So what?

Since when did we decide our policies on the basis of the majority view in the current House of Commons?

Why – as far as I know at no point in the passage of this bill has an amendment been proposed to do that.

Chris comments at 3rd reading are just silly:
“At the moment, I am very happy with a period of 28 days. We should stick with that period because that is what we voted for, but we need to regard it as an emergency measure and keep it under constant review—especially given the lack of evidence that even 28 days is necessary.”

So we have to stick with something because we voted for it once (and then as a clear compromise) even thought there is no evidence that it is actually necessary

And if, as some people are arguing, official party policy is to reduce the period of detention, is it acceptable that our “Shadow Home Secretary” is saying the opposite in Parliament?

But that’s an aside. You have something of a point: where are the calls to scrap the 28 days? The Liberal Democrats were certainly not in favour of it in the first place, voting for it purely because that’s what the Tories and Labour rebels had formed some sort of consensus around.

Reading the link referred to above, the changes the LDs want to see to intercept evidence and after charge questionning would give them a reason to argue that 28 days is unnecessary. Chris Huhne’s comments are a recognition that until other changes are made we’re not going to see a consensus around reducing 28 days detention (indeed, the couple of lines you quote are either weary resignation or a genunine belief that 28 days is acceptable until changes such as the above are made, which will undermine the justification for detention without charge). If Chris believes the latter (a big *if* as there is much in his speeches to parliament that indicates he is no fan of detention without charge) I disagree with him, but he’s entitled to hold that view. I’m confident that Liberal Democrat policy if enacted would see that 28 days detention reduced.

He added “We should stick with that period because that is what we voted for” (!). But thankfully we don’t have to keep sticking to it for all time – in fact we should keep it under “constant review”, given the lack of evidence that it’s necessary!

Standing up for civil liberties, Lib-Dem style …

“I know from previous experience you’re not so good at looking at what’s actually been written and said”

It might help if you did a bit of reading yourself before sounding off.

If you look above, you’ll see I was responding to a post praising Davis for his principle. So – strangely enough – it was Davis I was referring to.

But thanks for reminding us about Chris Huhne’s statement in Parliament that he considered 28 days to be “justifiable”. Frankly, all the parties are coming out with 1% principle and 99% hypocrisy on this issue.

Most people can understand that we voted for 28 days as in order to stop the much worse 90 days proposal. Doesn’t mean we’re huge fans of 28 days, just that 28 days is *not as bad* as 90. Chris Huhne said himself at the second reading of this Bill when someone tried to make this point; we don’t control Parliament and are forced to rely on the Tories and Labour rebels – 28 days was the proposal on which a Parliamentary majority could be maintained.

I know from previous experience you’re not so good at looking at what’s actually been written and said, but if you look at: http://www.libdems.org.uk/justice/issues/noto42days.html
then you will see we want to bring in changes – eg allowing post charge questioning and use of intercept evidence – that would mean that “the period of time that people need to be detained before a charge is brought could be reduced.”

I wish somebody could tell me how 42 days detention without charge can be such a monumental issue of principle for someone who has already voted in favour of 28 days detention without charge.

How can it be wrong in principle to lock somebody up for 6 weeks without charge. but fine to lock them up for 4 weeks without charge?

Why is that the key thing? Once elected, he may take the whip of any party he chooses. The key thing is David Davis the man.

Well, I assume the calculation is that if we did stand we’d lose badly, so it’s best to say that we won’t stand – as a matter of principle.

If the expectation was that we’d win, I’m sure Clegg’s instructions to the local party would have been to stand – also as a matter of principle, no doubt.