge between Muslims and the rest of us this will. And that is the message that will be spun by these radical organisations, that this measure is an attack on Islam. I know you will say it is a public safety issue but wasn't public safety at risk during the IRA campaigns of the last 40 years? Wasn't it at risk during the war? When a democratic and free society starts to dismantle their own system of justice in the name of " National Safety" then the terrorits have won. These draconian powers are not on the statute book of any other democratic society and I would suggest we are no more at risk than the US, Germany, France, Australia or anywhere.

 

These ancient rights that have been part of our history have just been taken away and people are defending it! Amazing!

 

The people who are saying we need these powers are not the police, not the Crown Prosecution Service, not the judges or legal profession, but POLITICIANS! People who will tell you anything to keep power and control. The same people who stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction aimed at us and primed to fire at 20 minutes notice and that we had to go to war.

 

I don't support the Tories and as I said above I doubt his motives, but He is right when He says these things are important and shouldn't be given away on the whim of the government in power.

[malc d]

Tomo

 

When public safety was thought to be at risk during world war two, people thought to be a threat were interned on the Isle of Man.

 

The threat from the IRA brought about internment in Northern Ireland.

 

( I don't think either was viewed afterwards as successful but was a reaction to events at the time).

 

 

 

[colin]

Yes he is a plonker.

David Cameron must be starting to wonder whats going wrong, we get tory MP/MEP one after another being found out having helped themselves to hundreds of thousands of tax payers money, now we get one wasting tax payers money on a pointless by election, WHY, we supposadly live in a democracy MPs vote on laws and whoever gets most votes carries the day, if he doesn't like it then campaign against it not waste taxpayers money, serves him right if he gets deselected by local party

[davenewellhome]

colin - 2008-06-13 7:39 PM

 

Yes he is a plonker.

David Cameron must be starting to wonder whats going wrong, we get tory MP/MEP one after another being found out having helped themselves to hundreds of thousands of tax payers money, now we get one wasting tax payers money on a pointless by election, WHY, we supposadly live in a democracy MPs vote on laws and whoever gets most votes carries the day, if he doesn't like it then campaign against it not waste taxpayers money, serves him right if he gets deselected by local party

 

"campaign against it" that's exactly what he is doing Colin, in probably the most effective way he can. This way he draws maximum attention to the subject rather than the usual "vote for me because I care" b0110x! He is prepared to put his ministerial salary and "perks" on the line for something he truly believes in. The lib dems won't fight the seat because they feel the same way (apparently), all it needs is for labour to put up a decent candidate and if they're so good they'll win it!

 

D.

[twooks]

alternatively, Murdoch - who believes [with some justification unfortunately] that he runs the uk - puts up a puppet

 

a sad reflection

 

B-)

[maggyd]

If nothing else drives a wedge between Muslims and the rest of us this will. And that is the message that will be spun by these radical organisations, that this measure is an attack on Islam.

 

 

So what are you saying that all Muslims are potential terrorists???

 

I think that All Muslims should publicly denounce terrorists if they want to live in harmony in this country, It is the extremeists that want detaining like the person that ran his Landrover into an Airport in Scotland and the people that blew up the bus in London and the others that their plans went wrong.

 

Our right is to travel on buses, trains and any other transport without the fear of being blown up *-) Ive sat on a bus and havent taken my eyes off an Asian that was innocently going about his buisness and Im sure Im not alone. The people of this Country need to feel safe and if that means keeping someone locked up untill he is either cleared or found guilty Then So Be It! Im not worried about my rights because I know I have nothing to hide. If we are being blown up What would you call that? Well I would call it War and as someone else has pointed out when we were at risk from the Germans innocent Germans were intered! Well Ive got Grand-children travelling around in our City,s and I want them safe Who is answerable if they are blown up?? Will David Davies take the blame?

[twooks]

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

 

 

 

don't be so sure that you've nothing to hide - maggy - just hope and pray that there is someone left who will speak up for you.

 

 

if we can only defeat 'an enemy' by forgetting the basic principles that define our culture and society - then we are the ones to be defeated

 

B-)

[maggyd]

twooks - 2008-06-13 10:30 PM

 

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

 

 

 

don't be so sure that you've nothing to hide - maggy - just hope and pray that there is someone left who will speak up for you.

 

 

if we can only defeat 'an enemy' by forgetting the basic principles that define our culture and society - then we are the ones to be defeated

 

B-)

 

Is that the Facists your talking about?? they were to the Right werent they?

 

We have to live by the Laws , and Laws have to be made, but their is always someone with an axe to grind!

 

In America they can detain people for 6 months and all this rubbish is because of 6 weeks.

 

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

colin - 2008-06-13 7:39 PM

 

Yes he is a plonker.

David Cameron must be starting to wonder whats going wrong, we get tory MP/MEP one after another being found out having helped themselves to hundreds of thousands of tax payers money, now we get one wasting tax payers money on a pointless by election, WHY, we supposadly live in a democracy MPs vote on laws and whoever gets most votes carries the day, if he doesn't like it then campaign against it not waste taxpayers money, serves him right if he gets deselected by local party

 

Spot on Colin!

 

Gordon Brown today condemned David Davis's resignation as a stunt that has become a farce. Brown must be loving this distraction.

 

quote: Many Tory MPs have been reluctant to criticise Davis in public but Sir Patrick Cormack said today that he had made a "colossal misjudgment" and a "great miscalculation".

 

Cormack, one of parliament's longest serving MPs, said it was a "hollow gesture" because Labour was unlikely to put up a candidate to fight him on the issue.

 

"It's a noble gesture politically but it's a great miscalculation," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

 

And if you have looked at the news this evening on all channels there is no support for this even from his own constituency..... probably sour grapes regards the loss of leadership contest is behind this nonsense.

 

Lets make it clear that I do not agree with the 42 day law - but this is nothing to do with it - it is typicaly empty political posturing!

[twooks]

maggyd - 2008-06-13 10:42 PM

 

twooks - 2008-06-13 10:30 PM

 

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

 

 

 

don't be so sure that you've nothing to hide - maggy - just hope and pray that there is someone left who will speak up for you.

 

 

if we can only defeat 'an enemy' by forgetting the basic principles that define our culture and society - then we are the ones to be defeated

 

B-)

 

Is that the Facists your talking about?? they were to the Right werent they?

 

We have to live by the Laws , and Laws have to be made, but their is always someone with an axe to grind!

 

In America they can detain people for 6 months and all this rubbish is because of 6 weeks.

 

 

 

lost me there maggy - don't follow any of your comments

 

but perhaps you are suggesting that we do what they do in the states ??

better yet

why not just lockup every one who dares to think differently - there are 60 million people in the uk - in round figures - that means that all 60 million of us can be locked up for 6 months because we dare to be different

 

I doubt even George Orwell thought it would go so far

 

we have the cameras on every corner - don't seem to make anyone feel any safer - lets just ratchet the paranoia up a little bit further shall we -

 

just need the gun 'laws' of the states to support the indefinite detention laws

 

do you seriously want your descendants to be subjected to this kind of life

 

B-)

[Mike Parke]

I may be naive but I back the man. To find a politician prepared to stand up for what he genuinely believes (as opposed to what he believes because of a three line whip)is refreshing. Doublessly he will be returned with an increased majority. As a retired poice officer I do not support the 42 days rule. I believe, (or think, as I never was involved in a terrorist case) that if you cannot glean all the evidence you need to gain a conviction in 28 days perhaps your 'suspect' jusy may be innocent!!

[twooks]

Mike Parke - 2008-06-13 11:12 PM

 

I may be naive but I back the man. To find a politician prepared to stand up for what he genuinely believes (as opposed to what he believes because of a three line whip)is refreshing. Doublessly he will be returned with an increased majority. As a retired poice officer I do not support the 42 days rule. I believe, (or think, as I never was involved in a terrorist case) that if you cannot glean all the evidence you need to gain a conviction in 28 days perhaps your 'suspect' jusy may be innocent!!

 

I understand that the 28 day rule has yet to be invoked - and that there are more than enough measures already in place.

It's not that long ago that people were incarcerated on false - misleading - or just invented evidence, do we really want to go there again.

I remember magistrates and staff from mags courts lamenting the loss of police courts - and the 'nod and wink' that signified that there was a wrong un coming up - so lets lock 'em up anyway - just in case .. .. .. .. .. and to hell with proof. The same people who fiddled their expense claims, broke drink n drive laws, .. .. .. presumably because they were the 'right sort' and so it was ok.

 

B-)