Well, that’s what the Yorkshire Post is saying, anyway, as of 12.30 am:

David Davis was tonight expected to easily win the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, with supporters predicting he would pick up at least 75 percent of the vote. …

Turnout was annouced officially as 34.5 percent - less than half that at the 2005 General Election, where 70.2 percent of constituents voted.

Mr Davis is expected to pick up between 15,000 and 16,000 votes, giving him a majority of about 10,000 to 12,000 - doubling that of the 5,116 majority he picked up in 2005.

The biggest surprise of the night was expected to be a strong showing by English Democrat candidate Joanne Robinson. She is predicted to come second or third.

Women’s rights campaigner Jill Saward was said to be picking up significant votes, as was the Green Party’s Shan Oakes.

None of the other candidates were expected to retain their deposits.

And who am I to disagree?

It’s the day of the most bizarre by-election of the year. Exactly one month after David Davis shocked the political world by quitting the Tory front bench and Parliament in protest at Labour’s attempts to push through 42 days detention without trial, the voters of Haltemprice and Howden today deliver their verdict.

Will they judge Mr Davis’s move a brave, principled stance by turning out in force and giving him a whopping mandate? Or will they judge it all a vanity-exercise, a waste of taxpayers’ time and money, and simply stay away or register a protest vote with a fringe candidate?

With neither the Lib Dems – the main challengers to Mr Davis in Haltemprice and Howden – nor Labour standing this time, it’s clear Mr Davis will win. The question is how well will he win? The result will likely be judged by the following three criteria:

The turnout

Mr Davis will be hoping that at least half the electorate will go to the polls. In Crewe and Nantwich, in May, 58% of voters showed up; in Henley the figure was 50%. Given the lack of credible opposition to Mr Davis, he can probably argue that anything over 40% is respectable. The further it falls below that threshold, the less plausible that will seem.

His margin of victory

Here’s what happened in the 2005 general election:

David Davis, Conservative - 22,792, 47.5%
Jon Neal, Liberal Democrat - 17,676, 36.8%
Edward Hart, Labour - 6,104, 12.7%
Jonathan Mainprize, British National Party – 798, 1.7%
Philip Lane, UK Independence Party – 659, 1.4%

Mr Davis is the only candidate from that line-up still standing, so he will hope and expect to get at least 70% of the vote at this by-election. Anything below that will be embarrassing; the further it rises above that threshold the more convincing will be his mandate.

The runner-up

With the BNP and UKIP both sitting out this by-election, the contest has been left to the Greens as the only nationally recognised party to stand against Mr Davis. Though they have no track record in the constituency, it will nonetheless be a significant embarrassment if the Greens find themselves in anything other than the runner-up spot. However, as they are seeking to outflank Mr Davis on the liberal-left, they do face some stiff competition from two independents fighting on traditional right-wing, lock ‘em up tickets: Jill Saward, self-proclaimed champion of victims of crime; and former Tory MP Walter Sweeney.

What do you think will happen in the by-election? Feel free to post your predictions in the comments thread.

Yesterday I noted with some dismay a quote attributed to David Davis in The Guardian, suggesting that the Lib Dems had ‘funked’ putting up a candidate in today’s Haltemprice and Howden by-election - when in fact Mr Davis and Nick Clegg came to an agreement that the Lib Dems would not contest the seat before the former Tory shadow home secretary announced his resignation.

I’ve just received the following email from Martin Wainwright, the Guardian journalist who authored the piece:

Just to alert you asap to the fact that the quote attributed to David Davis by me about the LIb Dems ‘funking it’ was my fault - putting you in with Labour in a rush - and we are running a correction. Sorry, age and haste. The Correct quote is on the Guardian audio material on the website. The draft correction I’ve just sent reads:

In a piece on the Haltemprice and Howden by-election published on July 9, we wrongly quoted the Conservative candidate David Davis as saying that the Liberal Democrats had ‘funked’ the poll. He has always made it clear that he is grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for his views on the 42 day detention and related civil liberties issues. The mistake was made in transcription of the related audio report which carried his actual comments, and we apologise for that.

LDV likewise apologises to Mr Davis’s shade.

As revealed by Mark Oaten over at the Indy’s Open House blog:

We haven’t always been the best of friends: he once threatened to punch my nose in, and I’ve described him as disgusting.

The reason:

When I came close to wobbling on 90 days he held firm. (That’s also when he informed me that if I did shift my position he would punch me in the nose.)

Which seems fair enough to me. And Mark’s endorsement of Mr Davis couldn’t be warmer:

I, for one, support his decision wholeheartedly, and this week I went up to canvass for him in Haltemprice and Howden, where he contests a byelection on Thursday. I did it because I believe in the principle he is standing for, and because I’ve found him to be intelligent, passionate and a liberal, willing to sacrifice anything to stick to his principles.

Criticise his opinion, but at least Mark worked out how he was going to campaign in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election - which is more than the party leadership has managed to do.

UPDATE: There is an update to this story, published the following day on Lib Dem Voice, in which The Guardian makes clear that the quote on which this posting was based was not uttered by David Davis.

David Davis has had many warm words written about him by Lib Dems - myself included - since he took his decision to quit Parliament to fight for his beliefs in civil liberties, and most notably Labour’s obscene push to detain without charge for up to 42 days.

True, there have also been some harsh words written about him - but the majority view has been that his decision to trigger a by-election was borne primarily of principle, and that the Lib Dems were right therefore not to put up a candidate and risk splitting the votes of those who are in agreement on 42 days. That, after all, is why David Davis (understandably) spoke with Nick Clegg before deciding to put his head above the parapet.

Which makes it all the more disappointing to see him stooping to indulge in petty partisan politics, at least according to this quote in today’s Guardian attributed to Mr Davis:

I’m sorry that Labour and the Liberal Democrats funked it, but we’re still having a good argument and getting the issue raised.” (Hat-tip Tony Greaves).

One can perhaps admire the effrontery of Mr Davis for seeking a behind-doors deal with the Lib Dems before calling a by-election, and then condemning the Lib Dems during the by-election for agreeing to that behind-doors deal. But, actually, it’s just a damned cheek.

So you’re thinking of running a candidate against David Davis because you support 42 days detention without trial. And you think it would be a good idea for that person to be the victim of an act of terrorism. Who do you think of? Umm … in this case, someone who has actually been a persistent and vocal opponent of 42 days detention without trial. Genius.

In the first hour after David Davis quit as an MP last Thursday, I suggested the reason underpinning his decision:

Mr Davis recognised that the Tories’ influential neo-cons in the shadow cabinet, George Osborne and Michael Gove, would much rather have backed the Government over 42 days: only tactical considerations of defeating Labour in the Commons persuaded they and Mr Cameron to rally behind Mr Davis’s stand. But none of them, it seems, wanted to fight the proposal through the House of Lords, and try and defeat it again when it returns to the Commons.

Now David Davis has come as close as he is ever likely to do publicly in admitting this was the case:

‘I thought, that means Gordon Brown will take it to the Parliament Act [to force 42 days through], and I won’t be able to stop it because it will be closer to an election - his party will be more disciplined. There are those members - and there are some in my party - who worry about it … It would be harder for us to maintain the line. There is only so much you can do in politics.’

One: Mark Penn, formerly of Hilary Clinton’s Presidential campaign, tells people in US that it was he who ran Labour’s 2005 general election campaign. I suspect that’d be news to quite a few in the Labour Party. Such as those who ran it.

Two: Alun Cairns, a Conservative Welsh Assembly member, quits post after insulting Italians.

Three: Kelvin MacKenzie needs a crash course in the law if he isn’t to end up in jail for accepting illegal overseas donations.

Four: there’s a very high chance* that support for the Conservative Party has fallen since just before and just after David Davis’s announcement. (That’s the odds that the split samples in the ComRes poll for tomorrow’s papers, which show a fall from 48% to 41%, really do reflect a change in the underlying reality rather than a random sampling fluctuation.)

* Yes, I know I could give a figure with some decimal places just to flaunt the fact that I’ve got a calculator, and a slide rule, and a formula with a square root bit in it and everything. But that’s not really the point, is it?

Kelvin MacKenzie’s phone must be in meltdown. Good! BURN him, BURN him! Ahem. The former Sun editor and fervent supporter of a 42-day detention limit has indicated that he will stand against David Davis in the forthcoming Haltemprice (how quickly we’ve all learned to spell that) & Howden by-election - putting many Lib Dems into the extraordinary position of not only hoping David Davis wins, but actively considering hitting the doorsteps to help him do it.

Yes, yes, Davis is a distinctly unreliable “libertarian” with some nasty socially conservative stances, but who can resist the idea of kicking Rupert Murdoch in the nuts? For myself, I’m glad I don’t live close enough to face this particular dilemma. MacKenzie’s decision is partly conditional on Labour not standing, it seems, but my feeling is that momentum - and strong-arming from his boss - will carry him into standing whether Labour field a candidate or not (and, increasingly as the hours tick by, it looks like not). Here’s his positive manifesto for a bright future:

The Sun is very, very hostile to David Davis because of his 28 day stance and The Sun has always been very up for 42 days and perhaps even 420 days.

The Tories v The Sun? Whatever next? How will Cameron play in the authoritarian redtops after he goes up to H&H to support Davis, as he has apparently promised to do? Naturally, the leftwing media scents blue blood on the carpet  and Mr Nick Robinson is in ever more danger of inflating with excitement like a great big bally balloon. But how is the right-wing media going to position itself in this bizarre stand-off?

No surprise that the Sun is gearing up its machine against Davis, whose perfidy is confirmed by the fact that “he quoted names from medieval history and ancient French”. A senior Tory aide is quoted as saying “We need this like a hole in the head. It’s an act of sabotage”. Worst of all “Mr Davis DID tell Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg on Wednesday night — hours before telling his own Shadow Cabinet colleagues. Furious Mr Cameron barely concealed his anger yesterday.” Consorting with the Lib Dems and discussing medieval etymology - it’s all an EU plot and YOU’RE paying for it!

The Sun does, however, appear to be at risk of diverging from a significant chunk of their own readership if the (approximately one-third-to-a-half supportive of Davis) comments on the issue are anything to go by. This tends to confirm my initial supposition, that any half-hearted belief people may hold on 42 days will be utterly swept away by the grand narrative of the Man Who Resigned On Principle.

The Hate Mail appears less certain, leading its piece with Davis’ challenge to “cowardly” Gordon Brown, but is nonetheless distancing itself from Davis’ “controversial” stance “amid claims that his shock resignation yesterday is backfiring.” And again, the comments at the bottom are along rather different lines. There’s a pattern here…

The Mirror, less invested in a Tory future, sees this as a leadership challenge, no more, no less, and characterises the split as follows:

And they [I dunno, the Wizards - AEM] predicted the Tories would be split into a pro-Davis camp fighting under the banner of preserving traditional British freedoms and Cameron loyalists who are terrified of being seen as soft on terror.

They’re all agreed on one thing - Cameron has been broadsided. This is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy coming from the right-wing press, because Cameron can now only play this one of two ways.

He can back Davis’ campaign, as he has implied he will do with a personal appearance, and risk the fury of the Murdoch empire. Or he can keep quiet, try not to draw attention to the fact that he and his front-bench team are, nominally, opposed to 42 days as well - and we get to go up to H&H, literally and metaphorically, and call him out.

If we don’t get him, the Sun will. Let’s hope it’s us, and that Clegg has some grave and head-shakey words to say about him over the coming weeks.

Liberty. We love it.

Daily Telegraph: Tensions with David Cameron lay behind David Davis’s resignation
The Economist: Davis blows his top
Financial Times: Going out in a blaze of glory
The Guardian: Tories in turmoil as David Davis resigns over 42-day vote
This is London: Tories in Turmoil
The Times: David Cameron moves to limit the damage as his old foe does the inexplicable

Headline not spotted: “David Cameron pulls off political masterstroke”
 

By popular demand… following David Davis’s shock decision today to quit both as Tory shadow home secretary and MP for Haltemprice & Howden - and force a by-election over Labour’s 42 days detention without trial policy - Nick Clegg has announced the Lib Dems will not stand against Mr Davis at the subsequent by-election.

Nick’s decision gained the personal backing both of the party president Simon Hughes, and the party’s chief executive and by-election supreme Chris Rennard. All three have made it very clear the Lib Dems will re-contest the seat at the next general election. They have apparently discussed it with the local and regional party, as well as the region’s MEP and the party’s prospective parliamentary candidate.

But Nick, Simon and Chris maintain that this by-election is different: it’s a single-issue contest about 42 days, an issue on which the Lib Dems and Mr Davis are united. There is recent precedent: most famously in Tatton, when the party bowed out for Martin Bell, and also in Kidderminster, where the party backed Health Concern’s Richard Taylor.

But the decision is undoubtedly controversial. In 2001, the Lib Dems came within 1,903 votes of defeating the Conservatives: though the party slipped back in 2005, it would take only a 6% swing to defeat the Tories.

More important is the principle: should not the party always give voters the chance to put their cross against a candidate who espouses Liberal Democrat principles and policies? However much we might admire David Davis’s stance on civil liberties, here is a Tory politician who voted for the invasion of Iraq, and is generally associated with the right-wing of his party. If you lived in Haltemprice & Howden, could you bring yourself to vote for him?

It’s a difficult, nuanced decision… but you still only get a Yes or No option in our poll asking:

Did the Lib Dem leadership make the right decision not to stand a candidate against David Davis in Haltemprice & Howden?

> Yes, it was the right decision – 42 days is an issue which unites Lib Dems and Mr Davis;
> No, it was the wrong decision – we should always offer voters the opportunity to vote for a Liberal Democrat.

(Oh, okay there’s a ‘Don’t Know’ option for those who find themselves just too conflicted).

The media are increasingly turning to reporting strains within the Conservative Party over David Davsis’s dramatic resignation. For example, Nick Robinson on David Davis’s resignation:

David Cameron has lost control of his strategy. This was not his decision. He was not asked for his agreement. He was informed late last night by David Davis that he was going to do this come what may. That he was going to resign and trigger this campaign. This is not a campaign that Mr Cameron wants, it is not part of his strategy and indeed, I am told by senior Tories who know Mr Cameron well, that this was David Davis’ personal decision and will be his personal campaign.

Benedict Brogan writes:

For the avoidance of doubt, DD will not return to the Shadow Cabinet if he is returned as MP for Haltemprice and Howden. Dominic Grieve, one of the greatest talents on the Tory frontbench, is the new Shadow Home Secretary, and that’s it. My impression in fact is that despite talk of “doors being open”, DD has just kissed goodbye to being Home Secretary in a Cameron government.

He sprung the idea on the leader late last night by telephone. The Shadow Cabinet wasn’t consulted. Team Dave is being polite, but notice the references to “personal choice” (trans: reckless maverick) and the importance of Parliament (trans: Parliament is where the debate about 42 days should continue, not H&H).

Lib Dem Voice yesterday highlighted the contrast between David Davis’s passionate opposition to Labour’s attempts to bang up citizens for six weeks without telling them why, and the rather more lacklustre opposition of the Tory leadership:

I don’t doubt for one second the integrity of David Davis, the Tories’ shadow home secretary, in opposing Labour’s draconian 42 days pr