Westminster can be something of a rumour mill. That is especially the case in the Commons, where members tend to congregate in the tea room and bars and where a rumour can spread quickly. The tendency is less pronounced in the Lords, in part I suspect because members are less confined to the House. However, we are not immune to it. At lunchtime, I was eating in the Bishop’s Bar (a sandwich bar popular at lunchtimes) and a rumour quickly spread that David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, was resigning as an MP and was going to fight the resulting by-election. it was said that apparently there had been some change in policy on detention for 42 days without charge and he was opposed to it. The implication was that he was opposing something the Conservative Party was doing. A Labour baroness asked a former Conservative Cabinet minister if he had heard the news. He hadn’t. He came over to ask me if I had heard about it. Other peers came in, some having heard it. Some Labour peers thought it was good news. I thought it was amazing if true, since I could not see why the Conservative Party would have changed its policy since yesterday and I knew how strongly David Davis was opposed to the Government’s proposal: I know him and we had chatted about it only last week.
When I got back to my room I was able to check the news online – usually more reliable than listening to Westminster rumour – to find that, yes, he was fighting a by-election, but, no, it wasn’t to challenge his own party but in order to emphasise his opposition to the Government’s policy. Though some MPs have occasionally resigned their seats before and then fought the resulting by-elections (including Ulster Unionist MPs in the 1980s in opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement), it remains a remarkable step to take.
I’ve posted a question on the previous blog entry by Lord Tyler. Perhaps this might be better answered here, given your specialist credentials.
Thanks, Tiz
We do indeed live in remarkable times.
On a more sneaky note, it is of course no less remarkable than the related news concerning the 42 day matter you mention, which is also true, that an un-elected head of state (sic) has been using public money and favours in order to push through a possibly illegal change in the law for, amongst other reasons, his own personal benefit and in the process overturning hundreds of years of democracy and liberty within the UK.
It will be interesting to read your Lordships views on this matter.
ladytizzy: There is a difference between whether the Parliament Act should be used to get a particular piece of legislation on to the statute book and whether it could be used to get it on to the statute book. In this case, one can argue that it should not be used but I know of no basis on which a case could be successful in arguing that it cannot be so used. If it does make it to the statute book, any challenge through the courts will be best made under the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, not the Parliaments Acts of 1911 and 1949.
I attended a Q&A session David Davis did at Hull Uni when the 90 day debate was going on and have to say he gave a very persuasive case for post charge questioning and charging suspects for not giving passwords to computers under existing legislation. But having a by-election on a single issue – See referendums debate and the “Who Governs” election of 74.
Thank you, Lord Norton, for your prompt reply (and to Matt, in the previous post).
In his resignation speech, David Davis said this:
“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 protect Magna Carta?
But because this is defined as political, not security, the government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule 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 is going to do that.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/12/speeches
You have answered clearly my original question. Can you shed light on what legal uncertainty DD may be referencing?
I salute the man. Jolly good stuff. P.S. I do like the photo you used on this post.
If only I believed this was about the principle of the matter (or at least entirely because of principle). It is unquestionably an act of political calculation. He knows as well as any of us that he is almost certain to be re-elected with a much greater majority (the Lib Dems were his only real opposition at the last election), although if, as I hope, Labour doesn’t waste its time putting forward a candidate, this won’t really be seen as much of a contest…
Unless of course some other (seemingly independent) candidate with an excellent prior knowledge of anti-terrorism cases – a senior Ex-Copper, for instance, comes forward and there’s a real debate on the issue.
Not entirely sure that’d be a good thing anyway.
Has anyone else noticed, out of interest, that all these individuals banging on about principled politics continually fail to mention the Labour rebels and Anne Widdecombe?
I can’t be the only person to see David Davis’ stand as political suicide? Now being the cynic I am it seems to me the sort of crazy step you take when either you are in an emotional state (which he might have been after the failed vote) or bearing in mind the not insubstantial, if transient, damage he might do to his colleagues in the shadow cabinet, I wonder if he had learnt some other news from his leader he was upset about.
I don’t impugn his real strength of feeling on the issue but do wonder what else was going on in his life to lead him to do it. We shall probably never know.
This may or may not be the right place to ask this, Lord Norton, but could you by chance ask a question in the Lords about the conduct of Mr. Speaker over David Davis’ resignation?
I find the fact that a Member of Parliament was forbidden from giving his resignation in the House (thereby keeping it off the official record) by the Labour Speaker quite disturbing. This has not been mentioned once by the BBC or most media, which seems obsessed with questioning David Davis’ sanity and implying Tory division, which is rich given the government’s situation lately.
I know the Lords has no jurisdiction over the Speaker, but I wasn’t sure who would be appropriate to ask, given the unlikelihood of MPs to attract the dislike of the Speaker.
Baroness Murphy – what happened to your avatar, or was this comment made by an imposter?
Whatever, your phrase ‘…what else was going on in his life..’ has left me wondering whether I should put a spread bet on the time span before the news is confirmed.
Tiz
So I have been hearing this rumor off and on for the past few years that the UK is planning to drop out of the EU and will join the US as the 51st and 52nd states. Any thoughts?