David Davis is an idiot.

I disagree entirely. He is not cut from the power-hungry cloth that characterises most politicians of whatever stripe, but I am sure you are nearly right in one thing - not his general loss of trust in this with the general public though - but he certainly will have lost the trust of some politicians. I would find this a good thing as he is now free of cabinet responsibility and will be able to speak freely and with authority without wrecking the necessary cabinet [or shadow cabinet] policy responsibility of not presenting a split position on an agreed policy he may profoundly disagree with.

George

He's a politician who wasn't getting much attention and so pulled a stunt to attract attention to himself - they are all the same - always have been, always will be - lets hope he's shown up for what he really is.

I can never understand why our press are so benign when reporting on politicians.

Oh well Rotf

Smith, you could not be more wrong on quite a few counts, but as I see you're a Londoner I will not waste my time trying to explain to you why David is quite so popular in my neighbouring constituency, and was in this one before that. Sufficed to say I hold him in as high a regard as I do any politician, and a great deal higher than most. Your opening sentence betrays that you know nothing of him, you would only have to talk with him for a few minutes to realise that he is an immensely intelligent man. I pity you that are so cynical that you cannot perceive that a politician might have any reason for their actions other than to "boost his ego".

Steve Bell in The Guardian says it eloquently for me;

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:
Smith, you could not be more wrong on quite a few counts, but as I see you're a Londoner I will not waste my time trying to explain to you why David is quite so popular in my neighbouring constituency, and was in this one before that. Sufficed to say I hold him in as high a regard as I do any politician, and a great deal higher than most. Your opening sentence betrays that you know nothing of him, you would only have to talk with him for a few minutes to realise that he is an immensely intelligent man. I pity you that are so cynical that you cannot perceive that a politician might have any reason for their actions other than to "boost his ego".

Actually I spent the first 18 years of my life in the neighbouring constituency, where incidentally my parents still live. No I haven't met him but my dad has and yes he is intelligent and popular thereabouts but he is also a thrillseeker, a risk taker and an ego-maniac. Maybe not much more than most politicians but it is a dangerous combination in someone who holds power. He might be fine as a back-bencher but I am sincerely glad that he will never now hold a position of authority. As a member of the shadow cabinet he should not be searching for personal glory - he should be doing his best to make sure that his party is elected where he could do something about this if he really believed in it. Instead he's taken a lot of pressure off the government at a time when they are really struggling and he has made himself and his party look very stupid. Pity such an immensely inetlligent man couldn't have worked that one out beforehand. I suspect he is feeling very stupid now.

quote:

I hold him in as high a regard as I do any politician,

So do I.

Still think the best guy ever to enter the Houses of Parliament was Guido Fawkes.

No surprise that he was sacked by a previous Tory leader for disloyalty. The man's ego knows no bounds.

Idiot, no; giant sized ego, possibly [I don't know]; valuable addition in parliament, certainly.

For idiots one only need to look at the current cabinet; for giant sized egos, well yes, it goes with the territory of being an MP; as someone prepared to stand up for a principled ideas, I believe this qualifies the sad person as useful in Parliament.

It is possible that Davis may be seen to have made a mistake, but I do think that we are not yet far enough from the event in time to be able to see if he has weakened his position on defending the hard-won freedoms of British Subjects.

On the other hand making a mistake should be no bar to standing for election. After all, the man who never made a mistake had not done much with his time.

George

I just don't subscribe to your view that he has stood for anything but his own self aggrandisement.
A principled politician would have resigned, made a statement as to why and gone off to one of his many directorships, not forced a meaningless by election, (and if you don't think it is meaningless where's the debate he wanted?) at a ridiculous cost to the taxpayer for his own cynical ends.

This course may have been his mistake. That the Government was not prepared to debate the issue [and put up a candidate, which I rather suspect would has resulted in a lost deposit], as presumably Davis expected, simply indicates what an intellectually bankrupt lot we have for a Government!

I very much doubt that Davis did this for self-aggrandisement, but once again time will tell. I could be wrong. I suspect that Davis will return to the Backbenches, almost certainly for the rest of his Westminster days, but with luck he will become the "bulldog defender of freedoms” gained over centuries against this horrible administration, which seems to revel in curbing these freedoms. I am sure he will occasionally embarrass his own front bench as much as the Government’s from time to time, and no bad thing in that either…

George

quote:

principled politician

A superb oxymoron.

quote:

A principled politician would have resigned, made a statement as to why

I never understand that, why don't they just go? I hate it when they say I am not a quitter, what do they want a medal, why don't they just quit and go?

Davis wants to make a point at the taxpayer's expense and get his name mentioned on the news (we have to pay for that). He really is quite despicable in my book. Why doesn't he just go quietly so we can all forget him? Surely the best he can do is vanish and allow the world to show him the complete indifference he deserves. Perhaps he still wants to collect all those expenses for a second home. Sorry, I don't like politicians and when one quits on a matter of principle then you just have to laugh, but when they force an election by so doing then it is beyond a joke.

ATB Rotf

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
Sorry, I don't like politicians.

ATB Rotf

That is clear, and there is no doubt that your view would be widely held, though without them, the concept of an approach to democracy falls out of being possible as well.

I tend to admire the few politicians who are mavericks and question everything. Bit like Churchill, who not only "ratted on the Conservatives" but also later "re-ratted back!" I think that he saw something more important than simply towing the Party line, or even particularly seeing the need to court popularity for the aim of gaining power at any cost in terms of his integrity...

George

Davis has simply been out-manoevered. If Labour had had the guts to put up a candidate we would have had an open debate on the 42-day issue. As it is, he has been left high and dry facing only a couple of dozen oddballs and loonies.
It is a shame. It was a good try to give the lie to Labour's claim that the 42 days imprisonment without trial had public support. He has at least tried to do something about the erosion of our civil liberties. He has my respect.
Ken

quote:

Originally posted by KenM:
It was a good try to give the lie to Labour's claim that the 42 days imprisonment without trial had public support.
Ken

And you will probably find that the biggest supporters of 42 day detention are the voters of Haltemprice and Howden who will duly elect David Davis, not because they agree with him on this issue, which they dont, but because he is the conservative candidate. So what has he proved with this by-election? He stands for the safest of safe conservative seats - it would been pointless for Labour to have stood. A local member of the conservative party once proudly told me that they could select a monkey and it would be elected. What he has done could only ever be an empty gesture.There's no way he would have done it in a marginal constituency.

I think it is reasonable to consider him naive. I also think his decision was impulsive, not always an asset in a politician.

As KenM said the failure of Labour to engage effectively prevented a meaningful debate on the issues that I suspect Davis does genuinely consider to be serious and important. Curiously this has not resulted in opprobium being heaped on them, after all you could argue it is Labour who have weakened the democratic process by reducing the by-election to a farce.

The unpalatable truth remains that public opnion appears to support the most draconian of law and order policies, ones that would make even the most traditional Tory blanch (capital punishment, harsher sentences etc).

For all of you who 'hate politicians' I have a question-how do you think things get done?

The organisation and evelopment of your community and country does not happen by chance. Politics is not about the Westminster tittle tattle, it is mostly about local activists, people preapred to write letters and sift through documents in committees in order to help their communities. Hate the school-playground of party politics perhaps but the majority of politicians do considerable work of real value on behalf of their population and are motivated by decent motives. If you don't like what they do then get involved and make your point. Throwing stones form afar acheives nothing.

Bruce

Agreed. The only MP I know personaly works far harder and far more hours than I do (and I am of course a saint).

quote:

Throwing stones form afar acheives nothing.

Depends how accurate you are.

I don't think it is possible for a quiet, innocuous person to get involved - though I'd like the perks and the pension.

If a politician saw himself or herself as a delegate of those they represented then I'd have more time for them. However, I think a truly great man of the last century hit the nail on the head

It is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:

quote:

Throwing stones form afar acheives nothing.

Depends how accurate you are.

I don't think it is possible for a quiet, innocuous person to get involved - though I'd like the perks and the pension.

If a politician saw himself or herself as a delegate of those they represented then I'd have more time for them. However, I think a truly great man of the last century hit the nail on the head

It is a well-known fact that those people who want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - Douglas Adams

I think their is a fair bit of truth in that.

The point I was making is that most real 'politics' happens at a local level, where the quiet, industrious and less egotistical do their work.

Bruce

"If Labour had had the guts to put up a candidate we would have had an open debate on the 42-day issue."

"the failure of Labour to engage effectively prevented a meaningful debate"

You sound as though you think Labour made a mistake here but they and the Lib Dems played it exactly right. There was no failure. By denying him the opportunity for debate they left him high and dry and looking rather silly. He was indeed out-manoeuvred and he and his advisors should have known better.

To be strictly accurate the LibDem's did not stand because they explicitly supported Davis on the single issue that he was fighting. Not quite the same reason as Labour.

Bruce

Thanks Bruce. That's interesting. To be honest I found it such a meaningless gesture I took very little interest in it. Whatever the motives for standing or not against him I think it backfired badly.

quote:

I can never understand why our press are so benign when reporting on politicians.

Which is why I still support "Private Eye" with an annual subscription!

quote:

(and I am of course a saint).

Really Doc? Me, I'm just looking for spiritual progress!

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
"If Labour had had the guts to put up a candidate we would have had an open debate on the 42-day issue."

"the failure of Labour to engage effectively prevented a meaningful debate"

You sound as though you think Labour made a mistake here but they and the Lib Dems played it exactly right. There was no failure. By denying him the opportunity for debate they left him high and dry and looking rather silly. He was indeed out-manoeuvred and he and his advisors should have known better.

I have to work quite hard to imagine how you can misinterpret what I wrote. You should perhaps become a politician. Who knows?, maybe you are.
Ken

Tricky issue as it comes down to what you believe.
I'm usually very cynical regarding politicians, especially at national level.
My instinct is DD is genuine, because if he was a stereo-typical self-serving hypocrite MP he wouldn't have done what he has. Apart from seriously taking his career off track, market research shows the majority supports '42 days', so what's in it for him?

I could believe DD is about ego except for the fact he has a long history of defending civil liberties, & appears to be one of a few MPs prepared to put himself on the line for our remaining freedoms.

quote:

Still think the best guy ever to enter the Houses of Parliament was Guido Fawkes.

What about John Smith?

quote:

A principled politician would have resigned, made a statement as to why and gone off to one of his many directorships, not forced a meaningless by election, (and if you don't think it is meaningless where's the debate he wanted?) ...

DD did his best to stimulate debate, the fact that people/politicians didn't rise to it says lots, but nothing about DD.

quote:

Why doesn't he just go quietly so we can all forget him?

I'm sure all those who want to curb our liberty would love him to,
& that's why I hope he doesn't.

quote:

He was indeed out-manoeuvred and he and his advisors should have known better.

Yes, but is that not the difference between someone of principle & a stereo-typical self-serving hypocrite politician?