What if he loses?
It seems as if Davis is planning on styling himself as the next Shami Chakrabarti, whether he wins or not. Sadly for him, he is neither as good a communicator nor does he appear as sincere. This town ain’t big enough for the both of them, that’s for sure.

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.

David Davis has resigned his position as Shadow Home Secretary and is forcing a by-election in his constituency. A bad idea on so many levels.

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.

An element of Douglas’ recent post seemed to require further investigation.

Quoth Nadine Dorries:

The incoming Conservative government has many big dragons to slay…

Like this?

Unfortunately when attempting to defend Bush this gentleman forgot some minor historical details. This is revealed half-way through this video in a fashion reminiscent of Paxman on Howard, only far more hilarious:

Did anyone watch Sky’s Mayoral debate? It was fundamentally pointless. This was one of the last chances for Londoners as a mass audience to see the candidates, and learn more on policy - but not so. Instead, it was a return to the same stilted punch and judy routines: Boris is a racist, Ken hates everyone, yadda yadda.

Boris trotted out tired old lines he’s used in every speech and debate so far, but got uproarious laughter this time. I couldn’t work out why until I noticed on Tory Troll that the debate was in Sloane Square - Boris country. A sneaky little attempt to weigh it in Boris’ favour on Murdoch’s (minon’s) part, perhaps? The audience simply hated Ken.

And this came with the last minute sucking up to Paddick as Ken and BoJo tried desperately to harvest Lib Dem votes. Paddick, meanwhile, was as rude as possible to them, presumably in an attempt to keep hold of his voters, and mark him out as an assertive, strong candidate.

As it is, he just looked like a shrill prat.

I’d go on, but there’s a far more interesting account over at Tory Troll, who was actually there. I quote perhaps the most interesting backstage detail:

The rest of the debate descended into a flattery-fest as both Boris and Ken fought to see who could be nicest to Brian whilst Brian tried to be as nasty as possible in return. But once the cameras turned off, the crowds left and Andrew Gilligan was out of view, Boris and Ken were left on the stage and suddenly they looked and sounded like old friends.

And like Ken’s embrace of Boris as the two walked off the Question Time stage last week, I saw a moment of truth behind the stage-managed indignation of recent weeks. Because behind all of the personal attacks that the candidates, journalists and bloggers have made over this campaign, it is easy to forget that this is a contest between two well-meaning and likeable characters. And although Boris’ has not quite been able to bring himself to look Ken in the eye when they were standing at the podiums, I suspect that they would quite happily share two stools at a bar.

I often seem to find myself disagreeing with my esteemed colleagues here on Scribo.  It’s not something I am usually concerned about, but today I am almost incredulous at Vamp’s assessment on the subject of “Brown Caves“.

Unlike most {all, in the case of the right} I see a deviation from the former stubborness of the Labour Party to be a positve thing.

I find Brown’s latest troubles anything but a sign of an end to stubbornness: in fact, little he has done has been more stubborn.  Let’s chart events:

Gordon Brown’s final Budget includes measures that hit the poorest group of workers in the country.

Gordon Brown claims the Budget is tax-cutting.

MPs finally read the Budget and realise that the poorest people are being hit by the change.

Gordon Brown denies anyone will be financially harmed by the Budget.

Rebellion stirs among the backbenchers.

Gordon Brown tells lobby journalists that the rebellion is tiny and not an issue.

Rebellion grows.

Gordon Brown forced to break from engagements in the White House to persuade spineless PPS not to resign.

Gordon Brown still claims the rebellion is insubstantial.

Frank Field reveals the scope of the rebellion: more than enough for a government defeat.

Gordon Brown dithers for a week.

Minutes before PMQs on Wednesday, Gordon Brown reveals plans to “compensate” those who have lost out as a direct result of his budget.

David Cameron mocks him for U-turning.

It becomes clear that the U-turn was a mere sleight of hand: the “compensation” has helped nobody very much.

Gordon Brown pretends all is well with the world.

Tories get 18-point lead in Telegraph poll.

If that is not a record of stubbornness, I will emigrate when I see one.  I also disagree with Vamp’s suggestion that the opposition “were apparently jubiliant yesterday but they were denied the grand scalp of a Commons defeat”.  These events play directly into the Tories’ greatest attack - Brown is a ditherer who is completely out of touch with reality.  Brown is fooling nobody: probably not even himself.  This is far, far more valuable than a commons defeat.

For those of you who are fooled by Brown, consider the sham of a compensation package he laid out yesterday.  Direct financial reimbursement for the employed will occur through an inflation-busting rise in the minimum wage - paid for by employers.  Other minor payouts will occur, but only the Winter Fuel Allowance will be backdated to this Spring.  Forgive my cynicism, but what exactly does backdating Winter payments from Autumn to Spring entail?  Precisely nothing.

Let’s not forget that this is a tax increase, not a surcharge on being poor.  When those hit by it are not properly reimbursed and those who are receive compensation only through their employers, the state is onto a winner.  Even if every person affected by the change came out of the compensation process with as much money as they had before, the government would still have made a profit! What an absolute scandal!

The truth is more startling still.  The government has pulled a profit from screwing over some of the lowest-paid workers in the country, and has saved its skin by screwing over their employers.  This, I fear, is the kind of disgusting stunt befitting a government that has been hanging out to dry for far too long.  If Vamp thinks this is an acceptable way to cling to power, I worry greatly about the long-term future of this country.

No government, however desperate, should ever resort to such dirty tactics as these.  It’s intolerably shameful.  It is a matter of great regret that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the alternatives would behave any differently.

A wise move.

It will hopefully cause Zimbabwe to collapse completely and from there it can be rebuilt. Mugabe’s “War Veterans” will struggle to force everyone back into work. The strike is indefinete so it is not a matter of simply riding it out but it is likely that inflation strikes so hard that after a day it would be too late to catch up anyway.

Let us hope that this proves enough to topple him; it’s a tactic that’s been suggested by many socialists already and no doubt not something that the MDC really wanted to resort to. There are certainly disadvantages to the tactic but given that there is no food on the shelves anyway I hardly see what harm can be done by averting a wage. Harm other than that inflicted upon Mugabe’s argument that the people are on his side, that is.

But then, the election displayed that quite decisively anyway. Once again, all us ruthless western imperialist neo-colonialists can do is wait and hope.

That’s the way to do it.

I am endlessly impressed with the general strike that is presently taking place in Egypt. As far as I can tell it is the most successful effort since the similar efforts to return Chavez to power after he was kidnapped in a dubiously funded militant coup. In terms of removal rather than re-reinstatement it draws to mind the general strike called by unions that prevented the Kapp Putsch from lasting.

In some places the bravery of the strikers has been truly striking and on one occasion a continued resistance was issued to the police by workers who remained firm and fierce in their resistance instead of relenting and dispersing, as is the standard and entirely respectable response to truncheons and tear-gas.

Having acted without the involvement of the previously seemingly only alternative, the Muslim Brotherhood who are one of the rare organisations that make the Egyptian status quo seem tolerable. They have thus changed the nature of this as a choice between totalitarian brutality and theocratic domination of the nation to those options and a third which consists of workers which desire basic liberties. This is an intentionally non-sectarian movement which is attempting to topple an autocrat via largely peaceful means. By which I mean it has involved retaliation when attacked by police in places but otherwise engaged in only the symbolic destruction you can view above.

This is not a region that I know a vast amount about but this is certainly a pleasing development. Apparently similar events are unfolding in Haiti and hopefully this year may be ended a good deal more freely than it began. We are still, however, waiting upon the “official” results for the Zimbabwean election. If the results have been fiddled so as to trigger a run-off then I fear Mugabe will simply not tolerate defeat, especially given his recent activities with regards to ordering his “Veterans” onto the streets.

Let us hope that Zimbabwe can somehow finally draw together as firm an opposition as Egypt has.

***

On a lighter note this is our 444th post. I am not much of a sentimentalist but somehow I considered this a fitting point to note. I shall make all efforts to make the 555th as well, and perhaps make it something even more cheerful by posting up some Daft Punk to mark the occasion.

Something must be wrong when the Tories attack Labour for not redistributing wealth well enough. It does lend itself to the view that progressive tax has become a universally-accepted part of British politics. It is rather a shame to see the Johnny-come-lately Tories claiming the moral high ground on this most crucial of policies.

That said, one wonders quite what Labour is playing at with the current disarray in the Treasury.

I don’t like writing posts like this, as they feel lazy. That, and most that was said today was very predictable. Nonetheless, a few comments do stand out:

It (a 2003 newspaper article in which Nick Clegg said not holding a referendum would show “that we do not have the cojones” to take the argument to the people) may be an explanation of why the Liberal Democrat leadership protests over the course of these debates have become ever more shrill…. At some point in recent months they have become separated from their cojones. These unfortunate objects are to be found impaled on a distant fence. - William Hague

I don’t like to give Hague any real credit, as he irritates me. Here, though his much vaunted wit is at its best - it raised a laugh with me, at least. More importantly, I suspect it sums up perfectly what the public perception of the Lib Dems will become now. They’ll appear cowardly middle-roaders whose inability to chose sides has cost them their credibility.

The Tories will spin that for all its worth, certainly. They’ve no desire to lose any votes to Clegg’s declared economic liberalism, and will happily destroy them.  If they don’t do it themselves.

I’m likely to be voting with you [Mr Miliband] tonight but I’m not sure I’m going to be able to agree with any of the arguments you are using in favour of that proposition… Will you stop all this nonsense about it being different from the constitution, because it is plainly the same in substance, and explain why it is better not to have a referendum but have it decided in parliament. You are getting into trouble because of the deviousness and, at times, ridiculousness, of the arguments you are using. - Ken Clarke

This is one of the most dangerous attacks on Labour. Coming from one of the strongest Europhiles in the Tory party, it yet roundly condemns Labour for this. Even if what Clarke was saying was completely false, it would still do damage. A supporter says it’s the constitution, people see this and say, “Look, a supporter says it’s the constitution,” and from thence on opponents have carte blanche to call it the Constitution. Labour suffer.

I suspect Clarke had that all thought out fairly carefully.

 The Treaty of Lisbon is essentially a repackaging of the old Constitution. I don’t oppose the principle of a constitution. But I oppose this particular one (and the treaty which reproduces it) because EU citizens deserve better. While the Treaty of Lisbon includes some positive measures, in my view these are outweighed by negative ones - the further militarisation of the EU, for example, as well as measures to promote greater economic liberalisation and privatisation. - Caroline Lucas, Green Party Co-Principal Speaker

Not to mention the damage to accountability and the democratic structuresof the EU…

Nonetheless, isn’t it really very depressing that the Greens have the most accurate view of the Treaty (rather than the referendum) itself? None of the mainstream parties have openly picked up on the fact that, while an EU Constitution is possibly desirable, this one’s really a poor deal.

And finally, another example of where Clegg went wrong:

The prime minister once said that he would build a wider pro-European movement in Britain. How does he think he’s going to achieve that? By colluding with the anti-European Conservatives to block the in-out-referendum that the British people really want?

Let’s get this straight: the government is, in fact, colluding with the opposition to deny the public the opportunity of buying into Clegg’s currently niche policy. That’s quite the conspiracy theory he has there. Never mind the fact that they were at each others’ throats today - that’s clearly a disguise for their anti-democratic denial of the Lib Dems. Devious of them don’t you see?

Either he’s very deluded, or very bad at picking his scripts.  Possibly both.