1) I question Davis’s motivation in this descision

2) We support civil liberties from different angles. The type of person you describe supports them from the point of view of the ‘rule of law’; we support them from a broader perspective that includes support of human rights. It is a tragedy that this alternative perspective will not now be one the voters of H&H can choose…

What’s to choose?

And I’d not be averse to drastic surgery on the celeb-obsessed BBC.

Ah yes, that great Satan the Murdoch press. After we’ve destroyed them, we’ll get the BBC as well for not giving us enough space on Question Time. Then we’ll pursue the remainder of our enemies to extinction. When we’ve finished, there’ll only be Lib Dem News left.

How often does the Murdoch press present a huge fat target waiting to be blown away? Not often.

Some of the comments here are astounding. If you were on a sinking ship, would you save the bad-tempered old guard dog or the plague rat?

But of course, there’s no point being the second man to climb everest. We’re not too nice. We’re just too fricking safe and careful.

I don’t think that’s much of a surprise considering how it has upset the settled state of the parties which existed up until now.

All the parties have suddenly gained the opportunity to (re)claim ownership of their preferred political territory and it opens up new frontiers where settlement can be made or fought over.

What I think it proves is that politics is an open forum where everything is contunually up for grabs and must be fought for and defended – we can make no assumptions with any certainty.

The validity of political arguments is proved by their ability to motivate people – iow we can’t avoid making decisions, so it’s better that we are in the process at the beginning in order to be able to influence the framework of choice.

Sunny, I think it helps to divide what you would have done/would do in his place from what you think about why DD did what he did and how it will play out. I’m guessing they aren’t completely the same thing.

My inital reaction was (a) that it was generally a Good Thing, but might well be a bit of an ego trip for DD,to a greater or lesser extent and (b) that irrespective of that, not opposing someone we agree with was both morally and tactically correct.

I find the argument that we should oppose him on the grounds of his egotism very peculiar – particularly as that argument seems to be being framed in terms of being true to our principles (which have obviously been changed from “civil liberties” to “zero toleration of egotists” since I last looked). I also find it short-sighted to claim that it’s more important to fight to get a Lib Dem in the seat – sorry, but we just won’t.

I was and am aware of Davis’ other dodgy stances, but I really don’t see why people think that matters – so long as we make it crystal clear that we’re with him on this issue and (probably) this alone. Otherwise we just look petulant and, well, we would be.

I think I’d personally stop some way short of going and helping him, mind – and according to the Three Line Whip blog that’s also the official party line – but horses for courses.

I still think all that (and having a big fat enemy on the opposite side can only help). What I’m now interested in doing is moving on from all the belly-aching to the split in the Tory party.

The only thing I have changed my mind on is the leadership challenge thing. I don’t know whether it started out like that, but I’m open to persuasion on whether it might end up like that… Does that make sense?

Am I going to have to stand up for the poor and misunderstood Rupert Murdoch (I know its not a very fashionable activity)?

Kelvin MacKenzie is again being used as a pawn by the master player. Because Murdoch is a media mogul businessman his primary aims are to get his properties to be at the centre of the storm so that everybody talks about them – whether or not the content of it is to his personal taste – and he is patently succeeding.

The Sun has also suddenly regained it’s influence by being talked about as the object of courtship by potential Prime Ministers, which indicates a shift of the focus of political debate away from the more middle-market and lessy gossipy sheets and notice we’ve suddenly gone silent (even if it’s only temporarily) on the Daily Mail…

I’ve never understood why it is possible to make judgements about Murdoch’s personal politics from the hearsay which those associated with his various commercial entourages are professionally pressed into stating.

Murdoch has, after all, succeeded in climbing the greasy pole by an order several magnitudes greater than Kelvin MacKenzie – we shouldn’t forget – partly because he is capable of separating belief from expediency.

The old dictum ‘keep your friends close, and your enemies closer’ should explain the discrepancy – if only because it serves purpose better to get your enemies working for you, rather than against you.

And let’s also not forget Murdoch is standing up for the principle of democracy by acting as guarantor for a candidate to run in any contest, whatever any of us may think of the candidate.

I disagree. Politicians take the decisions which affect our daily lives. Journalists just . . . write about it. You neither have to buy the paper nor read it. Go Kelvin!