That was resounding

Round 1: David Miliband 37.78%, Ed Miliband 34.33% Diane Abbott eliminated
Round 2: David Miliband 38.89%, Ed Miliband 37.47%. Andy Burnham eliminated
Round 3: David Miliband 42.72%, Ed Miliband 41.26%, Ed Balls eliminated
Round 4: David Miliband 49.35%, Ed Miliband 50.65%. Ed Miliband wins.

So Ed Miliband wins the Labour leadership, beating his elder brother David, thanks to second preferences. On first preferences David beat Ed by 3.35%. Diane Abbott's votes went to Ed 3.14% and David 1.11%, Andy Burnham's votes split almost eavenly to David 3.83% and Ed 3.79% and Ed Balls's votes went to Ed 9.39% and to David 6.63%. So on a first past the post basis David Moribund would have won the Labour leadership but thanks to the second preferences of those consensual figures Dianne Abbot and Ed Balls, Ed Miliband emerges victorious.

I wonder if David Miliband is now regretting assisting Diane Abbot to get the required nominations to get through to the final stage?

It is odd how in leadership elections for the main opposition party the early favourite keeps on losing. This time Ed Miliband beats David Miliband. In the last three Conservative leadership elections (going backwards in time) David Cameron defeated David Davis, Ian Duncan Smith defeated Ken Clarke and William Hague defeated Kenneth Clarke & Michael Howard. Remember that Michael Howard won the Conservative leadership in 2003 unopposed, just as Gordon Brown did in 2007.

Have the BBC played a very good 'long game'?

When the BBC started to boost David Cameron's chances of winning the Conservative party leadership at the expense of David Davis, I was surprised after all the former was an old-Etonian whilst the latter was a former council house lad. Yet the BBC seemed to smile upon the image of the smartly dressed, fresh faced, Notting Hill PR man and many commentators seemed to think this was because David Cameron was the BBC's sort of man, the acceptable face of liberal Conservatism; whilst David Davis was too right wing, too hard, too abrasive for the BBC's liking.

Some years on and is it beyond the realm of possibility that the BBC approved the candidacy of David Cameron precisely because his attributes would be easier for them and the Labour party to attack at a general election? Did the BBC help to foist an old-Etonian leader on the Conservative party, just so Labour could play the 'posh old-Etonian leader' card? Did the BBC approve David Cameron's candidacy just so the BBC/Labour alliance could more starkly compare their 'horny handed son of the soil' man (actually a middle class, socialist class warrior) with the 'priviledged background' of the Conservative leader?

A fanciful theory? Are you sure?

Is now the time for David Davis to return to the Conservative front bench?

Will Christopher Grayling's 'gaffe' be the push that David Cameron needs to bring David Davis back to the Conservative front bench for the coming general election battle. Has David Cameron the nerve to bring another Tory big gun back to his team? He took the, arguably, bigger risk and recalled Ken Clarke, so why not David Davis?

If you read nothing else today...

Read David Davis in The Independent asking "How can Jacqui Smith escape responsibility for this outrage?
It's astonishing that she didn't know what was going on with Damian Green" and Tory Bear asking about the disappearing Mirror article and what's happened to Derek Draper's PC.

Who's to blame?

Any Questions - Radio 4 tonight and repeated on Saturday at 13:10 - listen to Denis MacShane waffle and not like being cornered by Jonathan Dimbleby, Janet Street Porter and Jo Swinson and definitely not apologising or calling for Gordon Brown to apologise over the regulation of the Banks.

You can also hear Denis MacShane have to defend Jacqui Smith's housing arrangements and waffle. He does not actually defend the £24,000 a year for a room in Peckham and nobody challenges him.

And then they turned to Geert Wilders:
Janet Street Porter - banning lead to far more media coverage than just letting him in, as is always the case. Banning is bad, free speech is good; "let him speak" - polite applause
Denis MacShane - "There is right not to be offended" - He does point out that nobody tried to ban Jean Marie Le Pen who is an anti-Semite. Denis MacShane stands with Voltaire - slightly less polite applause
Jo Swinson - Agrees with Denis MacShane and thinks that free speech ends when it incites violence. She describes the film as "vile", was the film vile or the words and actions contained with in it. Apparently you can make such a film from any text and the film's claims are rubbish - polite applause
David Davis - Does bring up the 10,000 Muslims on the street comment, public debate is the answer - loudest applause.

Audience hand vote - unanimous (bar one) view it was the wrong decision taken by Jacqui Smith.


Listen to the show here or repeated on Radio 4 on Saturday at 13:10, maybe call in to Any Answers after the Saturday repeat.

Does this Labour government support the use of torture?

The BBC report that:

"A senior Conservative says ministers must urgently respond to allegations that Britain was complicit in torture.

David Davis said a High Court ruling on Wednesday alleged a British resident held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba had been tortured.

The ruling suggested the US threatened to withdraw intelligence help from the UK if details were released, Mr Davis claimed in the House of Commons.

The BBC's Nick Robinson said the claims were "extraordinarily serious".

The allegations relate to Binyam Mohamed, a British resident held in Guantanamo, who alleges he was tortured in Pakistan, Morocco and Afghanistan.

Mr Davis said a High Court ruling, which pointed to complicity by the UK and US authorities in his torture, was prevented from being published after the US put pressure on the UK.

He said the US had threatened to withdraw intelligence co-operation from the UK if this happened.

The former shadow home secretary raised the case in a point of order in the House of Commons.

He said Foreign Secretary David Miliband should make a statement to MPs about the issue as soon as possible to "explain what the devil is going on".

Mr Davis said the US authorities should not interfere with the UK judicial process.

He also said the UK government should make it "plain" that it did not support torture in any circumstances. "

Davis Davis should pursue this one as hard as possible, purely because I want Gordon Brown, David Miliband and Jack Straw to have admit to their part (if they had one) in approving "extraordinary rendition".

For the avoidance of doubt, "Binyam Mohamed, a British resident", is an Ethiopian who sought asylum in the UK in 1994. In June 2001, he travelled to Afghanistan his supporters claim this was so as to conquer his drug problems and to see Muslim countries "with his own eyes". Obviously a man with a drug problem would travel to the centre of the world's heroin trade in order to kick the habit; that is obvious! The UK and U.S. authorities contend that he went to train in a paramilitary Al-Qaeda camp. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks Binyam Mohamed went to Pakistan and on 10 April 2002, he was arrested at the Karachi airport by Pakistani authorities as a suspected terrorist. From there he was sent to Guantanemo Bay. It is odd that so many British residents decided that the best place for a holiday/work trip/ drug rehab was Afghanistan or Pakistan, I am sure there is nothing suspicious about it and that they all should be brought back to the UK, given a nice council house and left to do what they want

When fiction becomes reality

When fiction becomes reality I often do a double take, and now David Davis the re-elected MP for Haltemprice and Howden has the largest majority in the House of Commons just as Alan B'Stard the fictional MP for Haltemprice always claimed to have the "largest majority in the House". Go on David, use that line in your next House of Commons speech, it will bring the House down.


The New Statesman was one of the funniest TV comedies of the 1980s and 1990s and is well worth a re-watch, Play.com are selling the complete box set for £17.99.

What the BBC did not want you to hear

The BBC managed to not broadcast David Davis's election acceptance speech last night, so here is what he said:

"First, may I thank the returning officer, his officials ad the police. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend the other parties that contested this election. One of the freedoms I defend is the right of anybody to stand in a democratic election. By and large this has been a courteous and entertaining campaign. I thank everyone for taking part. Four weeks ago, I resigned my position as Shadow Home Secretary, and Member of Parliament. Not for personal gain. Not for political advantage. But to defend a principle. The doubters said it couldn’t be done.
You can’t win a by-election campaigning for freedom. You can’t shift public support for 42 days.
You can’t spark a national debate, they said… people just don’t care about British liberty. And yet, 3 weeks on, we’ve sent a shot across the bows of Gordon Brown’s arrogant, arbitrary and authoritarian government. We’ve galvanised a new consensus … across the political spectrum … beyond the world of politics. A new resolve. A new spirit of freedom. A fresh sense of purpose.

Today, the people of Haltemprice and Howden have delivered a stunning message to the government…as our campaign has reverberated across the country. Four weeks ago as Gordon Brown stooped into the gutter to rig the vote on 42 days, Ministers crowed that 69% of people supported 42 days. Today just 36% support it. Four weeks ago, the government touted public support for a range of other draconian measures. Today, 71% support my stand against the attacks on British liberty. And in the House of Lords, the last Head of MI5 savaged the government’s 42 day proposal. It now lies in tatters, robbed of any remaining credibility. Along with this government. And that’s after just 3 weeks.

But today is not the end of this campaign. It’s the beginning. On Monday I return to the House of Commons, to take up my seat in those hallowed chambers. I do so with a clear mandate to fight Gordon Brown’s vision of ‘Big Brother Britain’ tooth and nail. To stop 42 days dead in its tracks.
To prevent the disaster of ID cards before it happens. To protect our personal privacy from being ransacked by the ever-intrusive state. But most of all for the thousands upon thousands who have written to me… Supported me…and voted for me….

I return to fight for those fundamental freedoms that define our way of life. The freedoms that millions died defending. The freedoms that make Britain Great."

The BBC cannot let the public hear such words of hatred towards Gordon Brown, it might upset them.

Thanks to Iain Dale for the transcript.

"Is Britain on the slippery slope to dictatorship?"

A very worrying and thought provoking piece by Phil Hill in The Guardian regarding the restrictions on individual liberty. Do read the whole piece but here is an extract, including Phil Hill's tests:

"there is also evidence around us that the British government is engaging in repression. And not just in Iraq or Afghanistan, but here in Britain. Perhaps those of us who have lived for a time under dictatorships can spot some of the warning signs:

• Inconvenient elections are avoided in the name of getting on with the job.
• Leaders of the opposition are character-assassinated by the state media.
• Institutions like the legislature begin to lose their independence and traditional role.
• Citizens are increasingly afraid to speak openly on certain issues.
• Citizens are observed and monitored on cameras and the government can tap into their conversations at will.
• Governments can snatch anyone from their homes or off the street and detain them without trial on charges of treason or terrorism.
• Ethnic and religious minorities are persecuted and are made into scapegoats.
• The state increasingly intervenes in family and community life in an attempt to control citizens' behaviour.
• The focus of discussion moves away from the issues and into a narrative of political rivalries and gossip spreads.
• Governments use bread and circuses to shut people up and distract attention away from their increasing political impotence.
• Public spaces for demonstrations are closed down and restricted.
• Large and ridiculous monuments are built to impress the citizens.
• Individuals have to carry ID with them at all times and the government holds large amounts of information on every citizen...

...

There was something extremely familiar to me about this week's events. The way they closed down the whole of Whitehall for George Bush's visit reminded me of how, in Havana, they close the main highway every time Fidel Castro crosses from one side of town to the other.

There was also something unpleasant about the way many in the BBC turned the discussion away from the loss of civil liberties in Britain and instead began to present David Davis as an egotistical oddball, pulling a clever stunt simply to spite the leader of his party. Soviet TV attacked dissidents in the same way. This kind of media character assassination is even more reprehensible because once you destroy a politician's reputation, you might as well put him down - like a racehorse with a broken leg.

And then, while Labour berates African nations for not adopting Tony Blair's gold standard for liberal interventionism, Labour itself avoids holding the referendum on Europe it promised.

One gets the feeling that the current crop of neo-monetarist technocrats in power in Britain regard see the whole democratic processes as an irritating stunt, not just David Davis's upcoming by-election. Certainly Labour politicians show very little respect for the electorate. Any appeal over their heads to the willful and ignorant population probably feels like insufferable interference to them."

An excellent piece and all the more worrying as most of the points are unarguable. You may also want to peruse the comments.

Rachel in North London

Rachel in North London is trying to decide whether she should go and support David Davis. Please go and read her well argued piece and maybe offer her some advice. I assume that Luke Akehurst will have the decency to keep out of this discussion.

Bob Marshall-Andrews

I note that the Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews may have decided to support David Davis in his by-election campaign. This has caused some surprise, which I find odd as the clue that this might happen was in a long piece I wrote back in November 2007, here are some extracts:

"Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab): It is a pleasure and a privilege, as always, to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The sentiments and views that he expressed I agree with entirely, and, indeed, it has meant that I can expunge totally from my speech the long passage that I had on intercept evidence, so he has done the House a considerable service.

...

The process that I have described has caused chaos in the criminal courts and repeated injustice in respect of victims and the sentencing of offenders. I invite the Minister or the Secretary of State to attend judicial seminars, as I do in my capacity as a recorder of the Crown court. It would be a pleasure to see the Minister there anyway, but I would invite her to appear before the judges, who, even to this day, remain members of the best cadre of such professional people in the world. I would like her to experience their raw anger and incredulity at the byzantine processes, the ludicrous homilies and mantras and the wholly inappropriate sentences that they are forced to wheel out day after day to burnish the Government’s populist credentials.

David Davis: Can we come too?

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Let me think about that."

Maybe politics is changing and instead or "right" v "left", "capitalist" v "socialist", the real split is "libertarian" v "authoritarian". Time will tell...


Oddly the BBC have decided not cover this story, although the main UK newspapers have covered it. "Tory splits", like "Tory sleaze" is a serious BBC news story and will be given headline coverage. "Labour splits" and "Labour sleaze" will be covered briefly if at all and with as much damage limitation as possible. The BBC's pro-Labour bias is beyond a joke, but what can be done about it?

More BBC bias

If you want some fantastic, unremitting BBC bias then take a listen to Gabby Logan's programme this morning via Listen Again.

Attacks on Israel, sneering at the Conservatives, sneering at David Davis. A feature on a poor Palestinian stuck in the Gaza Strip and so unable to take up his place at an English University was 99% anti-Israel. An interview with Dominic Grieve was followed by the sneering Labour supporting Kevin Maguire deriding Dominic Grieve's arguments. Then the programme decided that a Conservative voice was needed for balance and so had a lovey-dovey interview with Quentin Davies (the Conservative MP who moved to Gordon Brown's Labour party - possibly the first recorded example of a rat joining a sinking ship) who attacked David Cameron, oddly there was no "expert" available to ridicule Quentin Davies's views.

This programme was BBC bias in a microcosm.

David Davis (update 2)

I have been digesting the David Davis news this evening and I feel slightly ashamed, it is just possible that this was a principled stand by a principled man. It is rather sad that I, and so many others, have a default cynicism when presented with any act by any politician.

Here is David Davis speech in full, courtesy of the The BBC, do read it in full:

"The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. The word Haltemprice is derived from the motto of a medieval priory, and in Old French it means "Noble Endeavour".

I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavour, not least because we and our forebears have for centuries fiercely defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday.

Up until yesterday, I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons representing our constituents was a noble endeavour because with centuries or forebears we defended the freedoms of the British people. Well we did up until yesterday.

This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta - the document that guarantees that most fundamental of British freedoms - Habeus Corpus.

The right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason. Yesterday this house decided to allow the state to lock up potentially innocent British citizens for up to six weeks without charge.

Now the counter terrorism bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords very firmly. After all, what should they be there for if not to defend Magna Carta.

But because the impetus behind this is essentially political - not security - the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to over-rule the Lords. It has no democratic mandate to do this since 42 days was not in its manifesto.

Its legal basis is uncertain to say the least. But purely for political reasons, this government's going to do that. And because the generic security arguments relied on will never go away - technology, development and complexity and so on, we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days.

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

And we will have shortly, the most intrusive identity card system in the world.

A CCTV camera for every 14 citiziens, a DNA database bigger than any dictatorship has, with 1000s of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.

We have witnessed an assault on jury trials - that balwark against bad law and its arbitrary use by the state. Short cuts with our justice system that make our system neither firm not fair.

And the creation of a database state opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers.

The state has security powers to clamp down on peaceful protest and so-called hate laws that stifle legitimate debate - while those who incite violence get off Scot free.

This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And for that reason, I feel that today it's incumbent on me to take a stand.

I will be resigning my membership of the House and I intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden.

Now I'll not fight it on the government's general record - there's no point repeating Crewe and Nantwich. I won't fight it on my personal record. I am just a piece in this great chess game.

I will fight it, I will argue this by-election, against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government.

Now, that may mean I've made my last speech to the House - it's possible. And of course that would be a matter of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate, and the nation as a whole, would have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever-intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law.

And if they do send me back here it will be with a single, simple message: that the monstrosity of a law that we passed yesterday will not stand."

I agree with much of what David Davis said in his speech, I am just rather worried about the cynical attacks and lies that will flow from the the Labour party from the top down. I want Gordon Brown to suffer over the next 23 months, I don't want any joy to enter his political life; I suppose that giving him false hope and then dashing it could be quite fun!


BTW do you think the BBC might be expected to know how to spell bulwark correctly (not balwark)?

David Davis (update)

The more I think about Davis Davis's decision to resign and fight a by-election on the slow strangulation of freedom in the UK the more puzzled I get. I cannot see how this benefits the Conservative party and therefore have to assume that David Davis and David Cameron must have had a disagreement over the pledge to repeal the 42 days legislation. If this is the case then they Conservative party have handed a great propaganda coup to the beleaguered Gordon Brown who can know decry Tory splits as well as Tory sleaze at every PMQs for the foreseeable future. This is a shame as I believe that all Conservative MPs apart from Anne Widecombe voted with their party leader against the extension to 42 days, whilst 36 Labour MPs voted against their leader.

Rumours that Gordon Brown may decline for Labour to put up a candidate seem unlikely. Gordon Brown has already bottled calling one election, to be in a position where he could be accused of bottling a second could be fatal. Also if Labour don't stand then how will they be able to argue against David Davis's position without being asked "if you disagree why aren't you standing?"

There are so many variables here including what if there is a serious terrorist incident in the UK between now and 10 July (the probable by-election date)?

Assuming David Davis wins the by-election, and that does seem more than likely, then what happens? Does he stay on the back-benches? He's a big beast to be out of the shadow cabinet and they need him in there. Would he be given his old role back of shadowing the Home Secretary, he is the longest serving shadow Home Secretary since Roy Hattersly I believe? Will Dominic Grieve be as impressive a performer as Davis Davis?

By the way, I wonder if David Davis has purchased a white suit for the campaign.




I note that David Cameron is quoted as describing David Davis’ move as courageous. reminds me of a Yes Minister episode:

"Sir Humphrey: There are four words you have to work into a proposal if you want a Minister to accept it.

Sir Frank: Quick, simple, popular, cheap. And equally there are four words to be included in a proposal if you want it thrown out.

Sir Humphrey: Complicated, lengthy, expensive, controversial. And if you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it you must say the decision is courageous.

Bernard: And that's worse than controversial?

Sir Humphrey: (laughs) Controversial only means this will lose you votes, courageous means this will lose you the election."

David Davis?

Rumours abound that the shadow home secretary, David Davis, is set to resign as an MP thus triggering a by-election. This is very surprising news. Whether there is a scandal that he is trying to avoid or if this is the most incredible stunt re his opposition to the 42 days vote I do not know. A statement is due soon.


Update: Sky are reporting that:

"Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP apparently to highlight his opposition to the detention of terror suspects for 42 days without charge. His resignation will trigger a by-election which he will fight on the grounds that he is against government's increasing intrusion into the public's lives."

Update 2: David Davis is standing down to "take a stand" to "force a by-election". I will fight it on the grounds of "the slow strangulation of ... freedom." "Ever intrusive .. loss of freedom...". "If they do send me back here, it will be with a single message: that this monstrous law will not stand."


An incredible step to take and how this play out I cannot predict....


Did David Cameron know about this in advance? A statement is due from him within the hour. David Davis is a very independently minded man of principle and he may have not agreed it with David Cameron.

This is one of those moments that the deck of cards is thrown in the air and we do not know how they will fall. A truly exciting moment in British politics.


Update 3:
Lib Dems will not contest the by-election so as to make it a straight fight on the issue - if it can...

This is moving very fast, too fast? Can you imagine the panic at Number 10, what should they say and do?