He talked up Lewis - a “deputy mayor”, no less, despite the agreed definition of the title.  He leaped to his defence at the first sight of trouble.  Now the headlines read “Deputy Mayor resigns” and “Right-Hand man lied”.  Johnson’s judgement was flawed.

For the first time, Johnson can justly be criticised by his many opponants for active stupidity.  Ignorance has been the order of the day so far: now Johnson has bound himself strongly to a marked man.  Lewis’ resignation ruins his own reputation beyond repair, but also leaves Johnson somewhat tarnished.

On this issue, Johnson deserves all the criticism he gets.

- - -
Should it be significant, although I strongly hope it will not, it is worth noting Alan Sugar’s position.  If he does dare to stand in 2012, he cannot use Lewis against Johnson - he hired his apprentice knowing that he had lied on his CV!  The difference, of course, is that Lee McQueen had not been punished by the Church and questioned by police on several occasions for separate incidents.  And he lied about a degree, not, ironically, about being a Magistrate.

But after watching the advert, I get the distinct impression that voters may see it differently. “Obama on Mt Rushmore! Obama on the Statue of Liberty! Obama on our $1 bills! Obama’s so American, and not at all foreign or Muslim!”

I am amazed McCain is wasting money contradicting the tripe he spews about his opponent!

The message is fairly clear - the proposals are extremely confusing.  It is unclear as to whether allowing women to be chosen above men of equal ability is anything new: surely this is already legal?  In fact, it is unclear as to whether or not any sort of positive discrimination is being proposed at all.  The draft proposals seem to be a wrapping up of existing legislation, being spun as a great move for feminism.  It seems as if the feminists aren’t buying it.

The Westminster media narrative has moved on, but it is worth considering the effect of this legislation.  It has been spun to appeal: one Tory commented that it was the most politically correct announcement from the most politically correct minister.  He couldn’t be more wrong.  I was ready to get on a high horse about the evils of positive discrimination, but found that I couldn’t.  Instead, I was left wondering why Harman needed to bother at all.  This is no new announcement, no change in policy, just a way of lubricating the existing regulations.  It is dull, but exactly the sort of legislation Parliament should be churning out - like the fertilisation bill, which gathered the loose ends of a whole sphere of regulation into one manageable bunch.  It actually allows employers to arbitrarily discriminate in any direction: not very PC at all.

The Daily Express ran with some tripe about how white middle class men are to be slain by the feminist monster, but the proposals give equal rights for potential employers to pick white men over black women arbitrarily.  This was a confusing announcement because of the spin.  The substance of the proposal is limited, but commendable.  If Harman had dared to present it for what it was, she may have missed headlines but would have done the important work of government.  One cannot help but think that Labour, in its current state, should not so easily sacrifice a rare display of good governance for the sake of a failed attempt at positive headlines.

- - -
*Penny Red is a favourite already.  Our Recommended Links list has more.

I am going to be controversial here, but here goes: it was a brilliant result.  Labour is in disarray, and they deserved the beating they suffered, albeit in very un-Labour territory.  The LibDems should stand to benefit from a seat in which they poll second, and where the predecessor ran away mid-term to get a better job.  But their campaign was disgusting (genuinely, not just reflecting the usual Tory complaints about LibDem tactics…) and should be seen as the real cause for their failure to make ground.

The party has a few good ideas, and is clearly preferable to the Tories, but I cannot say that I would vote for a campaign that behaved in the way the LibDems did.  It is a shame that they have so utterly failed to grow up and debate, not slander.  I sincerely the party learns from this, and Crewe, to play positive politics in the future.  They might actually gain votes that way!

IE8 (beta)
I recently downloaded Internet Explorer 8.  It is still in beta version, but I like to consider myself one of the “web developers and designers” it suggests the release is suitable for.  Internet Explorer knows its audience: IE has something of a reputation within the “web developers and designers” community for being a bit rubbish.  Releasing a beta version for developers is their way of testing just how good the browser is - can it function according to web standards?

Web standards have been a big headache for Internet Explorer.  I am currently working on a design for a fairly complex site and have been attempting to introduce a lovely hovering menu for the navigation (made entirely using CSS, if you are interested).  Internet Explorer tries its hardest, then wheezes a little, and gives up with only a portion of it functioning properly.  Despite various get-arounds to deal with IE faults, new ones always emerge.  Every other browser can manage without trouble, but IE is incapable.  The sad truth is that the vast majority of web users rely upon Internet Explorer and the “web developers and designers” are forced to go out of their way to deal with the faults thrown up just because most people use a poor browser.  To be fair, IE8 displays my navigation menu perfectly.  The fact remains, however, that if each browser were judged on merit, IE would have ceased to be several years ago.

Internet Explorer 8 is meant to be a massive improvement on its predecessor.  It is.  The most authoritative test of browser standards compliancy, the Acid 2 Test, was the basis of the IE8 rebuild.  Unlike any Explorer browser before it, IE8 correctly displays the nifty little smiley face accurately.  Unlike most other browsers, though, IE8 struggles to display simple applications like Google’s Gmail.  Google have received requests about the problem with IE8, and the response is fitting:

Well, IE8 is not supported by Gmail yet, so you might want to use another browser - FF2.x or IE7. FF3 is not supported yet either, but we don’t get bug reports about that browser.

In other words, Firefox 3, released yesterday, works.

IE8 has its benefits.  The multi-tab view is a lovely way of selecting pages through image grabs, but is functionally redundant in all but looking fancy.  In terms of useful developments, IE8 introduces “webslices”, which are a nice little set of tools to grab useful parts of websites without visiting them.  I have subscribed to my friends’ Facebook status updates, for example.  And there’s more: if you highlight text, a menu appears offering all sorts of suggestions for what you might want to do with the chunk of text, from searching with Google to posting in a blog.  The opportunities here are immense, but I have to conclude that IE8 simply isn’t worth the bother.  It is streets ahead of IE7 but fails to display certain applications properly.  If it is still causing headaches for web developers, it is of little merit.

Firefox 3
I was a late convert to Firefox, and admit that about half of my internet usage still takes place in other browsers.  One thing puts me off embracing Firefox: it distorts some typefaces.  It’s not a big issue, and is purely aesthetic, but it is a recurring issue nonetheless.  Firefox 3 does not solve the problem.

But in every other regard, Firefox3 is perfect.  The download is speedy, pages load quickly, things display like they were designed to, and web developers can cut down on their workload.  Everyone wins, simple as.  There is nothing much more to say, except for what Mozilla boast about.  Mike Rouse has some pertinent comments:

If you are still using Internet Explorer you should ask yourself why you bother accessing the internet. If you’re still one of those mindless folk that still uses IE6 then you should be asking yourself why you even own a computer.

And you, dear reader?
Using the wonderful Google Analytics, I can see what proportion of visitors use each web browser.  It makes for interesting reading, because our statistics are very different to the average.  64% of visits to this site use Firefox: a percentage several times greater than average.  It is perhaps telling that bloggers and web nerds tend to use the better browser browser, proving that our readership is of a discerning nature.  Perhaps not…

For the 28% of you left with Internet Explorer, THERE IS NO EXCUSE!  Do everyone a favour, just get on and download Firefox!

The liberal/left blogs are beginning to find their feet. This site’s blogroll used to refer to Liberal Conspiracy as “a good idea, but not really getting off the ground”. Not, of course, that this website is making any such pretentions. The description recently changed, though, acknowledging that LibCon has improved vastly in the past couple of months and is now firmly secure as one of the must-reads of the British blogging world. Websites such as Boris Watch are carefully critiquing the new Mayor of London, not straying into petty slurs but rather keeping him in check.

I firmly believe that these blogs are thriving because the liberal/left blogosphere is coming of age, not because of Tory political ascendancy. Take LiberalConspiracy as the most obvious example: nothing quite like it exists on the right. ConservativeHome’s CentreRight.com is the closest equivalent in terms of ethos, but is unrecognisable in production. LibCon is genuinely a forum for non-party affiliated individuals of the liberal/left. This kind of innovation is a timely development, and totally unrelated to Labour’s hemorrhaging support. It is not an opposition blog, but a political forum. This kind of innovation is lacking in the right-wing blogosphere.

I like to think that the liberal/left blogoshere is coming of age. Blogging is now so democratised that someone can construct a very good website for absolutely no cost. More professional sites still can be made with very little cost if you know someone who knows about websites. This website costs less than £3 per year, for the domain name, because it is generously hosted on the webmaster’s server. The design and functional support is offered without cost, meaning that a handful of 6th Form students from London can produce a reasonably professional-looking multi-authored blog without any cost. With the onset of free blogging software, everyone can have their own website.

Where the liberal/left blogosphere is growing best, though, is when it embraces multi-authored websites: a pooling of resources and knowledge produces a better brand. LiberalConspiracy is constructive - in aim, outlook, and content - and it is a better website for it. Is the right going to continue to dominate the blogosphere? I suspect not…

- - -
PS: Doug did not edit this article!

1. The EU bigwigs have demanded 26 ratifications.
If everyone else signs up, it is easier to see the Ireland vote as a hiccough rather than a final breath.  They will likely ignore the fact that 100% of the countries given the chance to decide to sign up decided to reject it.

2. It keeps the Tories in a sticky spot.
Cameron clearly opposed the Treaty, and gambled that the country would reject it in a referendum.  He was denied the opportunity by the Labour and LibDem promise-breaking, so Ireland’s decision seemed like a gift.  Labour hope to milk this for what it’s worth, though.  Cameron avoided ripping his party up over Europe again, but he will soon find that sweeping difficult issues under the carpet is no alternative for tackling rebels.  The damage this does Labour is nothing to the damage it does the Tories - at least Labour have an (almost) consistent policy on Europe, referenda aside.

What should Miliband do?  If he won’t do as I suggested earlier, he should at least accept that the decision to break his referendum promise was wrong.

1. Europeans citizens do not want a mega-country.
The economic and political benefits of a union of European nations are undeniable.  We have to co-operate as a continent, and a union body is the best possible way to achieve it.  But most people in Europe rather like being national citizens, not international ones.  They like national elections, not international ones.  They like the closeness and accountability of national decision-making, not the faceless international superbody of the EU.  The Constitution, Lisbon Treaty, or whatever you want to call it was an attempt to formalise this continuing development into a superstate and those countries which would most benefit have rejected it.

2. The EU is governed by the bureaucracy, not politicians.
The EU is constructed to channel power to the bureaucracy, not not the pseudo-politicians elected to the Parliament.  The recent Tory MEP expenses farce demonstrates how MEPs are encouraged to exploit the system to their advantage while sitting back from decision-making.  Little legislation is crafted in the European Parliament, but is rather dreamed up by the bureaucrats and waved through with little consideration in the Parliament.  There is next to no accountability for MEPs, with party lists promoting those who would not otherwise be elected and no public knowledge of what MEPs are doing with their time in the Parliament.  It is telling that the media do not cover debates or votes in Europe, and we know nothing of our MEPs - if their work is unimportant, it should stop, and if it is important, it should be made far more accountable than it currently is.  The Constitution was pushed by the bureaucracy, not the politicians, and the dirty tricks employed to replace it with the Lisbon Treaty were the work of deceptive cynics with no belief in accountable politics whatsoever.

3. If this is how the bureaucracy works, we should resist its advances.
The EU is designed to make nations insignificant.  It functions as if it knows best, but lacks the courage to test its convictions in the minds of the people of Europe.  We should resist the whole EU mentality.  We should seek a European Union which promotes economic and political co-operation in a way similar to the UN, which stops far short of trying to dominate nations.  We should defend national self-determination, not allow nations to be subsumed by the giant machine of Brussels.  We ought to reform the EU into a United Nations of Europe, functioning on very different lines to those it currently does.  In short, the failings of the EU should prompt a desire to reform it, not to walk further in - we will only encourage them.

The EU has no respect for nations - indeed tries to promote itself as one.  The longer we take to seek reform, the harder it will become.  There need not be any showdown or hostility, just a new focus in halting the EU’s growth while we reassess its direction.  I hope that Ireland’s rejection of the Constitution / Lisbon Treaty gives the opportunity for this to take place.

Buried in the mix, people have mentioned Diane Abbott’s speech last night as being of particular merit. That it was. A stunning display of defiance of the Whips on grounds of conscience. It doesn’t rank with Robin Cook’s 2003 speech resigning as Leader of the Commons, but it is one of the best parliamentary speeches since. I reproduce it here “below the fold”, as it were, for the sake of completion.

“As has been said throughout this debate, the first duty of Parliament is the safety of the realm. It is because I believe that the proposals on 42-day detention will make us less safe, not more safe, that I oppose them. I do not take terrorism lightly. I am a Londoner and I heard the last major IRA bomb, at Canary Wharf, from my kitchen in east London. Like thousands of Londoners, I waited for the early-morning call that assured me that friends and family on their way to work and school had not been caught up in those bombings. I will not take lectures from Ministers about not taking terrorism seriously.

I do not believe, as Ministers continue to insist, that there is some trade-off between our liberties and the safety of the realm. What makes us free is what makes us safe, and what makes us safe is what will make us free. I ask the House to reflect on how we got here. Two years ago, this House emphatically rejected the proposal for 90-day detention. I do not talk very much about custom and practice in Parliament, but it is custom and practice that when the Government lose a vote on a proposal, they do not bring back a similar proposal in the same Parliament. My hon. Friends in the Whips Office now know why that is so: it is because losing the vote is a clue that the Government do not have the votes. The Government machinery has devoted 10 days to bone-crunching pressure on potential rebels, again because they do not have the votes. Ministers have appeared in the media saying that they have won the argument. They may win the vote, but they have emphatically not won the argument.

Two years ago, the House rejected the 90-day proposal. The issue should never have come back, and all this high drama has been caused by bringing back something that the House has already rejected. I voted for 28 days, but I remind the House that I and others did so only under duress. We believed that by voting for 28 days the debate would be finished for this Parliament and an upper limit would be established. Some of us were unwilling to go as far as 28 days. That is why we are so upset that the Government have come back with this proposal, reneging—as far as we are concerned—on a tacit understanding that voting for 28 days would finish the debate on this issue for this Parliament.

Why have the Government come back with this proposal? Speculation has raged on the Labour Benches as to what has moved the Prime Minister to take this dangerous course. Some people say that he wants to try to do something that Tony Blair could not do. Some people say that he is driven by the polls. Some people say that last year he saw an article in The Sun that said that he was soft on terrorism and he has been heading down this path ever since.

In reality and despite everything that Ministers say, nothing has changed since two years ago. The arguments that they used then about computers and complications are the arguments that they are using now. I ask Ministers to spare the House those arguments about decrypting computers. The law exists to deal with people who wilfully refuse to decrypt computer evidence.

The Government came back with a proposal that the House rejected two years ago. Interestingly, when they did so it then took them several months to come up with a time limit. Was it to be 29 days, or 30, or 40? At one point, some of us offered to put our hands in a hat and to draw out a number for the Home Secretary. They did not have a number of days because this is not an objective, evidence-driven Bill. It is the purest politics. It is about the polls and about positioning. It is about putting the Conservative party in the wrong place on terrorism. I put it to colleagues that we should not play ducks and drakes with our civil liberties in order to get a few months’ advantage in the opinion polls. We have got here through a process that involved the wrong practical politics and was wrongly motivated.

Let me remind the House of what is problematic about the proposal. The security services have unusually gone public and said that they are not calling for the change. The Director of Public Prosecutions, unusually, has gone public and said that he is not calling for it. I remind the House that he is the prosecuting authority. We will hear from Ministers about the police, but the police are split on the subject. We have heard about Sir Ian Blair—whose days might be numbered under the former Member for Henley; hey, that’s life—but the most senior Muslim policeman in the Metropolitan police force, Tarique Ghaffur, has said privately and emphatically that he believes that the risk to community cohesion of the proposal is not worth any marginal operational advantage. It is alleged—I use that word because I do not want to abuse parliamentary privilege—that he was called in by Sir Ian Blair and asked to consider his position. The police are split on this subject. Let us hear no more about the police as a whole being behind the proposal.

Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that even those chief police officers who have expressed some kind of support have done so in terms of “it could be workable” rather than “it is desirable”? Everything could be workable—Buchenwald and Dachau were workable, but they were hardly desirable.

Ms Abbott: Yes, it was said that the proposals could be workable in the future.

There are some very clever lawyers in the Chamber today, and it seems to me that much of the debate is locked into the legalities and technicalities. I come at the matter from a slightly different angle. It seems to me that, if someone is in detention for six weeks without knowing why, and they therefore have no notion of whether they will be able to get out without being charged, that detention is coercive in itself. We saw in the big miscarriage of justice cases what people will sign after only a few weeks.

The possibility of compensation which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is trying to float will put pressure on the police to charge. Some of my colleagues whom one might expect to be opposed to the change because of its effect on their communities have been seduced by the compensation package, but I have read the letter. It talks about going away and considering the subject, and says that the compensation might be implemented. How will it be sustainable to compensate Muslims for being held for more than 28 days when the police have held them completely lawfully and not to compensate others of whatever religion or ethnicity who have been held for seven, eight or nine days and have not been charged? The compensation package will not survive scrutiny by the courts.

If my hon. Friends want to vote with the Government because they want to be loyal to the Prime Minister in his time of trial, they should do so. No one will think less of them for that. But they should not vote with the Government on the basis of a shoddy compensation package that will not stand up and will never come into being.

The proposal is problematic. Some colleagues say that the provision will never be used and some say it is unworkable, so why not vote for it? They say that it is just a joke and will never be used, but even if the Government never use the provision I take exception to their saying that it is worth driving a coach and horses through our civil liberties for mere short-term political advantage.

As I said earlier, because the Government do not have the votes, they have spent the past 10 days putting good, conscientious colleagues—who naturally enough want to support the leader of their party, our Prime Minister—under incredible pressure. People whom the Prime Minister has never spoken to in his life have been ushered into his presence twice in 48 hours. The House should have a shred of sympathy for them. People have been offered Cuba, and no doubt governorships of Bermuda have been bandied about. Any rebel Back Bencher with a cause is confident—if they vote the right way of course—that the Prime Minister will make the statement, give the money or make the special visit. That is humorous, but is it right that our civil liberties should be traded in such a bazaar? Is it appropriate or right that we should trade votes at the United Nations on the basis of such political pandering?

The reason why the Government have had to put such pressure on people is because they cannot muster the votes. They have only one argument that could sway me, as a member of the Labour party for more than 30 years: the leader of our party is in a difficult situation, there are elements in the party that do not necessarily wish him the very best, so is this the time to vote against the Government?

That argument could affect people who are loyal to the Prime Minister, do not want to see him go and do not believe that a new leader can wave a magic wand, but I tell the House this: I became active in politics in the 1980s, at a time of enormous turmoil—there were riots in Brixton, Liverpool and Bristol, “Scrap sus” was a huge issue and young black men were seen as the enemy within, just as young Muslim men are today. I came into politics because of my concern about the relationship of the state to communities that are marginalised and suspected. It is easy to stand up for the civil liberties of our friends or of people in our trade union, but it is not easy to stand up for the civil liberties of people who are unpopular, suspected and look suspicious—people the tabloids print a horror story about every day. However, it is a test of Parliament that we are willing to stand up for the civil liberties of the marginalised, the suspect and the unpopular.

I came into politics about those issues, and I believe that if there is any content at all in Ministers’ constant speeches about community cohesion we must offer every part of our community not just the appearance but the reality of justice and equality before the law. Everybody knows that the provisions will impact disproportionately on the Muslim and ethnic minority communities. Everybody knows that we shall not be detaining the Saudi paymasters of terror for 42 days; just as happened under internment, we shall be scraping up the flotsam and jetsam of communities. Ministers are talking about people such as my constituents, so when Muslim boys and black converts are in prison and their mothers, some of whom may not even be able to speak English properly, come to me and say, “They have had my son for five weeks and nobody will tell me why”, what do Ministers suggest I tell them about a measure that has been brought in only for short-term political convenience?

I did not come into politics to vote for such a stratagem, and despite all the current pressures on the party I will not vote for it. The case has not been made up until now and it has not been made in this debate. Of course the public are in favour of the proposal. Of course the people whose rights some of us are trying to defend are unpopular and suspect. But if we as a Parliament cannot stand up on this issue, and if people from our different ethnic communities cannot come here and genuinely reflect their fears and concerns, what is Parliament for?

David T.C. Davies: I have the near impossible task of following one of the finest speeches I have heard since being elected to the House of Commons.”

What if Labour do not put up a candidate?
The stunt will be exposed for what it is, Davis will return to the Commons shaken, jobless, and with his seat very vulnerable at the next election.

Why should Gordon be worried?
The decision is totally unpredictable – a tsunami, if you like, sweeping all else up with it. Time will tell just how important a move it is, but the perception certainly is that it is very damaging to the Tories and actively helpful to Labour. Within a couple of hours of the announcement we had journalists running about posting their reactions on blogs: the media narrative has already been set. If in the coming weeks Cameron is perceived as having salvaged a good return for the Tories from the mess Davis caused, he will be more highly regarded by his party and the media (which feeds to the electorate). This has genuinely taken the Tory leadership by surprise, and their reaction to it could well build Cameron up. Gordon should get on top of this swiftly to prevent the Tories turning it to their advantage. It is a genuine test for Cameron, and expectations about possible gain are so low that he might just make something of it. The immediate rubbishing of reports of a split in the party have been successful, it seems. Score 1:0 to Cameron.

Where is the principle?
Davis opposed 90 days, then supported 28 days, then opposed 42 days. There is no logical reason for habeas corpus and the Magna Carta to be bandied about over 6 weeks’s detention without trial, but for 4 weeks to be acceptable.

As John Rentoul has written,

Davis as shadow Home Secretary supports locking people up without charge for 42 days under the Civil Contingencies Act if there is a state of emergency, which is a difference only of degree, definition and procedure from the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Bill.

So what is the “noble” principle at stake?

Why should the nation be glad?
Dominic Grieve is simply fantastic. I have long championed him as one of the palatable Tories (William Hague being the other prominent example). He seems very nerdy and bookish, looks like a 1980s Tory minister, and does not actively promote himself. He is interested in the law and making it work, making his previous role as Shadow Attorney-General perfect for him. He brings a more reserved tone to the role, but will doubtless have the upper hand over Jacqui Smith on anything and everything substantive. Above all, he deserves the promotion.

I admire Davis in many ways (although I admire his successor more), because of his civil libertarian stand. But acting as Shadow Home Secretary, with a clear promise of holding one of the big three Cabinet posts in 23 months’ time, should give ample room to campaign for civil liberties. It is obvious that Davis is far more libertarian than the rest of the Tory hierarchy - he has spoken at length about the number of CCTV cameras and threatened to resign in a meeting with Cameron on whether to support 42 days or not. But his actions today are shallow and counter-productive.

If Davis wishes to promote civil liberties, what better position to hold than Shadow Home Secretary, on the back of a good performance in a recent party leadership race? He stands to gain high office on a matter of months, and has not been ruled out of any future leadership campaign. He is respected by many in the party, and compares extremely well to Jacqui Smith. If he wishes to promote libertarianism in the Tory party, he has exactly the right job in which to do it. The leadership clearly considered backing the government on 42 days, but Davis put his foot down. He was right to do so - and his role as Shadow Home Secretary was perfect for that.

By resigning, Davis has given up his chance to champion such arguments in the future. Grieve has made it very clear that there will be no change in Home Affairs policy, but it is obvious that he is less of a central figure than Davis was. He has left an imbalance at the top of the party, with Cameron and Osborne more powerful today than they were yesterday.

His resignation has also proven a lack of respect for parliamentary democracy. He disagrees with Parliament’s decision on 42 days: he had the chance to vote against it and did. He lost. It is his responsibility to try to force another vote and campaign for a different outcome; a job much easier to conduct as Shadow Home Secretary than as an independent parliamentary candidate. The whole point of votes in parliament is that you can either win or lose, and you try to meet the demands of those who hold the balance of power. I do not believe Gordon Brown should have bribed the DUP members, and I do not believe they should have accepted the bribe, but it is up to them to decide how to vote. I have a lot of respect for the 37 Labour rebels who stood up for what they believed in - and I also have a lot of respect for Ann Widdecombe who defied the rest of her party for her convictions. She was wrong, but I respect her decision to vote by conscience. Parliamentary votes like this are about exactly that: conscience. It’s about winning the argument. Davis’ resignation rides roughshod over the whole principle of liberal democracy.

Davis appears to be positioning himself as a one-issue candidate, and will likely return to the Commons as a one-issue MP. He needs to understand that rehabilitation into the party will be very difficult if he intends to attempt it; otherwise he will live out the rest of his career as a single-issue campaigner the forum for which is better suited to lobbying than representing constituents.

The fallout could be huge. I do not exaggerate when I suggest that this, if handled correctly, could give Labour the chance to race ahead again. It is of monumental proportions. It is difficult to see how it could help to solidify the Tory lead, but time will tell. If, as is rumoured, Clegg’s LibDems do not contest the seat, we will have a straight fight between the Labour machine and a Tory oddjob; a fight that Davis is likely to win, taking attention away from the Conservative party completely. If one of the party’s big-hitters runs out for a personal glory-hunt, it reflects almost as badly on the party as on the individual. It is as if Gordon Brown were to have forced a by-election because Tony Blair refused to grant him permission to tax everyone at 80%.

This is a disgraceful personal glory-hunting campaign from Davis, and I really hope the Tory party does not support his by-election campaign. Moreover, the LibDems should put up a candidate who fights for the electorate on all issues, not for Davis’ ego on Home Affairs. The LibDems could easily steal votes from those who agree with much of what Davis has done but don’t like his attitude. For the sake of respecting liberal democracy, which David Davis has trampled over today, every party should put forward candidates to campaign hard for representing the electorate in parliament, and should they lose a vote or an argument with their party leader they should try to solve the issue instead of subjecting everyone to this kind of trauma.

I do not know what Davis is thinking, but his judgement is wrong. The LibDems are again failing totally in strategy: Nick Clegg seems to have made another poor call, when he had the most to gain. Labour could still make the most of this; it is a monumental mistake for the Tories to let this happen. Labour have a stark choice: be the only party to oppose Davis and risk losing, or fail to oppose him and expose his cheap trick. Either way, there is much to gain.

But MPs are more concerned about civil liberties than the public, and a defense of liberalism is despite not because of the public will.  As many have argued, the population would support the re-introduction of the death penalty, but Parliament cannot stomach it.  A largely London-based clique of politicos and journalistic media types see detention without charge as a moral absolute in a way the rest of the population does not.

It is hideously patronising for people like Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti to argue that the public are ignorant about liberal issues, but she has a point.  People tend not to care about wrongdoing until they are affected, and are blinded by the argument that “it’s not that bad really…”.  It is good that Parliament can stand against those it represents in order to do as it sees fit, according to conscience.  It is good that Parliament banned state executions, and good that it has defended basic civil liberties despite the authoritarian will of the population.

Some will argue that 42 days is a clear-cut issue: the police want the powers, they will only be used in rare circumstances, and six weeks imprisonment without any accusations made against you is not all that bad really anyway.  Some might cite public opinion on the issue.  It doesn’t make it right, or reasonable, or sensible.

There is a danger that the Westminster Village becomes divorced from the country as a whole.  There is certainly a case to answer for MPs acting without reference to the public mood.  It is clear that Parliament stands up for liberal ideas far more than the population as a whole would like.  There is a risk that people feel separated from their Parliament, and the very real concern here must be considered long and hard.  But it is good that Parliament acts in defiance to the public will on occasion, so long as free and fair elections allow rigorous opportunities for accountability.

It is for MPs to judge next week whether the impact on the lives of those potentially innocent people incarcerated for six weeks for no reason is worth risking for the sake of the potential protection of the population from terrorism.  I do not believe it is, and I hope MPs will make a level-headed judgement and vote against the public will next week.  If they do not, of course, those of us siding with liberalism still have that rigorous accountability available at the next election - and those siding with liberalism, more than any others, know how to keep Parliament accountable.

The Conservative party has been ripped to shreds over Europe, so I can sympathise with David Cameron when Europe becomes a problem.  His policy towards the EU appears to be to fully ignore its existence.  He has no policy on what to do with the Lisbon Treaty if/when it is ratified.  He does not want to discuss the Tory membership of a rather dodgy cross-European party in the European Parliament.  His most crucial failure has been to allow Tory MEPs free reign to do as they wish for fear of antagonising anyone or appearing eurosceptic.

This, as ConservativeHome has highlighted, has meant that the party has effectively rigged the candidate selection in an undemocratic way.  It has meant that few checks have been made on MEPs’ behaviour - indeed the most concerning characters seem to have held positions of authority in the European party.  For fear of internal backlash, the party hierarchy have ignored their vital role in managing their role in Europe.   It is entirely shameful.

It was encouraging, then, to see most commentators and party members light up with irritation at their “whoops-a-daisy” conman leader in the European Parliament, most calling for him to be “Conway-ed”.  David Cameron apparently took a hard line with him, and his place in the party looks shaky.  Rightly so.  If the Tory party is to prove it has changed, characters like him must be mercilessly purged.  He is not fit to represent people in Europe, let alone keep party affiliation.

When trouble brews closer to home, though, the party suddenly takes a different approach to expenses fiddling: “move along, nothing to see here”.  Caroline Spelman had a nanny, unpaid, who was also employed as a constituency secretary, paid for by the taxpayer.  The obvious contradiction is that if the nanny was looking after the children she could not be working for the taxpayer.  Further, though, it is clear that she was using public money to fund her nanny instead of paying her for her services to the family.

It doesn’t matter that this happened ten years ago.  Her best excuse is that she stopped the fiddle when she was told that it was wrong - but failed to report herself!  Sweeping it under the carpet proves deception; to plead ignorance only works if you report yourself when you discover guilt.  If this is all in the past, nothing of concern today, then she need not have reported herself this week.  If it is reportable, she should have reported it ten years ago.  At a push, the “mistake” might have been accidental, but the cover-up was deliberate.  No line can spin her way out of it.

If the Tory party is to prove its reformed nature, people like Spelman must be dispensed with.  Alternatively, they can admit that they accept expenses fiddles and never criticise any MP on the issue.  Conway was expelled from the party because there was no evidence his sons actually did any work: Spelman used public funds to pay for her children to be looked after while she was busy!  Consistency is a good thing in politics; Spelman should not be above the law.  One rule for Conway, anther for Spelman spells doom for the Tories.  The party must be brutal.

It is so sad to see the Tory blogosphere shrivel into a squeaking mess spouting the party line that “Spelman didn’t do much wrong and even if she did, it’s all in the past”.  This is when the party should be held to account by its members.  It was right for Conway to go, as the blogosphere identified.  If so, it is also right that Spelman be dismissed.

The party’s National Executive Committee is jointly liable for debts. As Guido has mentioned, this is probably why the Treasurer’s position is still vacant. Many high-ranking party officials could face bankruptcy because the party’s finances are in turmoil. (I shall ignore the obvious complaint that these are the people currently in charge of the Treasury…)

Mark Seddon in the New Statesman has details of one possibly strategy for fixing the financial problems. The Labour party could sell out to a private company, selling shares instead of membership.

This would only work if assets were available. None currently are, but the party is in government so policy is its biggest asset. Policy could be bid over so, for example, Murdoch might pay £10m to have the abolition of the licence fee in the manifesto. MPs and party members would doubtless object to many proposals, but the alternative is the NEC members becoming collectively bankrupt and party accounts being shut. There goes any election campaign.

This kind of sell-out would have to be proposed by or passed by the NEC - would they privatise their party to save their own assets? Forget any political disaster, forget Gordon Brown’s addiction to failure, the Labour party’s financial woes could well be the issue that ends this government. And Miliband would have no interest whatsoever in picking up the pieces.

As with the NHS proposal the other day, the Conservatives are now less privately motivated than Labour. A worrying thought indeed.