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.