I heard yesterday on the grapevine that Bob Marshall-Andrews and Tony Benn may campaign for David Davis. Today, Marshall-Andrews is quoted as endorsing Davis as a candidate in the absence of a Labour opponent of 42 days. Apparently, the Labour Party rules do NOT stop members campaigning for anyone in the absence of a Labour candidate. Strange but true.,
The irony is, of course, that only a year ago Marshall-Andrews broke ranks with the Campaign Group to nominate Gordon Brown for Leader. A decision, so it seems, he has since deeply regretted. The notion that both he and Benn, the hero of the left might campaign for a Tory probably is anathema to many - it's certainly unique in my lifetime. Back in 1975, Tony Benn shared platforms with Conservatives during the referendum camoaign around the Common Market. This is a different issue entirely. But as TB has said hundreds of times over the years, it's about policies not personalities. This is a policy which Gordon Brown should never have used as a macho show of strength. And a mess entirely of his own making.
Posts
15 comments:
Still not happy with Marshall-Andrews and Tony Benn campaigning for Davis, though.
If they want to campaign on the issue of 42 days in Davis' constituency I'm sure they'd be able to find someone with genuine left credentials to stand - someone who would (for example) oppose the death penalty, locking up asylum seekers, Section 28, (and perhaps 28 days) as well as 42 days.
If there's no Labour candidate then why not stand an independent candidate who is progressive on all of these issues? There's still time - the election hasn't even been declared yet.
I think that would be pretty pointless. The idea is to keep the issue on the agenda and to ensure that it is defeated in the Lords and then again when it returns to the commons.
I think the LibDems would certainly have stood if this were not the case. What is tragic is that s aupposedly left of centre party supported these ideas at all.
So you're saying that to make the point on 42 days people have to shut up about all the other vile stuff on civil liberties that Davis supports?
To extend that argument, in that case doesn't it mean that Susan and others should stop highlighting bad things the government does on the basis it does some good things?
"the Labour Party rules do NOT stop members campaigning for anyone in the absence of a Labour candidate. Strange but true.,"
WOuldn't it be rubbish if they did? Labourites are best of campaigning for the most amenable or most left-credible of the other candidates, depending on what your view on Labour is.
In this case Davis is the most credible candidate- at the moment.
I think we should all worry about the prospect of a Kelvin Mackenzie victory and the mesage that would send.
While Davis is a nutter, at least his political career is over now and so he can't do much more harm.
I think this is why it suits Davis for there to be no Labour candidate. He's not wanting to win some debate within conservativism here but to have a national discussion about civil liberties, and one that will resonate with people on the left as well as libertarians of the right. The actual result in the by-election is completely peripheral (unless you live in Howden) - it was just a vehicle to get the press and have the discussion. Nothing would delight Davis more than to have platforms with Tony or Bob M-A on there, alongside Col Tim Collins, people from Liberty, Nick Clegg, etc. Where we should stand on it, I'm not sure - but, you're right, in the absence of a Labour candidate, no rules would be being broken.
I agree with Tim F that personal campaigning for Davis would be unpalatable. Being part of a larger campaign on recent encroachments on civil liberties that happens to have emerged in this way is a little different. I'm still thinking this one out.
I certainly wouldn't personally campaign for a very right-wing Tory (!!) and part of me still thinks that strategically Labour contesting the by-election with a pro-civil liberties, anti-42 days candidate might be worthwhile. (I can't really see a strong case for an independent from that perspective - although I'd consider it a possibility if McKenzie did actually stand).
An interesting side issue is that Davis campaigned for Tony B for the speakership.
oh indeed, why shouldn't Labour campaign for a man who is pro death penalty and supported clause 28.A true civil libertarian to the core naturally. And the fact that his 'stand' appears to have fooled some idiots within the Labour party is certainly NOT what Davis was intending...of course.
How do you mean fool the Labour party, the Labour party more then likely See's Davies as a target to join them I can see Blair and Brown sending out a party delegation saying join us we will give you a great job within New Labour,perhaps you can find us a new name like New Tories.
There's not going to be a Kelvin MacKenzie campaign, he's been back pedaling furiously because he knows his odious self will be humiliated at the polls.
I can understand why some would campaign for Davis, but how do the likes of Marshall-Andrews and Benn square Davis's principled stand with his very illiberal Commons voting record?
I don't think they do square it - as Duncan said, this is largely a tactic to keep this issue on the agenda and get it defeated.
I have no illusions about Davis. he is a Tory so I will never vote for his party, but I do think that there must be continued rebellion within the Labour party and that this might help
merseymike - with the news that Clegg has committed to propping up a Tory administration in a hung parliament, how will you vote next time? Green? Or do you think you'll be able to hold your nose for long enough to get inside a polling station and vote Labour?
It shows how right-wing the Lib Dems are that they're prepared to vote with the Tories on cuts to Surestart centres and the BSF programme as well as their proposals to "strengthen marriage" by paying middle-class married couples the cash that currently goes on tax credits. (Although I doubt the Lib Dems would vote with the Tories on abortion, propping up the Tories makes it more likely that reproductive rights will come under threat, too.)
anyone heard about the Davis by election
what by election
bad move (if your DD)
David Davis seems to have a problem answering the following question
Should a Tory who supports 42 days vote for him at the by election ?
Tim: I don't know how I am going to vote. Clegg has actually not said that at all, but clearly the reporting of his clear statement that no deals are to be made wasn't reported as much as the initial misreporting....
If Labour lose a shed load of seats but there is no overall majority for anyone else, then I think that shoring up Labour wouldn't really be credible - much more likely to see the largest party go into a minority administration, as I can't see the Tories offering electoral reform.
If Labour agree to that perhaps the LD's will support them to allow that change to go through? I reckon they are more likely to bide their time, though.
I suppose I'm more likely to vote LD than for anyone else, but I can't say I'm that impressed by Clegg. if Charlie K was still leader, then I'd have probably thrown my lot in with them as a member! If they formally announce that they will back the Tories, then I won't vote for them. Looks like a spoilt ballot paper - there won't be a green candidate here.
Tax credits are a fundamental mistake, I don't agree with tax rebates for married/CP'd couples, and I am afraid that the Government have themselves made sure start a waste of time and money by the last reforms of what was an interesting schemes - and you know, these sort of issues really aren't how I decide my vote, Tim. Social and cultural liberalism is what moves me.
And abortion is always a free vote so it simply depends on the arithmetic in Parliament.
Post a Comment