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.
Subscribe
-
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
-
Like us on Facebook
-
Subscribe to our feed
-
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Most Read
- Defining our future in Burnham Britain
- “Palestine should be run by Palestinians” so why won’t Britain reckon with what it did?
- Britain should confront history honestly, not selectively
- The Falklands are under threat again and we can’t rely on America to save us
- Andy Burnham - new messiah or naughty boy?
Search
Op-eds
-
Burnham has left a gap on tax. We should run through it. (Tom Reeve)
-
Should the Liberal Democrats support “None of the Above”? (Samuel Jackson)
-
Extending the school day: A catalyst for economic growth (Edward Marsh)
-
An open letter to Andy Burnham (Tony Vickers)
-
Four challenges in Andy Burnham’s in-tray (Callum Robertson)
-
Andy Burnham's bounce
-
Birthright
-
Lib Dems should target becoming largest party in local government (LDN#212)
-
The Joy of Six 1552
-
Trump offended by key Burnham appointment
-
Alexander Mackendrick and Sweet Smell of Success
-
Clear the gallery!
-
RMT calls three one-day strikes over Midland Main Line safety
-
The first serving PM to receive the Legion of Honour?
-
Harry Chapin: W.O.L.D.
Recent Comments
Steve Comer
I agree with your sentiments Jack, but does the Party in Wales and it's MS? What little coverage of the Lib Dem campaign in Wales that I heard on news media ...
Daniel Walker
@Peter Martin "Incidentally, the above point about the duty of a national government to adopt policies to ensure a measure of fiscal equalisation in a single...
Pawel Urbanski
Where I grew up in Poland, school lessons finished at 3, but there was optional supervised care until 5 or 6, often just run in the library, for the parents who...
Peter Martin
@ Chloe, "Who picks up the tab for the net fiscal deficit of the Scottish & Welsh governments " You're absolutely right that it should be t...
Tony Vickers
@Tom Reeve you sort of get it but lets be specific how we'd pay for raising the income tax threshold. We would tax the annual rental value of land. Its been our...
6 Comments
“A very public sociologist” made a very good suggestion at the comments section:
“If Luke Akehurst is so keen on 42 days why doesn’t he volunteer himself to be Labour’s candidate?”
Because it is too far away,and thus impractical, apparently.
Well, thank you very much for the link. I am now asking readers to say whether they think I should go and campaign with DD, so would be interested to know what people think on that subject.
“Because it is too far away, and thus impractical, apparently.”
But he thought it wouldn’t have been too far away for you? Interesting.
He didn’t mention me specifically, he just wanted a survivor or family member affected by 7/7, as a symbolic DD battering ram. What that person thought or felt or where they lived was clearly far less important than what they could be spun as representing.
In other words, he wanted to wave other people’s wounds for his party’s own political purposes
My own opinion: DD is so dodgy on too many civil liberties issues to be supported. Admittedly, if his stance really creates a proper debate on 42 days, that may start something beyond his control. But I’d have thought the points, Rachel, you have to say don’t need the by-election to give them publicity. And, Mark, thanks for the link to such an impressive blog.
“I am now asking readers to say whether they think I should go and campaign with DD, so would be interested to know what people think on that subject.”
As you asked, no.
I can’t see into David Davis’s mind, so I can’t really tell why he is doing this. But I can see that, logically, it can not be a principled stance, because he supports detention without charge for 28 days.
He feels it’s acceptable for people to be locked up without charge for 4 weeks, but not for 6 weeks. That’s something, I suppose, but it doesn’t seem to me like a reason for _positively_ supporting him.
In fact I wish somebody who was _really_ committed to civil liberties would stand against him and put the case for reducing the period of detention without charge below 28 days.
Because if no one is making that case, the authoritarians are really having it all their own way.