So maybe they did care!

Every news outlet yesterday predicted a derisory turnout around the 20% mark and claimed this would be an indictment on David Davis' decision to step down to run on a civil liberties platform. Maybe the people of Haltemprice and Howden decided to fly in the face of predictions, or rather maybe they wanted to demonstrate that they did care and were mobilised by the media. It has been shown that as results are announced in the US presidential elections on the Eastern seaboard it affects voter behaviour in the West (see Geoffrey Peterson's work), so why cant the media also have an effect in either increasing or decreasing turnout through their use of polls and predictions. I wondered if some of the 17,000 voters who turned out to tick the Davis box watched the news, were told they didn't care, thought actually I do and so went out and demonstrated their concern.

Politics 2.0

Already labelled DD2.0, David Davis for Freedom is now up and running (finally). He links to Twitter, Facebook and Youtube. A key aspect seems to be donations, though on that page less of a case is made of how the money will be useful to promoting the anti 42 days campaign. However the site is clearly geared to addressing issues relating to civil liberties and is maybe building a grand alliance: Tony Benn joined Davis in a debate, which seems an unlikely combination prior to his stepping down. Benn's endorsement: "This by-election will give the voters in that constituency an opportunity to register their view on this issue, through the ballot box, which is, and always will be, the ultimate guarantee of our fundamental freedoms in a free society" can do Davis' case little harm. How this hub will develop will be interesting, particularly interesting will be the extent to which the public and other interested groups participate. Opportunities are currently limited, I note one comment on his blog post; is this the start of a Politics 2.0 with this issue as a focal point?

A new political brand?

The campaign to reclaim his constituency, contested only by a beauty queen and the Sun's former editor, has begun. David Davis has launched his David Davis for Freedom website, at this moment there is nothing but information saying the domain is registered, but what can we expect. Given the reason for his resignation this will probably be a hub for opposition against the 42 day detention without charge proposal. Talking on Andrew Marr's show, he talked of an event heavy campaign, one which would see a range of individuals talking about civil liberties; basically he want to put the issue on the map. Certainly he has done that, and while I still wonder about the sense in doing this outside of Westminster at this stage, he has the ability to act as a beacon and amplifier for all opposition arguments as he is likely to be the hottest news in town for the duration of the contest. Initially questions were asked about potential damage to the Conservatives, doubtful there will be any but it could act as a serious nail in the Brown/Labour coffin and cannot do the Liberal Democrats much good, the reason is this steals a key part of their unique selling point, the fair party has been out gunned on civil liberties by the party formerly perceived as 'the nasty party'. I defy Marks & Gran, writers of the Alan B'Stard comedy, who was the fictional MP for Haltemprice, to have put this script together.

The wrong battle?

The resignation of David Davis is quite surprising, and questions are asked in certain quarters of the media if this will have an adverse effect on his career or on the party. But what baffles me is why stand for re-election on this issue. A Sunday Telegraph poll showed 65% of people in favour of the extension of detention without trial; so any referendum on the issue would probably be won by Gordon Brown. As the Liberal Democrats have already declared they will not contest the by-election then it is unthinkable for him to lose the seat, unless Conservative voters simply do not turn out. Also forcing a by-election, and the costs incurred, may not be good PR anyway. There is the personal principle issue, but could he not do and say more from the floor of the house and via the media without stepping down? So the logical reason is to keep the issue, and Davis's objections in the media spotlight. Yet, the House of Lords have already promised to give the bill a 'pretty rough ride' so it will be on the news anyway. So is David Davis fighting the wrong battle here, sure a victory could be sold as a mini-referendum on the issue but the argument would be flawed as that would not be the question asked (particularly if no-one else stands); help me out with this one!!!