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…

“In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms.”

David Davis

“David discussed early in the week what he would do if the result went against us last night. “David is a man of principle and we fully back him,” he said.

Haltemprice and Howden local Tory leader, Duncan Gilmour.

This resignation is quite extraordinary and without precedent that I can think of in British politics and means that politics is now utterly unpredictable.

-Nick Robinson

A Noble Endeavor

I agree with Ali entirely over the following:

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

but over effectively everything else we differ.

I must firstly emphasise further the point made aptly by Ali, as there is little other place to start: this is a stunning move which I can think of no precedent for. It is unquestionably an exercise in grand-standing and as far as can be determined was entirely unexpected by anyone save Davis himself. I also feel that it would be hard for Davis to return to the high standing he achieved, but differ in there being much uncertainty over whether the Tories will offer support, given that Cameron has wished him luck but has apparently pledged no assistance.

Ali suggests that this makes a mockery of the principle of parliamentary democracy, but I would suggest that yesterday’s vote made it clear that the Labour Party was not interested in winning the argument but instead enforcing Brown’s will. Quite simply I doubt severely that the number of members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who were opposed to the measure numbered 37, just as strongly as I doubt that the government’s announcement of a vast increase spending on Northern Ireland was coincidental.

What brought Brown victory yesterday was not winning the argument, indeed it was not even the public electing a set of petty authoritarians to act as their representatives. The problem lay with the Whip System, which results in an over-powered executive capable of forcing through even this, the most sinister and muddled piece of legislation to encounter parliament since Blair’s attempt to make it 90 days. Quite simply the executive being able to bring about the ruination of all within the party that oppose it gives it an excessive quantity of power, allowing it to threaten all those that wish for advancement with their hopes being dashed should they opt to follow principle rather than party.

Ali suggests that Parliamentary votes are a matter of conscience. I argue that they should be.

So David Davis decided not to let the matter stand and took a radical approach anticipated by no one. This certainly unsettles many, but I do not consider this to be an instance of egoism on the part of Davis, nor do I consider it “disgraceful”. No egoist in their right mind would abandon the second most powerful position in a party almost certain to reach power on account of a law which could be over-turned upon them reaching power. No, Davis has clearly been affected by the mood of the nation seemingly being in favour of the measure and intends this campaign to be one of scrutiny being placed upon the relationship of state and people. Although this was certainly of interest to Cameron regardless it is worth considering to what extent Davis shaped this distinct focus of theirs and worth observing how things shift now that he has departed.

My respect for David Davis was great after witnessing his firm and robust defence of our liberty during the debate but now my feelings have solidified into outright admiration. It is at moments such as this that I am pleased not to be a partisan. This is certainly an approach that anyone bearing their own political positioning in mind first and foremost would not have taken, but others would do well to follow. Are we to understand that the doyenne of the hopeful leftists, David Miliband, who recently wrote an article for The Times about radical liberalism and social democrats truly was in favour of this draconian piece of vicious statism? Far more likely that he and many others like him were wary of destroying their professional futures by opposing something which was pledged in no manifesto {as Davis mentioned in his fine speech} that somehow became a key policy over which there could be no negotiation.

This is the sort of system that is antithetical to earnest liberalism: the collective body subsumes the individual and this system exploits human self-interest at the cost of liberty. As any liberal knows the appropriate response to such tyranny is to overthrow it and we can but hope that Davis is the spearhead of such a revolution. I even find myself able to forgive him for using a slippery slope fallacy in his speech, for what have the government done save witness a 28 day detention approved and then attempt to force through a lengthier period that lasts six weeks? They used the original as a launch pad rather than accepting defeat over the matter and given this the only plausible response is that the government wishes to be able to imprison people without trial for as long as they could get away with in parliament.

Their motivations may be benign, they could have our national interest at heart, but this is not the appropriate approach to take to the relationship of state and individual. If there is any truth in human rationality this will be revealed in the further national discussions which occurs as a consequence of Davis’ noble and bold move.

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.