 |
The Political Asylum
When it comes to lively debate, we're not just committed - we're certifiable!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vintage Girl
Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
Posts: 3434
Location: Essex, England
|
 Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:21 pm Post subject: Has David Davis Shot himself in the Foot? |
 |
|
It's all very well for David Davis to have taken this stand against the 42 day thing but has he shot himself in the foot?
I, personally, think he has. I think it's great that he's been returned with such a huge majority but isn't it a bit of a hollow victory as he had no real competition?
Plus he now finds himself on the back benches with very little prospect of getting back onto the front benches any time soon.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/davis-returns-with-15000-majority-to-fight-for-liberty-865817.html
_________________
Girls are like phones. We love to be held and talked to, but if you press the wrong button you'll be disconnected! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BlueEmperor
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1065
Location: Essex, England
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very much fair comment, I'm afraid. I totally agree with his stance and admire the principled position he has taken on the matter. But I think he acted in haste. A lot of theories have been put about as to why Mr Davis took this decision - not least rumours (not entirely unfounded) about his increasing sense of dissatisfaction in David Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. However, I suspect a more likely version of events is simply that he was so disgusted by the sheer, unmitigated shabbiness of the Commons' vote on 42 days that he took a decision without entirely considering the consequences.
He has won a rather hollow victory. He returns to the Commons with a stonking majority but in the knowledge that it was won on only a 35 per cent turnout with no serious opposition. He returns to the backbenches, which a politician of his calibre will find intolerable. The Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear when he promoted Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Attorney-General, to replace Mr Davis that it was a permanent appointment and that Mr Grieve was not intended as a 'stop gap'. There would be no way of going back on this now without seriously humiliating both Mr Grieve and the Leader himself. It is difficult to see what role can now be played by Mr Davis.
I don't think Mr Davis has struck a serious bodyblow to the Government either. Moreover, it was all unnecessary anyway. Given the very obvious nature of the bullying and bribery that took place in the Commons lobbies, I feel quite sure that the House of Lords will feel no compunction whatever in throwing this draconian piece of legislation out. In the end, it will not have been Mr Davis or a few thousand East Riding voters who delivered the fatal blow to 42 days. It was a new arrival to the crossbenches of the Upper House, the recently retired Director-General of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller (the former Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller), that did that.
It is a great sadness that more people don't watch Lords debates and that, despite the plethora of clips from the Commons, debates in the Lords rarely, if ever, get an airing on the 10 o'clock news. Last Tuesday, Lady Manningham-Buller made her maiden speech. It was a devastatingly succinct speech, in which she holed Labour's plans below the water line! When the former head of the Security Service tells you 42-days is not justifiable on grounds of either practicality or principle, you're sunk. 42 days is now dead. The Lords will throw it out when they vote in October. The chances of the Gov't repeating it's dodgy Commons victory are incredibly slim and they wouldn't dare use the Parliament Act on an issue where their Commons majority and moral mandate is so wafer-thin. Mr Davis can take some credit for this but I think it is Lady Manningham-Buller who fired the fatal shot.
B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BlueEmperor
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1065
Location: Essex, England
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
For those that may be interested, this is the Hansard report of Lady Manningham-Buller's maiden speech:
| Quote: | 8 July 2008 : Column 647
4.08 pm
Baroness Manningham-Buller: My Lords, I am delighted to be in your Lordships' House. I thank noble Lords for the very warm welcome that I have had from all parts of the House and for the generous comments made today.
Normally, I would have liked a little longer than a week to settle in and to learn the conventions of your Lordships' House before opening my mouth, but I have learnt one convention, which has been drummed home to me, which is that maiden speeches are to be short and non-controversial. I can do short, but non-controversial is a bit trickier in the circumstances.
Since 9/11, we have had a great deal of terrorism legislation. One point that has not been made so far is that successful counterterrorism work depends on a number of things, but in particular on good intelligence and good police work, not necessarily on changes in the law. That said, all the legislation has had some important and enabling provisions.
I applaud the fact that we are discussing now, rather than against the background of an atrocity, where this country wants to draw the line on issues such as pre-charge detention. I have considerable sympathy with the police on the collection of evidence, which is very challenging, given the need to move early, the amount of seized data, the complexity of cases and the forensics. I congratulate the anti-terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police for the superb job that it does. But arguments can be made to justify any time of detention, just as in other countries, although mercifully not here, they can be made to justify any method of interrogation.
In deciding what I believe on these matters, I have weighed up the balance between the right to life--the most important civil liberty--the fact that there is no such thing as complete security and the importance of our hard-won civil liberties. Therefore, on a matter of principle, I cannot support the proposal in the Bill for pre-charge detention of 42 days.
I understand that there are different views and that these judgments are honestly reached by others. I respect those views, but I do not see on a practical basis or on a principled one that these proposals are in any way workable for the reasons already mentioned and because of the need for the suspect to be given the right to a fair trial.
Finally, I have been fortunate in my career to have dealt with national security. It has been a great privilege. Our legislation covering the Security Service refers to the protection of parliamentary democracy. I have a plea: handling national security should, as far as possible, be above party politics, as it has been for most of my career. Faced by a severe terrorist threat, we should aim to reach, after debate and discussion, a broad, cross-party consensus on the way ahead. Polarised positions are damaging to what we are all trying to achieve in preventing--I underline that--detecting and countering terrorism.
8 July 2008 : Column 648 |
B.E.
_________________
The doctor is in! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
