Don’t push it.

David Miliband’s article in the Guardian yesterday was a reasonable attempt to get the Labour party off the back foot. Since October last year, the narrative has been all Tory ascendancy and Labour distress. Miliband is of the gang of ministers ready to take New Labour - a ’90s philosophy - into the second decade of the 21st century. He honestly believes in what he proposes, and honestly disapproves of Conservative policy.

One senses a mild feeling of frustration from Miliband. Here he is, cometh the hour, etc, and Brown is sending Labour’s last chance for electoral success down the drain. Gordon Brown cannot talk about the future. He can tell us how he is “getting on with the job”, and is the “right man to get us through these difficult times”. He portrays himself as the man of the hour, forgetting, perhaps, that he created the circumstances he now believes he should get us out of. Miliband, on the other hand, has been largely untainted by back-room squabbles under both Blair’s leadership and Brown’s. Indeed, the mere fact that commentators are asking whether the Foreign Secretary has enough experience for the Premiership is evidence enough that he gets his head down and gets on with the job. Who was David Cameron before 2005? Miliband is no lightweight.

What interests me most, though, is that Miliband has tried to critique the Tories. He is confident that, in a genuine battle of ideas, Labour would win. For denying the opportunity to have such a battle, Gordon Brown is to blame. David Miliband is careful to spell out Labour’s future, but is right to contrast it with that of the Conservatives. Just read from his much-discussed but little-read article yesterday:

The Tories overclaim for what they are against because they don’t know what they are for. I disagreed with Margaret Thatcher, but at least it was clear what she stood for. She sat uncomfortably within the Tory party because she was a radical, not a conservative. She wanted change and was prepared to take unpopular decisions to achieve it.

The problem with David Cameron is the reverse. His problem is he is a conservative, not a radical. He doesn’t share a restlessness for change. He may be likable and sometimes hard to disagree with, but he is empty. He is a politician of the status quo — even a status quo he consistently voted against — not change.

Find me a floating voter who does not agree with that. Miliband took some stick for writing an article about Labour’s future, but somebody had to start discussing it before it is too late. If the Labour party wants to salvage itself, policy strategists like Miliband should be ready to discuss policy strategy! Brown is as childish as he is selfish. If he will not resign, he should be deposed.

So, I ask, should the Tories be afraid of Miliband? If he were to become leader this autumn, and call a General Election within the month, he would send shockwaves through Westminster. But in the intense media storm of a snap election and new leader, he could push his policy and methods of government strongly. The Tories would be caught off-guard, and their flimsy policy would be open to as stringent study as is possible. Miliband would lose, certainly, but by small enough a margin to keep his role of leader for the coming Parliament, in which he would be a strong opponant to the limited Tory majority government. The Tory dream of a comfortable decade in power would be gone: they would be struggling five years down the line. The Tories should be very scared of this scenario. All that stands in its way is the fickleness of Gordon Brown’s unstable character.

Some mainstream media blogs are usually worth reading.  I like the Telegraph’s blog network - the content is thick and fast, but posts are always refreshingly short.  A good balance.  Until this kind of rubbish finds its way onto their webspace.

I am sure Melissa Kite is a journalist of merit (although I can’t say I have every been overwhelmed by one of her articles), but her comment on David Cameron’s suggestions of alcohol leave a lot to be desired.  In an informal atmosphere, Cameron was hypothesising on the role of alcohol in the home - namely that if people drink sensibly in the home, they tend not to drink stupidly outdoors.  The continental model.  It is a common line of thought, and deserves consideration.  To rubbish it as a principle because some deliberately silly hypothetical central government project to promote drinking at home would clearly not work is shoddy journalism.  It is no way to make an argument, even if it is via a blog.

The longer the media take the attitude “I wouldn’t write this for the print media, but it’s fine for the blog”, the longer it will take for them to catch up with the wider blogosphere.

For what it’s worth, I think the cultural attitude to alcohol goes much deeper than whether or not people drink small quantities at home from a reasonably young age, but this is a reasonable approach to take with one’s own kids.  One things I can agree with Melissa Kite on, despite her chronic approach to argument, is that any state attempt to encourage this sensible behaviour would be impossible and equally undesirable.

A shrewd move from Cameron. I concurr with Daniel Finkelstein’s view that an opposition party, purely by merit of having weaker resources, can rarely do little further than sketch out an agenda in terms of their proposed policy.

So this is a wise political move, but one which leaves Cameron as inscrutable as ever. This is, in fact, something of a non-story: politician refuses to declare his intentions. It’s hardly up there with “Sun fails to rise”. Exactly what Cameron stands for has still not been made entirely clear: it is obvious what he wants to move the Conservative Party away from {above all else: abject electoral failure} but this form of negative definition leaves a vague and nebulous body which still struggles to find meaning.

As I’ve mentioned Finkelstein here already I suppose that it is worth linking to my previous attack upon his attempt to define the new direction taken by the Tories. Unfortuantely for the Tories this flawed outline is still the best which they have enjoyed. As we approach six months since Finkelstein’s effort we should note that the Tories have still failed to establish a unified agenda. If this continues to be the case advancement even against such a crippled foe as the Labour Party could prove problematic.

Today, Tory MEPs confirmed their party’s civil libertarian credentials - by voting not to condemn the finger-printing of Roma children in Italy. All but one of the party’s MEPs has voted against a resolution condemning ethnic profiling by Berlusconi’s government. One said:

“Fingerprinting is the only way to ensure the children are sent to school” - Charles Tannock MEP

So, to summarise - the Conservative MEPs have refused to condemn a racist and authoritarian measure which effectively dscriminates against a vulnerable minority. That hardly fits in with their current narrative of the party of civil liberties, valiantly struggling against a tide of CCTV cameras and police forms.

Unless, of course, Cameron sends an internal memo condemning the MEPs as fascist fellow-travellers. Which seems unlikely. Perhaps David Davis should resign his membership in the hope of raising public attention…

(Hat-tip: Question That)

Observers of London politics may remember BoJo’s swift reaction to the merest allegations of racism against James McGrath. A sign of sensitivity to the dangers of prejudice, then? Perhaps we should check what his Chief of Staff, Tim Parker, thinks of women in government then:

He said that it was easier to appoint women to posts for which few qualifications were needed but said that as jobs became more important it was difficult to find suitable candidates.

Mr Parker said: “When you go down the pyramid of an organisation you find many more posts that are open to a broader market and it’s much easier there to be more equal, as it were.

“The narrower you get it’s tougher and tougher and sometimes you will get a situation where there are more people leaving or more people from one group or another.”

Perhaps not, then. For the unfamiliar with the Prince of Darkness’ infernal doublespeak, we’ll translate that:

He said it was easier to appoint women to low-skilled, low paid jobs. And that those well-paid jobs which exist naturally go to men.

Mr. Parker said: “When you go down the pay scales of organisations you find many posts that are open to the other half of the population and it’s easier to be equal there. Because that’s all I think they’re good for. As it were.

The higher-paid you get, it tougher and very often you’ll get a situation where there are women leaving because I feel they’re weak and more people from the rich white boys club. Because we’re rather good at keeping it that way.”

He doesn’t need to hide behind a claim that, “one group,” does better than the other. It’s easy to see what he’s referring to in context; men and women. But, because he’s bothered to cover his misogyny with the weakest of weasel words, the media deigns not to notice. And so he gets away with it.

These are the new, caring Conservatives, you see.

(Hat-tip: The F-Word)

Remember the Forensic Audit Panel? It’s that supposedly neutral body meant to check the previous administration’s finances - which contains two Tory council leaders. And, it emerges, another Tory:

Patience Wheatcroft

1(a)(ii)(cc) – I am a member of or hold a position of general control or management of the following body/bodies whose principle purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy:

Member of the Conservative Party

I wonder what they’ll conclude, hmm? That BoJo wants to pick a panel that agrees with him is unsurprising; he wants to spend public money his way. But he really ought to drop all pretence of political neutrality while doing so…

Hat-tip: Dave Hill.

According to the last set of polling conducted by The Independent the Conservative Party’s lead fell by 7%.

I fail entirely at seeing the downside of David Davis forcing a by-election.

Bensix provided a valuable link in the comments section, which I consider well worthy of repetition. Quite simply David Davis lacks any credentials to the title of “Libertarian” which has seemingly been constantly heaped upon him by all sides of the media. That link evidences as much even without mentioning his standard reactionary stance upon drugs {the outright idiocy included in Ian Duncan Smith’s report on the topic received not a whisper}. He failed to attack Section 28, a vile law with just as little evidence for necessity as 28 days. He voted against gay adoption, he only avoided voting against civil partnerships seemingly through his absence as there is little to suggest he would support such a measure given past form.

I respect David Davis for taking this risk {it fails to surprise me that a challenger has appeared who should pose a threat even in the absence of a Labour campaign, an event of such high profile was bound to attract such attention}. I think that the argument of him supporting 28 days is a weak one as this compromise was the only one which stood any chance of defeating the government. It is much along the same reasoning as that outlined to me by Ann Widdecombe while giving a speech at my school whereby she explained that her opposition to abortion was not expressed in votes for outright bans but for whichever proposals it seemed the pro-life MPs could muster enough supports to turn out a decent showing for. David Davis is clearly as opposed to 42 Day Detention as Widdecombe foeticide and claiming otherwise is unfair. That he is willing to stand the chance of sacrificing career for conviction is a striking and valuable move that should earn him considerable respect and sets him apart from the professional politicians who now dominate the Commons.

But the man is no libertarian; and to state as much is a grotesque distortion of that flawed but noble political position.

It doesn’t matter why David Davis resigned. Perhaps it’s the genuinely principled stand I’d like to believe it is; perhaps it’s simply political grandstanding. We’ll very likely never know, and shouldn’t waste much time speculating. What we should do now is use this opportunity, and use it properly.

Whether Davis likes it or not, this will never be a single issue campaign as it is. If Labour runs against the Tories, then it will turn into a campaign of Labour against the Tories, not libertarians against fascist cunts. Davis might want to campaign on the single issue of 42 Days, but is seems unlikely that Labour would let him if they even bother to stand. They don’t want to win the argument on their little piece of state terrorism, and have never wanted to - surely the dodgy doings with the DUP were enough to prove that?

No, they won’t fight on 42 Days. They’ll respond to any arguments Davis puts forward, perhaps - but only that. Otherwise, they’ll run on a full slate of policies, and hope for public apathy on their own liberties compared to the other issues they’ll campaign on to deliver them an increased share of the vote - and trumpet that as a victory in a Tory safe seat. They’ll attack the Tories, ignore the issue of freedom and duck as much that is thrown them as possible. That’d be the case whichever issue Davis ran on, simply because he’s a Tory; the only way you’ll get away with a single issue campaign is to belong to a group founded on that single issue. Shami Chakrabati would get away with it here. Davis won’t, as he’s a member of a national party with a policy platform which it’s now in Labour’s interest to bring up. They’ll would portray it as a cheap partisan trick, and avoid the crucial issue that they themselves are behaving in such a reprehensibly authoritarian fashion that even hardline Thatcherites will vote against them. They’d fail and lose the election because the seat is in the Conservatives’ pocket - but at the same time they’ll try to bury any debate on civil liberties.

We can’t let that happen. Anyone who values their freedom to walk the streets without being swept away into anonymous and unaccountable penury - for that is the precedent this sets - must make their voices heard. Whether you approve of Davis’ decision to resign or not, it’s crucial to act now; he’s resigned, we can’t do anything about that, and must work with what we’ve got. And that’s a potential national debate on civil liberties which the government will attempt to dodge at every opportunity, as it knows it’ll be hammered in a fair fight. They will try to divert the debate, and we must stop them.

So we must make a noise. We must get out there, shout, scream, petition, abuse, argue and campaign on the issue so Labour simply can’t escape. If people in every constituency from every party that values the simple concept of freedom come out and let the government know just how angry they are, then they won’t be able to paint this election as a Punch and Judy sausage fight. And the frequently illiberal Tories (not least Mr. “Gays don’t need rights” Davis…) won’t be able to co-opt the issue, as it’ll be clear everyone except the DUP are furious. Davis will win the by-election, yes - but if everyone makes a noise and makes it clear they’re only supporting him because of what Labour have become, then the Tories won’t take anything from that. If we want to stop the 42 Days legislation, we need to start now, and we need to show that it’s everyone. It’s our last chance.

So fetch the megaphone…