1. We have written our selves out of the narritive on what should be one of our core isues.

2. We have surrendered to long term damage/destruction a developed Constituiency with a strong second place. £100k of uncontested tory propoganda is being dropped on H and H with no response and thats before the Greens come second.

3. We actively endorse every subliminal message that Cameron has put out in relation to us since his election. We are all liberal Conservatives now.

4. we have conspired to help canonise, perhaps even transfigure, a senior Conservaive politican as an authentic, civil liberties hero spite the fact that he is pro Section 28, pro iraq and pro death penalty and, dear god, pro HRA repeal.

5. but worst of all we have allowed liberty in this debate to be defined in High Tory, Olde England, real ale and roast beef terms not our own.

Now all politics is about deals so lets in fairness look at the other side of the balance sheet?

What has the party got in return ?

1. a joint appearence? or any kind of endorsement ?

2. a recipricol arrangement in another by election ?

3. any policy concessions ?

This decision was taken from a Westminister buble perspective and in some haste. We were ment to get a Thursday through to the Sunday broad sheets 4 day news cycle about Conservative chaos and process stories. While that would have enraptured the people that write Henley by election tabloids and Opposition watch pieces on here no one seams to have thought for a moment about.

1. the possibility that Davis might have been sincere rather than destructive

2. that his move would be popular or would resonate.

3. the long term consequences of handing liberty over the the Tories as an issue

As is suggested up thread we have the bizzare spectacle of the party spending £100k on debating Oxfordshire planning policy but surrendering intellectual territory which is the core of its being.

This decision has much further to run yet and there is nothing we can now do about it. We signed and then posted the blank cheque weeks ago.

But not in H&H where at the very least there is a bit of a media focus on the issue. Davis is also talking about wider issues than 42 days (CCTV, DNA databases, jury trials etc)

“Anyway – to all those out there in cyberspace – blogwar is declared!”

How much will that reach outside of the “political classes”?

“We will not oppose the need for 28 days temporarily in the UK, partly because it is widely accepted that we face a greater threat in this country than in many others—due not least to our misguided participation in the illegal invasion of Iraq, which is this Government’s sad and lasting legacy on this issue. That does not mean, however, that 28 days should be seen as permanent or that we will not oppose this in future.”

What Grieve says is similar to what Chris said. I think the difference is the Lib Dems have made suggestions (on intercept evidence and and post-charge questionning) which would mean the period could be reduced permanently. Then again. Perhaps the Tories want this too?

Firstly, I see the by-election as a side-show that will come and go. The greater fight is to defeat this bloody government in the remaining passage of the Bill – in parliament. I have called together a number of liberal and left bloggers with this in mind – and because these things work better without a politician at the helm – I have handed the lead role to Liberal Conspiracy. There are loads of bloggers – including Lee and others who post here – who are all taking up the charge. So we have three jobs to do: persuade the Labour MPs who wavered; terrify and hold to their cause any Lords (particularly Tory ones who weary of ping-pong) to defeat it all the way in the Lords and campaign in the country to demonstrate that the idea that the public supports this is faux. Brown was able to use the public supports me argument – but I suspect the question would have been something like ‘do you think it is wrong to hold terrorists without charge for 90 days’? Not mentioning the innocent. Anyway – to all those out there in cyberspace – blogwar is declared!

As a matter of fact, he did:
“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.”
[Hansard, 11 June]

Well, here’s a Telegraph report from a couple of weeks ago in which Dominic Grieve comes out with something very similar to Huhne’s line.

Though no doubt according to you it will be completely different …
________________________________

But Mr Grieve yesterday signalled that he is minded to reverse that change [14 to 28 days].

He said: “28 days is much longer than I would like to see a person detained pre-charge. If there was an opportunity to reduce it because the evidence allowed us to do so, then it is, by my view, something we ought to be considering.”

However, he added: “The reason why parliament coalesced around the 28 limit was because there did appear to be evidence that 14 days that might not always be sufficient.”

While he was currently “content” with 28 days, “it’s a matter that needs to kept under constant review.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/2126227/Tories-consider-terror-arrest-limit-below-28-days.html

The 42 days issue is largely bogus. The party supports 14 days where it voted for 28 or not. It is a question of judgement, not principle.

Imagine if this catches on and we have MP’s resigning and fighting by-elections on the principle of; abstaining on whether there should have been a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Or bringing back the death penalty, or banning abortion.

Personally, I’d rather be detained for 42 days in the UK without charge than be detained for 42 minutes in Zimbabwe.

and

“I remain of the view that we will be able to return to a 14 day limit – or even lower – in the near future”

In other words we have our principles but we didn’t actually stand up for them. We’ll never be able to get back to 14 days if those MPs who purport to support 14 days never propose an amendment to do so.

I am however less bothered by the tactical nuances of supporting 28 days. What irks me is hris Huhne’s apparent mendacity in claiming he wanted a reduction to 14 days “or even lower” in the leadership election and then saying that “at the moment I am very happy with a period of 28 days” a few months later.

All of which is only tangentially relevant to out tactics in H&H. Not having a candidate doesn’t preclude doing some campaigning for what we believe in. Indeed in the constitution standing candidates in elections is a means to an of acheiving the objectives set out in the constitution.

As Lee points out above, if anyone wants to make a financial contribution (our campaign has ended up costing a little more than we budgeted for so all contributions will be particularly gratefully received!) follow this link.

You can also sign our petition – and get everyone you know to sign too.

Cheers!

Firstly, those who disagreed with us not standing would probably be pushed over the edge and just resign. Particularly members in H&H and nearby.

Secondly, if I lived in the constituency I would (first the first time ever) just not vote. Regardless of Nick Clegg’s endorsement I couldn’t back someone who is not a liberal and we shouldn’t expect any of our usual supporters to.

He concluded:

“Making progress on the four areas that I mentioned can make the need for lengthy periods of detention without charge unnecessary, and whether an extension beyond 14 days is necessary will warrant reconsideration before next year.”

Comparing the two speeches, Chris went a lot further than the Tory spokesman (David Ruffley) who, although he said that the renewal must be examined each year in the light of evidence available, said nothing to suggest that there was anything currently on the table that was likely to change the situation.

Well, obviously there’s no point my providing you with any information on that.

Your only response will be to claim it means the opposite of what what it says!

What is Tory policy on 28 days? As is usual with Conservative Party policy at the moment, I’ve been unable to find any. From the stuff I have read, there don’t seem to be any calls to reduce this period, and we know that the Tory shadow cabinet were split on whether to support 42 days.

No, I didn’t say I wrote to Chris Huhne’s office. I said I rang the party’s policy department.

Frankly, if that’s _all_ of the reply you were given, I think it’s a bit misleading.

In the speech referred to, Huhne said:
“Our judgment is that 28 days detention in present circumstances can be viewed as proportionate, given the evidence from Operation Overt, the investigation in 2006 into the Heathrow bomb plot.”

And of course, Huhne has said in other speeches recently that he views 28 days as justifiable, and that he is “very happy” with it. Though to be fair, he said almost in the same breath that there was a lack of evidence that it was necessary (?!?).

And yes, I am a regular poster about this, because I think it’s an important issue.

Anyway, our position on detention without charge seems to be pretty much indistinguishable from that of the Tories. We support 28 days at present, though we should like to reduce the period in the future.

I asked myself, and this is the reply I got:

[] – your understanding of our position on 28 days is current. It is best set out by Chris last Monday during the debate on the renewal of 28 days which I attach below. We did not oppose the continued extension, but made our view clear that we think progress in other areas is increasingly making it unnecessary. Let me know if you require any further information.

Regards,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080623/debtext/80623-0014.htm#08062345000059

There’s a good write-up on the Public Whip website.

Our policy at the time was to keep at 14 days: the vote for 28 days was a tactic to stop the 90 days proposal going through.

Gees…is that really right? We must have read the same version of the Magna Carta as David Davis….

Answer: We don’t.

He supports 28 days detention, is in favour of the reintroduction of capital punishment, supports the repeal of the Human Rights Act and has a very patchy record on gay rights.”

Steady on there. _We_ support 28 days detention. Unfortunately.