BS: david davis - what's that about?

Subject: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 12:55 PM

I always figured DD was politically just slightly to the right of Benito Mussolini. The sort of bloke who listens to Andrew Lloyd Webber and would bring back the birch for not having a straight parting and a clean handkerchief in your pocket .

Now it seems, he is resigning to protect our free way of life.

Or does he just want to kick Cameron in the goolies for winning the party leadership?

Both noble aims.......

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 02:42 PM

I don't get it either.
No one thinks it will ever become law anyway.
I wish someone would make such a stand about EU, referenda, fishing,French farmers, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 04:36 PM

Perhaps DD knows something we don't ... something so scary that it even scares a Tory ... ?

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 05:42 PM

It is plainly an attempt to drive the conservatives towards the libertarian right. I believe the USA has loonies like that too.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:23 PM

He's an egomaniac and it's a publicity stunt.

When he wins back his seat he will stand up on a soap box, puff up his chest and proclaim it as further proof of Gordon Browns popularity.

Smoke and mirrors.

All he needs is a top hat, a cane, a cape, and stripy trousers going up to his chest topped off by a mini waistcoat.

It's a weird attempt to keep the tory momentum going.

It is of course completely insubstantive and the British public, dumb as they can be won'y be particularly impressed.

It will give hm a chance to stick his head a bit higher than the other tories who all want to be seen presideing over their recent change of fortunes.

As I said, he's an egomaniac.


Watch - my prediction will come true!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 08:51 PM

I think you could be onto something Richard. Davis comes from a wing of the tories that cares about as much about personal freedoms as I do about the future of traditional folk music. He's a rabid tory - like Joseph and Thatcher, red in claw and radical. Eurosceptic, and right wing as they come.

Cameron has ben succeeding very nicely with more pragmatic and humane brand of toryism - and presumably - Davis is really pissed off about it - and so he has selected this little mound on which to stand and organise resistance.

Funny thing politics.... Labour couldn't stand Blair who kept winning and the Tories don't seem to have much time for Cameron - who looked as though he was going to be very successful.

Well maybe I'm reading it wrong, and I misjudge the man. it would be interesting to hear from a tory.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 02:15 AM

Oh, I think he cares about the personal liberties for the rich to opress the poor - but if the poor organised against the rich he'd have the army out toot sweet!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 02:51 AM

As usual there may well be a hidden agenda here and you and I will not be party to it. We may reap something from it as a result...good or bad...but time will tell. Ebven if the guy is ridiculed for his action (which Cameron has been careful not to do) something has to change...but what??????

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 02:55 AM

The man's a total tosser and it's just a publicity stunt, Lib-Dems are not going to stand so it's not like he would lose anyway. Labour are threatening not to stand so Davis can be number one in a field of one, and achieve absolutely fuck all but a great deal of expense to the public purse.

Tosser

eric

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 03:59 AM

Kelvin MacKenzie is going to stand against him, on a "lock the bastards up" ticket.
Davis may come unstuck.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 04:29 AM

well he's resigned now, so we'll have to see. But the schisms in the tory party must still be there.

I think he surely realises he looks and sounds like a complete tit. Dianne Abott was defending him to Nigel kennedy on the telly last night.

What taste that woman has!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 04:36 AM

Do any of our Hull members live in Haltemprice and Howden?

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 04:51 AM

Used to do a gig at the white Horse in Howden many moons ago. They could drink for Europe in that place.

At the last knockings, this old biddy used to come onstage (not sure there was a stage) and insist on singing the Pet clark song 'Sailor'.

sailor - stop your roaming
Sailor - leave the sea
Sailor - when tide turns
Come home safe to me!

now that's what I call a folksong.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 05:20 AM

The other point is that he is creating unnecessary admin cost for the taxpayer.

Elections cost money.

Unnecessary elections are a waste of money.

it's a calculated risk based on the high likelihood that he'll be reelected.

Someone ought to stand against him on a platform of misuse of public funds (to furnish ones public image)

As for dissent amongst the tories, I doubt it very much. They are a party known for their abaility to stick together and ut on a brave unied front whilst keeping their divisions well hidden.

This is more about a big public gloat over Gordon Brown and David Davis taking the credit.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:41 AM

"Do any of our Hull members live in Haltemprice and Howden?"

Yes, I do. I'm one of his reluctant constituents. I've met him once or twice and he's a very personable chap but he's the darling of the rich landowners and farmers who, themselves, on parish councils and in their general dealings, can hardly be said to be concerned about the civil liberties of anyone but themselves.

Davis knows that he is bound to be re-elected, whatever happens, so it is nothing more than an empty gesture. I hope that there are no other candidates so his gesture will be even more devoid of meaning. I will be voting with my feet - and boycotting the election altogether.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:52 AM

When considering the mentality of the type of people who vote for Davis, bear in mind that they also voted the appalling misogynist and piss-head, Godfrey Bloom as their MEP. This is man who said:

"No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age. I just don't think they clean behind the fridge enough. I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home. I am going to promote men's rights."

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:55 AM

""It is plainly an attempt to drive the conservatives towards the libertarian right.""

It's all in the perception Richard.

I would have said it is plainly an attempt to prevent any further slide toward the totalitarian, communist left (as opposed to the genuine socialist left), adding only that it is a singularly stupid way to make such an attempt.

I can't recall who said it, and I don't have the time right now to find out, but I am reminded that someone once said "He that will give up freedom in exchange for security, will, in the end, have neither".

WLD, that's the view of a Tory.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 07:04 AM

"I would have said it is plainly an attempt to prevent any further slide toward the totalitarian, communist left "

Possibly one of the most stupid statements I've read on Mudcats. Please explain how that is happening. You're obviously not living in the UK!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 07:53 AM

I believe that Davis is a seagreen incorruptible putting his career on the line to save our liberties. I believe that throughout the Thatcher and Blair years he was slowly building up to a climax, the point at which he said NO MORE! THUS FAR, AND NO FURTHER! HERE I STAND, I CAN NO OTHER!!!!

I also believe for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows, I believe that somewhere in the darkest night a candle glows, I believe for everyone who goes astray someone will come to show the way, I believe, I believe, I believe above the storm the smallest prayer will still be heard, I believe that someone in the great somewhere hears every word, I believe I just saw a the whole bloody stock of Pork Farms fly by.

I wish.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: polaitaly
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:06 AM

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:10 AM

ROFLMAO!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:11 AM

That was for PB, by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:26 AM

One good thing to come out of this - it's split the tory party down the middle :)

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:53 AM

like a Brazilian.....

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 09:38 AM

I won't pursue that analogy.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 10:30 AM

have you seen the cover of the Daily mail - he is being hailed as a freedom fighter!

Sometimes England scares me.

You know, if unreconsructed Portaloo could have thought up a stunt like this against Major in '92, we all might be speaking Portuguese by now.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: r.padgett
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 11:25 AM

It is about "habeus corpus" and avoiding people being held without charges being brought through our legal system ~ 42 days is a long time in anyones life, presumed innocent until found guilty

It is about the removal of trial by jury, a corner stone of UK and other countries system of the "Rule of Law"

We must not give way to changes which give up fundamental freedoms in a free society

Good luck to the man and I am not interested in his politics or that of others in this

Ray

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 11:30 AM

I thought the reason we have an opposition party is that, as a party, they oppose policies of the government that they disagree with. If Davis sees himself as some white knight fighting to free the country of oppression, I suggest he starts closer to home in his own constituency.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:14 PM

One might assume then that all of you who think that my comment was

"Possibly one of the most stupid statements I've read on Mudcats."

actually support:- Identity Cards, Unlimited CCTV, Unlimited stop and search, no right to trial by jury, courts now draw inferences from silence on the part of the accused, multiple databases, all apparently easily accessible to everyone except the department responsible for deporting foreign criminals and illegal immigrants, and when they DO manage to access them, they leave 'em on the bloody bus.

I further presume that you are happy, should our far from infallible authorities mistake you for someone they want to catch, to be grabbed off the street without warning, and held for up to six weeks, to be turfed out without apology, whenever somebody points out they've got the wrong man.

All possible in England right now, and all smelling more like Joe Stalin than Maggie Thatcher.


I DO INDEED LIVE IN ENGLAND, but it's a far cry from the Merrie England it once was, and IMO should still be.

If you really want to live in a dictatorship, there are plenty to choose from. Try Zimbabwe.

But leave England as the place the dead of two world wars sacrificed their lives to preserve.

If they had known how useless that sacrifice was, and how that hard won freedom would be frittered away, by political hacks with neither guts nor conscience, I wonder if they would have queued up to volunteer.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 02:38 PM

you know whats really scary....

back in the dark days of the Toxteth riots, i can remeber a rentamob crowd jabbering on Qusetion Time that Thatch was a fascist.

Dear Old Michael Foot turned to them wearily and said, of course she's not a fascist. And he went to locate the precise strand of traditional conservatism she represented - what her guiding philosophers would be, and whatt the logical counter to her arguments would be.

Nowadays we have an opposition that philosphically lines up with rentamob.

Gordon Brown a stalinist! What utterly utterly moronic bollocks!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Anne Lister
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 03:13 PM

What I don't understand is that if you happen to live in DD's constituency and don't agree with him on this one issue, (but, for argument's sake, you happen to be a Tory) who do you vote for? If you live in his constituency and happen to be Lib Dem, who do you vote for? If you're a socialist, who do you vote for? What will any result actually prove about the strength of feeling about this issue? What has this exercise got to do with democracy as we know it? And if he's elected (probably a foregone conclusion, because he's a Tory and because he's already got a majority) what exactly will he be able to do as a lone voice in Westminster that he couldn't have done before resigning?
In other words, leaving aside my own feelings on the issue (which are, pretty much, that I'm more bothered about my rights not to be threatened by terrorists than the rights of the few people who might unjustly lose a few weeks of liberty - for which, under this new legislation, they would be compensated, btw) - what is the point, exactly?

Anne

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 03:28 PM

No Don, you're not getting it, are you? It's the bit about the totalitarian communist left that, as WLD says, is...well. you'll have read it. I'm no fan of New Labour or most of their policies but communists! LOL. They're not even socialists. Please don't insult communists with your ill-considered monikers.

And as for tories as defenders of civil liberties? LOL LOL LOL. I presume, from your stance, that you're a fully paid up member of Amnesty? No? Then what the f**k are you ranting about?

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 03:50 PM

As we speak arch stalinist Gordon Brown is on telly saying what a good mate his friend the Duke of Edinburgh is, and how he 'really understood' him back when GB was fiery student leader.

Roll on the revolution!
You have nothing to lose but your diamond tiaras!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:23 PM

Well, there's none so blind, as they say.

I guess if you lot can't see slow erosion of your rights, under the guise of keeping you safe from the bogeyman, then you deserve whatever you get, for allowing it to happen.

You have a greater chance of being struck by lightning, attacked by a mad dog and run over by a steamroller, all in the same day, than of being harmed by terrorist actions.

The 42 day holding without charge will not alter that possibility by any measurable quantity, and it will not cause, or lead to, the conviction of a single terrorist who would otherwise have gone free.

It WILL give the authorities another step toward the total control of your lives which is truly what they crave. We are heading toward an Orwellian nightmare system, and it has been brought about by exactly the method propounded by Goebbels. "Give the people someone to fear, or hate, and they will fall over themselves to give up their rights and freedoms."

It is a matter of months since people on this forum were screaming blue murder about the idea of having to carry identity cards. I believe, if Brown re-introduces the idea (and he says he intends to do that) it will almost pass unnoticed.

DonT.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:32 PM

"Gordon Brown a stalinist! What utterly utterly moronic bollocks!"

Facile comment WLD, and entirely unworthy of you.

As you are well aware, I did NOT call Brown a Stalinist.

I named a number of measures which have been, or are intended to be, implemented by this government (and I use that word in the loosest possible sense), measures which I said smacked more of Soviet Russia than of England, even under a right wing Tory government.

Which of those measures were not a part of the Russian way of life under Uncle Joe?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:49 PM

You know, if unreconstructed Portaloo could have thought up a stunt like this against Major in '92, we all might be speaking Portuguese by now.

What on earth has Portillo got to do with Portugal, weelittledrummer?
..........................................

The way politics go these days, I can't see that Davies is significantly to the right of New Labour on a mass of issues. And on the matter of locking people up without charging them, he is in fact much more in line with Labour traditions than the current government is, with the reluctant compliance of a supine mass of "Labour" MPs..

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:52 PM

""In other words, leaving aside my own feelings on the issue (which are, pretty much, that I'm more bothered about my rights not to be threatened by terrorists than the rights of the few people who might unjustly lose a few weeks of liberty - for which, under this new legislation, they would be compensated, btw) - what is the point, exactly?""

1. That's a pretty cold self centred attitude usually attributed by members of this forum to those heartless, power mad Tories they all detest so much.

2. Those FEW people whom you dismiss so carelessly, are human beings with lives, jobs, and families, and I'm reasonably sure that the majority of them would care more about YOUR rights than you do about THEIRS.

3. How DO you compensate somebody who has been wrongly arrested, held for several weeks, probably incommunicado except (possibly) for a legal representative, and then set loose without apology or explanation?

Money?.......I don't think that'll do it, especially if the mean B*****ds dish out the kind of cash they pay jurors.


Having said all that, Anne, I CAN relate to your first paragraph. The action he has taken is possibly the most stupid ever taken by any politician. It has no possible relevance to any reasonable expression of opposition to government policy, and serves only to show that David Davis has totally lost the plot, and is ripe for culling.

And, as a Tory myself (YES, some of us DO care about civil liberties) that is not something I want to be saying.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 06:57 PM

And above the squabbling crowd ...

Tall as a statue ...

his pocket watch glinting in the sunshine ...

David Davis gazed out at the horizon ....

Like a courageous helmsman ...

on stormy seas ...

Giding us toward a better future ...

A future in which people are finally able to enjoy ...














just how special HE really is ...

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 08:07 PM

i apologise.

Gordon is a bit of a stalinist. possibly the moustache.
portaloo has no connection with portugal. it was a cheap jibe, concerning his supposed ancestry.
the right wingers did talk of him as 'the prince across the water' when 'soft option' Major was elected because they knew no one with Thatcher's line in malarkey would get elected.

I am chastened.

DD...bit of a tit though, wouldn't you say? i feel more threatened by him and his thatcherite economics than I do by Gordon.

You see when the tories get elected and all the tax breaks start going to the rich and economies have to be made - so essential services go down the tube, and no one sees further than the end of this weeks balance sheet - except when it comes to right wing bollocks like fund holding surgeries and the national curriculum .

that's when ordinary people - trade unionists, teachers teaching about cultural diversity, the unemployed - that's when they become enemies of the state.

thatcher bent the law every which way in those years and when the statute books didn't back her up - she ignored them anyway. The secret history of that period won't be known in my lifetime, but from what people told me who had been on both sides in the miners strike - I guessed some of it.

So no. I don't see DD as a guarantor of my civil rights.

i think it might be a mistake for you to do so as well.

if the cops and the soldiers who have to clear up after things like the tube bombing ask for this extra peiod of detention - they should be allowed it. they and the troops are on the sharp end.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 04:25 AM

"You see when the tories get elected and all the tax breaks start going to the rich and economies have to be made - so essential services go down the tube, and no one sees further than the end of this weeks balance sheet - except when it comes to right wing bollocks like fund holding surgeries and the national curriculum ."

WLD,

Sounds identical to life under New Labour. All politicians are tories (sic) now.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:31 AM

What has Portillo's ancestry got to do with Portugal? His parents were Spanish.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,wld
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:46 AM

Portugal is adjacent to Spain.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:12 AM

Compare the freedoms lost by the ordinary person under the detestable Tatcher with those lost under the somewhat less right wing Brown, and the entirely self-serving Blair. It is the economics of capitalism, Don, that damage your life.

Al, I agree entirely with you. Indeed, I rather suspect that about the only thing we disagree violently about is "What is folk music", but for the present let us attack the loony right.

The various conservative-labelled governments over many years have pursued restrictive policies in attempts to control terrorism. When they are in office, they have no concern for the civil liberties of those they harm in such pursuits.

But because of the essential corruption of British political life, the concern of most politicians when in opposition is indeed to oppose, whether or not they are correct so to oppose. Their only purposes are empty political point-scoring, a vain hope of defeating the government, and positioning with a view to the next election. After election they do as their majority enables them, with no regard for manifesto promises. The reason the conservatives opposed the somewhat increased powers of detention under discussion (while, when in government, they sought and used greatly increased powers of detention) was because the conservatives were the opposition, and nothign at all to do with principle.

Davis, however, while he would, if in office, instantly take such powers of detention as he thought fit, has devised a platform that he thinks will play well for election purposes and enable him when in office to free the rich and powerful to railroad the poor and weak.

It isn't rocket science.

Who came up with a free national health service, Don? Who "reformed" the economy so that the only worthwhile jobs were for smoke and mirrors men trading junk bonds and economic products- leaving no worthwhile jobs for ordianry people? Who told those ordinary people to get on their bikes?. Ask yourself where the money for the Eton educations came from and who that money was taken from?

Come to that ask yourself if you'd rather have street cameras on Rochester High Street, or muggings and knifings by youths on white lightning. You don't actually believe in liberty in general. You only believe in your liberty, and you don't see the harm that that, in the end, causes you.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 05:48 PM

I'm sure that street cameras have helped encourage the fashion for wearing hooded garments - but I don't think there is any evidence that they have had any impact on the frequency of muggings or knifings generally. (I don't know about in Rochester.)

Eton education isn't relevant in the case of Davis. (That's one reason he lost out to Cameron in the contest to be Tory leader. He was seen as a bit common.)

With any luck this by-election will end up damaging the chances of the 42 day nonsense getting through, and will also get the Tories fighting among themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:09 PM

Talking of Tories has anyone noticed that Boris has gone very quiet?

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,wld
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 06:28 PM

'With any luck this by-election will end up damaging the chances of the 42 day nonsense getting through, and will also get the Tories fighting among themselves.'


yeh and with any luck al quaeda will develop a heat seeking missile that only only targets Daily Mail readers.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Anne Lister
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 07:21 PM

"""In other words, leaving aside my own feelings on the issue (which are, pretty much, that I'm more bothered about my rights not to be threatened by terrorists than the rights of the few people who might unjustly lose a few weeks of liberty - for which, under this new legislation, they would be compensated, btw) - what is the point, exactly?""

1. That's a pretty cold self centred attitude usually attributed by members of this forum to those heartless, power mad Tories they all detest so much.

2. Those FEW people whom you dismiss so carelessly, are human beings with lives, jobs, and families, and I'm reasonably sure that the majority of them would care more about YOUR rights than you do about THEIRS.

3. How DO you compensate somebody who has been wrongly arrested, held for several weeks, probably incommunicado except (possibly) for a legal representative, and then set loose without apology or explanation?

Money?.......I don't think that'll do it, especially if the mean B*****ds dish out the kind of cash they pay jurors."


The few people I'm talking about are the very few people who are likely to be picked up by the police under suspicion of terrorist activities and detained for more than 28 days. It's unlikely to happen very often (probably less often than the chances you posit for the terrorist attack, although I have friends who have been affected by these at first hand and I've been within hearing range of at least two bombs in the past) and I have no more idea than you do whether these few people are likely to be nice cuddly civil rights activists or concerned for my well-being. That's immaterial. We also have no definite way of knowing just how many possible terrorist incidents have been de-activated by our security forces, but I'm prepared to believe that there may have been a few, and if Gordon Brown is indeed passionate about extending the 28 day limit despite the consequences for his already damaged public image I suspect he has reason to be so. Yes, indeed it would be a tragedy if they were to detain innocent people for no good reason, but according to the legislation proposed the compensation payable would be £3,000 a day. Not good enough of course if you lose your job or your partner but a hell of a lot better than it might be and one hell of an incentive for the security forces to sort out the evidence one way or another.

I may be naive and trusting, but after going through more security checks myself in the past couple of years than most on this forum (because of the frequency of the work I've done in prisons)I have concluded that I personally would far rather have an ID card than have to continually complete forms for CRB and other security clearances. I remain convinced that for those of us with nothing to hide, there is very little to fear. I have never been prevented from doing anything I wanted to do or say and my only public problems have been to do with the tabloid press rather than public officials. The same goes, incidentally, for my far more politically active brother (big brother, as it happens) who has had more problems with the Daily Mail than with the security chaps.

Self-centred? Who isn't? I've worked with children who were traumatised by the bombings on the Isle of Dogs, who had their windows blown out by the blast and who went slightly loopy for quite a while afterwards when any loud noises came into the school playground. I've been a Samaritan volunteer dealing with members of the public and members of the armed forces who have experienced nasty deaths at close quarters. I think I'm unlikely these days to have my daily routine interrupted by terrorism, living on a fairly quiet hill in Wales, but I reserve the right to be concerned for other people. Locking some suspects up for six weeks, while clearly not a good procedure, is still not the same as shooting them, blowing them up or destroying their homes.

But I'm glad we agree that David Davis is an idiot.

Anne

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 08:19 PM

""You don't actually believe in liberty in general. You only believe in your liberty, and you don't see the harm that that, in the end, causes you.""

It isn't that long ago that YOU were loudly berating all who were in favour of identity cards.


You may consider yourself a highly intelligent man, and a lawyer of considerable repute, and there may even be those who would agree, but you have NO DAMN RIGHT to impugn my motives, and issue gratuitously offensive remarks concerning my integrity.

There was a time when, in spite of our political differences, you were on the list of those I thought of as friends. I am sure that you will be too arrogant to be bothered that that is no longer so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 10:23 PM

calm down Don. you should hear what Richard says about me for my belief that there might be some room for debate about what constitutes folk music.

he's very engahjay as they say in Paris. I had to spell that phonetically (as I don't know how to do acute accents!)

personally I'm in favour of identity cards with a DNA profile attached. I can't think of anybody (except serial rapists) who would have anything to lose from it.

And I think davis is horrid and creepy. He reminds me of these weird religious preachers who look too good to be true. I wouldn't mind running his DNA througha a data base.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 08 - 11:02 PM

Magrath, I didn't say that Davis went to Eton. I was generalising about conservative MPs at that point.

Don, your support for those who would only harm you and detract from the provision for your needs is frankly incomprehensible. Do you think rich conservatives give a toss for your rights and liberties?

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Doc John
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 05:50 AM

D.D shows very well that there's not just a left/right split but there's also libertarian/authoritarian wings of both. This explains the apparent paradox of his believes. D.D is for the death penalty (OK we hang a few innocent people but they'll be working class; the rich can afford good lawyers and bribes) and against human rights legislation. (It's OK to opress the poor but the poor do have the freedom to become rich). Sounds very much like Thatcherism to me. Private Eye do a very good parody of Gordon Brown as Uncle Joe!
Doc John

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 06:49 AM

Richard,

Do YOU think Gordon Brown gives a toss for YOURS?

I don't think that I feel the need to take lessons in ethics from a man whose considered response to the recent illness of Margaret Thatcher, was to wish her "a long and painful death".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 09:35 AM

Well, I can very occasionally be a little cynical about the motives of politicians, but in Mr Davis's case i'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Any one or any thing which cuts off the power supply to the political establishment must be good for us.
Make no mistake this is just another weapon for the state and dont kid yourselves that its aimed at Islamic terrorists.
As more banks go bust and the systemic implosion speeds up, the blackest nightmare for the rich and powerful will not be the muslims, but the British underclass, which unfortunately will include most of Mudcat's UK members.
I'm afraid, Don old pal, that professing to be a working class Tory won't save you....They'll lock you up with all us anarchists, commies, old Labour supporters, anybody who hasn't the cash to pay them off!
So, forget your political differences, it will be the weak against the powerful, get behind Mr Davis maybe we can get the bastards before they get us.....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Linda Kelly
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 11:40 AM

its a safe seat-he is risking what exactly? vain posturing by the most arrogant man in politics.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Anne Lister
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 12:07 PM

I feel sorry for people in his constituency who are being deprived of the chance to vote for (a) a Tory who supports the proposed legislation, (b) a socialist, (c) a New Labour MP, (e) a Lib Dem or (f) anyone who isn't DD.

His re-election will mean precisely nothing. Gesture politics.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 02:38 PM

A re-run of this morning's Sunday with Andrew Marr, might give some insight into what DD is trying to achieve.

He says he is doing this now to highlight the fact that this has been achieved with under-the-counter deals with the DUP, and others.
He says, probably correctly, that the 42 day rule will be rejected by the Lords, and will have to be "Parliament Acted" through, about a year from now. He says that if Brown bottles it over the By election on this platform, it will be extremely difficult for him to push it through at that later time. He might just be right, I suppose.

He has blown his political career to smithereens, and ensured that he will at best occupy a back bench seat, and at worst be abandoned by his constituents, on a matter which he describes as one of principle far more important than his career.

Hardly a brilliant move if, as most seem to suppose, it is the action of a cynical, self serving, power seeker.

Those of you open minded enough to recognise the right of others to hold different opinions, might like to have a look at it on BBC iPlayer, or catchup TV.



Ake, old friend, I agree about benefit of doubt, but I would take issue with a later comment of yours.

I do not "PROFESS" to be a "WORKING CLASS TORY".

I AM working class. I AM a Tory. What precisely has either to do with the other?

The connection of those two facts as a pejorative to indicate either my lack of integrity, or my lack of intelligence is spurious.


One relates to the way in which I have obtained the resources to raise a family. The other is the political party for which I vote.

You make your choices, and, based on my situation and needs, I make mine.

I don't call anyone on this forum stupid, ignorant, or dishonest, because they vote for a different party.
That seems to be the standard practise adopted by those who vote for the other Tory party, when they find that they can't force the rest of us to agree.

Who is the fool? He who goes to the shop and buys fine coffee, or he who pays the same money for ersatz chicory extract coffee substitute?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 04:24 PM

Don...Of course I didn't mean to indicate either "lack of intelligence" or "integrity". I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 04:51 PM

The point is this, Don. And you DO seem to be missing the point.

DD is not interested in the personal freedoms of anybody.

Whenever the personal freedoms of any minority group has been under attack. He is usually at the front of the queue in his kicking boots, lining up for the photo opportunity to be a pin up boy for the ladies in funny hats and plum comlexioned ex military types that the tories seem to attract.

You may disagree with the description, but I suspect you recognise the the general accuracy of my annalysis SO :-

At this point I started this thread wondering what the smarmy bugger was up to. Richard Bridge pointed out that he was probably up to his oxters with 'Hug A Hoody' Cameron, and didn't fancy serving in a Major type moderate administration and was going to make his presence felt.

I still think this is the most likely explanation of what has transpired.

Nobody accuses you of anything. but you didn't come down in the last shower of rain, mate. These are politicians and if you accept what they say at face value, disappointment is somewhat inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 05:33 PM

With respect, WLD, I did not indeed come down in the last, or in fact any, shower, but I must confess that I cannot see how DD can make any personal gain out of what he has done this time.

He has certainly thrown away any chance of a ministerial post, and there is every likelihood that he will lose his constituency in the fullness of time.

I am as cynical as the next man where politicians of any stripe are concerned, but is it really impossible that one last step too far could push one politico into putting principle before career.

In answer to your last sentence, reading the posts again, on this, and a couple of other threads, should elicit the fact that I have indeed been (wrongly) accused of stupidity, dishonesty, and a lack of concern for any but my own civil rights.

Much of this from our resident rabid leftie, who does profess to be a working class LAWYER. Now if you want the unbelievable, that'll take a bit of beating.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Jun 08 - 07:26 PM

I suppose we have to make allowances. I didn't know he was a lawyer. I suppose he works all days biting his lip and making sure he's not actionable, but when he comes on mudcat - he lets his hair down, takes his wig off, whatever! Imagine telling me, I don't sing folk music!

I disagree about DD though.

If Portillo had set out his stall earlier on, he would have been the natural choice for when Major started to flounder - (as he was pretty much bound to). That is, given the state the country was in - after waiting god knows how long for Lamonts green shoots of recovery - (never really likely to show their heads in the barren soil of relentless deflationary economic policies and mass unemployment.)

Surely you remember how cheesed off the tories were when Kinnock managed to lose the '92 election. A couple of years of stuttering John Major and Portillo would be in. That was the plan. Kinnock managed to scupper it, by running an even more bloody useless campaign than anyone thought posssible.

I think DD has opened his account. He knows his troops. Nobody wants to hug a hoody. They'd rather birch a baddy! He has raised his standard, it only remains to be seen who will gather under it. The Daily Mail's on board already.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 02:57 AM

I am rather puzzled by the concern that the New Labour government had to do a deal to save its 42 day "exception to the exception". Politics is about deals, and if there were more need to do deals all round we might be spared the dictatorship of the majority that we have suffered both under Thatcher and under Blair.

I am also puzzled by the accusation that Kinnock ran a bad last campaign. I vividly remember his final hoarse exhortation of warning about life under the oligopoly party "Do not be old, do not be poor, do not be ordinary". The failure of the British to heed that warning was extraordinary.

Nothing, however matches my puzzlement that Don, frankly saying that he is working class, can want to be subject to those whose consistent approach, for a century at least, has been to favour the rich and powerful over the poor and weak, whose rejection of a budget lead to the Parliament Acts, who opposed the National Health Service, who started its destruction, who dismantled proper state pensions, and who, in the pursuit of the freedoms for the rich and powerful will remove many effective freedoms from many. Capitalism depends on "effective demand". Those with nothing to spend do not create such demand. Need is unregarded.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 04:01 AM

"He has blown his political career to smithereens"

Well, at least something good will have come out of it. Now perhaps he will concentrate on doing what he was elected to do - looking after the needs of his constituents, of whom I am one. The issues that concern us are lack of rural services, lack of public transport, lack of affordable housing, the fact that Sainsbury's have been allowed to build a supermarket in Howden, despite strong local opposition, and the effect that it will have on the excellent local shops. Get back into the real world, Davis, and represent us in Parliament instead of concentrating on your self-serving bollocks . There are penty of freedoms being eroded in your own constituency - oh, but of course, that's mainly by the fat cats who elected you.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 04:30 AM

'I am also puzzled by the accusation that Kinnock ran a bad last campaign. '

let me explain. I came into work the morning after Labour's TV commercial went out.

Teachers who had been suffering the excesses of the tory think tanks for over 10 years came in, absolutely distraught. Several of their colleagues had collapsed and actually been killed under the sheer weight of the Keith Joseph/Sheila Lawlor load of baloney. Everybody that morning had their head in their hands - how could Kinnock do this to us?

The star of the show had been a seventeen year old with three kids in council flat watching daytime telly on her colour tv, and puffing on a Benson and Hedges saying, Wot I need is some training....

Fade to ....labour is trying to help people like this.

The guy was a wanker: period.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 06:04 AM

""Nothing, however matches my puzzlement that Don, frankly saying that he is working class, can want to be subject to those whose consistent approach, for a century at least, has been to favour the rich and powerful over the poor and weak,""


Simple answer Richard.

Labour tax directly, on income, at a very high rate, and indirectly, on goods and services, by stealth.

Tories tax indirectly on goods and services, as a matter of open policy, and tend to tax directly, at a much lower rate, on income.

I have lived through many governments, and I have always been able, under Tory governments, to adjust my spending so as to pay less tax.

The net result has been that over 45 years, I have been financially better off under the Tories.

FACT!!!


Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 06:24 AM

Perhaps the whole thing is actually a conspiracy. The issues do need exposure. For the last twenty five years there has been continual creeping erosion of civil liberties, starting with right to strike and picket, on through travel restrictions on demonstrators, camera surveillance, retention of communications records etc. etc., and now the proposals on ID cards and administrative detention. The licensing laws fiasco was a minor reflection of the whole driving assumtions of governments. Plus of course the freelance efforts- like supermarket loyalty cards and computer cookies. Whatever you think about the balance between security and liberty, there has not been a debate and a debate is required.

How better to prevent it than to replace it with a silly tabloid shouting match?

It's notable that when it comes to disclosure, MPs are most defensive of their own liberties.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 06:55 AM

I suppose its comes down to what you put a value on,

Dollars and cents - obviously I can't prove anything, neither can you, Don.

Prior to Mrs T's reign, you didn't live in a country with beggars on the street. There was some attempt to teach kids to read rather follow a bloody silly curriculum - somtething left over from a 1952 Grammar School Syllabus. (being required by law to teach kids who can't read - French, german, and jane austen - i ask you!) there was a bigger manufacturing base, not in good shape admittedly - but at least it was there. Which meant that by and large people were at work - not sitting on their arses getting pissed and watching daytime TV and their kids getting ASBO's.

perhaps you see it as worth a few quid in your pocket - I'm not so sure.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 08:41 AM

Well Don, since the conservatives stole your health service and pension, how have you made up enough money to pay for them?

And, I'm curious, when did you last pay higher rate tax?

And, if you can adjust your spending, what about petrol tax and tobacco tax and of course taxes on beer?

Oh, and, silly me, VAT which is charged on nearly everything except food and children's clothes (I exaggerate to make the point). How do you avoid that?

Oh, and I've never claimed to be working class (except in the sense that we all work except for those who don't). I've made it perfectly clear over and over again here that I am middle class possibly upper middle class. That doesn't stop me telling right from wrong, and the conservative ethos of stealing from the poor to give to the rich is just plain wrong.

By the way, Al, nice to be agreeing with you, so don't mention the "F" word.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 07:32 PM

"That doesn't stop me telling right from wrong, and the conservative ethos of stealing from the poor to give to the rich is just plain wrong."


I agree about the Robin Hood factor, Richard, and who was it that abolished the ten pence tax band?

Ah YES! It can't have been that nice New Labour man, Mr. Brown.

Those rotten Tories must have been controlling him from a distance.

Come on mate. Your argument might have staggered in about a year ago, But Now?.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Jun 08 - 07:52 PM

""Prior to Mrs T's reign, you didn't live in a country with beggars on the street. There was some attempt to teach kids to read rather follow a bloody silly curriculum - somtething left over from a 1952 Grammar School Syllabus. (being required by law to teach kids who can't read - French, german, and jane austen - i ask you!) there was a bigger manufacturing base, not in good shape admittedly - but at least it was there. Which meant that by and large people were at work - not sitting on their arses getting pissed and watching daytime TV and their kids getting ASBO's.""

Beggars on the street?....YES we did.

Teaching kids to read......YES, it was the grammar school system you so despise, which produced the ones who COULD read, so it might have been effective in teaching the rest, had it not been for the spoiling tactics of the Labour party and its followers in the local education authorities.

Manufacturing base.....Thrown away by Trade Unions who had persuaded the workforce that they could have anything they wanted by strike action, and industries so beset by industrial dispute, that they had no time to keep up with advancing technology.

People out of work......Yes, a million at the time the Thatcher government started, and a lot more later, which was inevitable, and would have happened had Labour won, and in my opinion to a much worse extent. Now New Labour has found the answer. You call them "jobseekers", or "trainees", and take 'em off the list of unemployed. Cleans up the figures no end.

ASBOS.....Badge of courage and achievement, for the criminal lunatic fringe. Well New Labour is still backing their use.

It ain't all about cash, WLD, but I'll lay odds YOUR vote isn't cast solely for its value to others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:54 AM

Who introduced the 10p tax band?

Who introduced a series of other payments designed (OK, the design was a little cock-eyed in places) to achieve the situation that those losing the benefit of the 10p band got other reliefs and benefits taht more than compensated? Which party succeeded in backing theri leader down to mitigate the consequences of his decision? Which leader admitted that he finally got it and introduced changes as a result? Get any of that lot out of any conservative and I'll eat the green cheese from the moon that it's printed on.

If you still had the Barbara Castle pensions, Don, would you be better off?

If you still had the original NHS, would your teeth be better off?

If you didn't have the Anthony Eden Suez fuel surcharge still in place would your petrol be cheaper? (mind you the real villains of that debacle were the Americans who refused to back Eden against the wrongful nationalisation by Nasser).

If you are poor, voting conservative makes you poorer. New Labour are not much better (although taxing the rich ex-pat evaders is good). But a real Labour party under Robert Marshall-Andrews, now that would be a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 05:06 AM

Grammar schools were for the of 18 per cent in my own - well actually for less than the top 5% - they were geared to university entrance) i was one of the top 18%. And I grew up to vote for a party that belived in a comprehensive system of education.

I belive in universal literacy more than any political party.

Don I understand - you feel an emotional commitment to the tories.

I was lucky - through my church I went for a short time to a public school on scholarship when I was fifteen. It didn't work. frankly they told me to get back in the gutter where I came from.

I didn't come from the gutter. I suppose I would categorise myself as educated working class. My dad was a police constable.

I met the tories close up. closer than any of their working class followers ever do. they mean you no good. they have no rsepect for you unless you are very very rich. in fact they despise you.

sorry to be the bearer of this bad news. I am not lying to you to score a quick debating point.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:07 AM

I see left-libertarian Labour MP Bob Marshall Andrews is backing Davis. And so is Nigel Kennedy the violin player - Guardian today:

"David Davis is gathering a head of steam for his re-election to his former seat of Haltemprice and Howden, including a promise from violinist Nigel Kennedy, to busk for him. Kennedy's declaration - "'cos music can bring people together a little bit on this issue" - could scarcely have been more public, coming on the BBC, although it has been pointed out that Kennedy's own civil liberties could be curtailed if he does not take out a busking licence first. Also in the Davis entourage is Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews."

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 02:32 PM

The difference being that Bob Marshall-Andrews does seem genuinely to suport civil liberties in general, not only those of the rich. From him, a statement of principle is believeable. From most conservatives and David Davis in particular, such a statement is suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 03:05 PM

Any labour party member who supports DD, should instantly be subject to surgical procedures to check if the brain is present at all.

If he supports DD, he's a wally like Nigel (is it my duty to try heroin and become a great musician?) Kennedy.

Two plonkers.

DD on the other hand is a very clever politician. A heavyweight, a bruiser. I get the same kind of feeling I did when I saw film of the young Mike Tyson. That guy could go all the way. And god help England if he does.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,Jono
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 04:58 PM

"Cameron has ben succeeding very nicely with more pragmatic and humane brand of toryism - and presumably - Davis is really pissed off about it - and so he has selected this little mound on which to stand and organise resistance."

This is possible and at least it seems to make more sense than some of the other theories I have heard.

However, I don't actually believe that Cameron really is to the left of Davis, I think he is just trying to get elected by any means possible, pandering to anyone if he thinks there are a few votes in it. I can't understand why people can't see Cameron for what he is, a slick snake oil salesman. Tear the mask from Cameron and you reveal the hideous features of none other than the evil old crone, Thatcher. Although Blair told lots of real lies in his time as PM, he was telling the truth when he said he admired Thatcher and wanted to continue with conservative policies. In effect Blair was a Tory but ironically people didn't believe him, at least at first. This is not the case with Cameron who I think is lying through his teeth when he talks about humane Toryism.

As to why Davis is doing this I am not sure but it's obvious that they don't like each other all that much and Davis will still be very resentful of Cameron's leadership win. I suspect that they might have had some kind of bust up and Cameron told Davis that he wont be in the Cabinet if the Tories win the next election, or at least Davis might have got an inkling that these were Cameron's plans. So what does Davis do? He will have seen what happened to Hesseltine when he walked out of the cabinet, he never became leader. So he pretends to have concern for civil liberties, so much so that he resigns his seat to conduct a farcical bi-election. He then comes back on the backbenches hoping for Cameron's fortunes to take a nose dive when he can make his own bid for the leadership. Of course, Davis's chances are still pretty close to zero but he his too arrogant and vain to realize it.

Well it's as good a theory as anyone's.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:24 PM

""I met the tories close up. closer than any of their working class followers ever do. they mean you no good. they have no rsepect for you unless you are very very rich. in fact they despise you.

sorry to be the bearer of this bad news. I am not lying to you to score a quick debating point.""


At this moment, there are more people backing Cameron than Brown, if the opinion polls are accurate. Are they all rich and nasty, or is it just that wild generalisation is the only weapon left to the followers of Gordon(let's lurch on to the next crisis)Brown, and in point of fact there are many Tory supporters who are just ordinary folk, who happen to hold different opinions and therefore must be demonised.

You are better than that WLD. Logical argument is fine, but this bitter vilification of some 40% of your fellow countrymen is a step beyond.

It is obvious that nearly half of the population of this country have experiences of the Tories that are very different than your own, and they too HAVE met the Tories close up.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 06:41 PM

The thing that bugs me more and more is the waste of public funds to run an election to reinstate a man who already has the job.

Davis is as selfless as an advertising billboard.

And who is representing his constituency in the interim?

That's your tax he's spending on his ego!

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Jun 08 - 07:40 PM

No you don't get it. I met the tories who get to be cabinet ministers.

Of course there are loads of decent tories - my aunt was one - a tory councillor for years. John Macregor was the best Education Minister we ever had.

The core leadership though (and therefore national policy decision makers) are cold and patrician; it would freeze you, I promise. The attitudes and assumptions of superiority are 19th century.

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: theleveller
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 03:30 AM

"The thing that bugs me more and more is the waste of public funds to run an election to reinstate a man who already has the job."

Me too, lox. I hope people will boycott this farce in protest. I live about 3 yards from the polling station in our village but I won't even be stepping that far to vote (unless the Monster Raving Looney Party put up a candidate!).

Subject: RE: BS: david davis - what's that about?
From: GUEST,Jono
Date: 18 Jun 08 - 09:54 AM

Well, Caroline Flint revealed today, on The Daily Politics, what she thinks is the reason behind Davis's resignation. Davis wanted the Tories to say that if the 42 day law came into effect, the Tories would change it back to 28 days if they win the next election. Cameron didn't want to go that far and an argument ensued, resulting in Davis throwing his toys out of the pram. Bearing in mind that Caroline Flint is a minister, I doubt she would have said this if it wasn't close to the truth. Nobody on the program questioned her opinion, not even the Tory. Very telling.