Hi to everybody...hubby told me this morning that none of the other parties are contesting the by-election when David Davis stands on the single issue of the 42 days incarceration...how do you have an election with only one candidate? And what does he hope to gain from it if it's uncontested? This makes it a protest without backbone...he's got to be re-elected, will get his previous position back no doubt as the Conservative Party needs him apparently as the voice of the ordinary man with his non public school background and the son of a single mother...so what will he achieve?
These political games leave me mystified...it becomes farcical if it's uncontested and basically a pointless protest...why is the Labour candidate not standing against him? If, as has been suggested, 65% of the public agree with the 42 days, he could be defeated on this particular single issue, and he only had a 5000 majority...I suppose that's fairly large but still could be undone if standing on this contentious issue alone....
Robin Cook resigned when we entered the Iraq War and I respected him greatly for that, but this resignation falls far short of that honourable resignation...this strikes me as contrived rather than genuine with this latest turn up for the books...a non-contested election...just plain nonsense in my opinion....
-
-
The_Walrus
- http://www.doctor-dark.co.uk
- 2008-06-13 @ 22:10:58
-
-
jenray
Pro - http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-13 @ 23:18:13
Not sure it's Gordon Brown here who's the subject...It's David Davis who's turned this into a farce...as Jacqui Smith or Harriet Harman I think said today, until David Davis actually resigns, the Labour Party can't declare that it's going to fight the election...
-
-
rubychoo
- 2008-06-13 @ 23:46:36
But you asked how you could hold an election with only one candidate....
Labour seem to have managed it, and with an unelectable candidate to boot...-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-14 @ 00:11:18
Well he was accepted by his peers as the only possible leader they could have at the time, so was elected unopposed...not exactly the same as a by-election where the public vote....There does seem to be a lot of anti-Labour people around in BCUK...HLOL...don't tell me I'm surrounded by Conservative supporters...
I'm not a Labour supporter either, but then I can't support any party now...but there's certainly a heck of a lot of vitriol aimed at Brown in particular and the Labour party in general...have people forgotten what Britain was like under Thatcher then Major...We haven't...even if we managed to buy our house under Thatcher eventually, we lived on terrible wages, huge bank rates, and borrowing money was virtually impossible...It was the days of the rich yobbos and dirt poor, and she's the only politician I can truthfully say I loathe with every inch of my being for what she did to the country...sorry, Rubychoo, didn't mean to rant...LOL..I'm still waiting for somebody here to criticize the bloody Conservatives...but nobody seems to do it here...just Labour... -
-
-
-
-
-
SloshedAndVexed
Pro - 2008-06-13 @ 23:43:39
DD is taking a big gamble , I do'nt entirely understand exactly what he thinks he's playing at but I agree wholeheartedly with him about the folly of identity cards and the intrusiveness of one cctv camera for every 14 UK citizens , a dna database of thousands of innocent children and 1M innocent adults , and that " the state has security powers that clamp down on peaceful protest , and so called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate , whilst those inciting violence get off scot-free " .
But I fear that he may be embarking on some ego-trip exaggerative of his own importance , and I do'nt quite see why he could'nt have continued to argue against all that as shadow home secretary . . -
-
-
SeasideMan
Pro - 2008-06-15 @ 15:50:04
I don't trust those face-grinding Tory twits any further than I could spit. Unfortunately I no longer trust politicians of any colour with the possible exception of Green.
Tom.-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-15 @ 18:45:28
Nope, don't trust any either, and I certainly don't trust the Greens either anymore after watching the Canadian Greens go after David Icke...it was one of the cruellest displays I've seen for a long time, and I realised that the Greens may want to save the earth, but they don't mind ripping a guy to pieces just because they don't agree with his views...it was wicked what they did to him, so no not Greens either...
-
-
-
I totally support DDs stance.
65% of the public agree with the 42 days, he could be defeated on this particular single issue
From browsing the BBC's HYS message board there is NO WAY that 65% of the public support the extention.
the Conservative Party needs him apparently as the voice of the ordinary man
They totally need him. it's only a shame that Cameron beat him in the leadership contest.-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-16 @ 15:51:54
I agree...I have no idea where they got the 65% for the extension from, just another random poll that threw up a false reading...I thought you might be pro the extension but I'm glad to hear you're not...the invasion of our privacy and our constitutional rights being removed bit by bit is very alarming and all in the name of manipulated fear of a new enemy, carefully nurtured by faceless people whose best interests are served by maintaining it constantly...unfortunately, I could never bring myself to support a Conservative even if I agreed with him on a single issue...and he was probably beaten because he didn't look like a clone of Blair, young looking, clean cut and charming...you can bet that whoever succeeds Brown will resemble Cameron and Clegg in looks and style...we've become so media conscious now in politics that the look of a leader counts far more than his substance, which is potentially disastrous for decent politics...
-
-
-
-
HektorRevisited
- http://thewindhover.blog.co.uk/
- 2008-06-19 @ 14:44:49
Davis's decision was daft. The fact that he's not being challenged makes it look like a stunt that backfired.
If it is really a matter of principle, he should have stayed in the Commons as Shadow Home Secretary to campaign further on it. Now, he is no longer Shadow Home Sec and will not get his job back assuming that he is re-elected.
I think making inroads into habeas corpus is an important issue and one that should be debated.
You say: "Robin Cook resigned when we entered the Iraq War and I respected him greatly for that, but this resignation falls far short of that honourable resignation..."
Cook only resigned from Cabinet, not from Parliament - so it is wrong to compare the two. Also, and notwithstanding its muddled headedness, isn't opposing the erosion of liberties enshrined in English law for centuries a honoroable thing to do? I would argue that it was.
-
-
jenray
Pro
- http://www.jenniferhunter.co.uk
- 2008-06-19 @ 14:58:42
Sorry, should have specified more clearly about Robin Cook's resignation...And, yes, you could say it's an honourable thing to do to fight for civil liberties, but Davis's way of doing it strikes me as an emotional reaction rather than a well thought out strategy to call attention to something he is opposed to...many of us are against the erosion of our civil liberties but it might have been much better if he hadn't done it in this manner...it is too wide open for turning into a farce instead of a serious point, which it is rapidly doing...lots of people also believe that it won't be long before he gets his old job back because Cameron needs him as a voice of the ordinary man with his non-public school background...choatic world we live in now with no clear borders between left and right in politics, so now everybody vies for the centre and we actually end up with everybody saying similar things with a slightly different slant or emphasise on one part or another...
-
-
We all knew Gordon Brown was scared of elections!