The wrong debate

Lyndon Radnedge, OK: Despite early bluster from Kelvin McKenzie and some calls from Davis supporters for an interesting candidate, no one has taken up the challenge to debate the 42-day issue in by-election form. Labour refused to stand and the Lib Dems claimed solidarity with David Davis’ cause. 

As Anthony Barnett suggests, the Westminster/Media-village hope seemed to be that Davis’ momentum would dissipate. And they have made a decent fist of trying to make that happen. Andy Burnham’s cheeky remarks joined the mass nomination of joke candidates from parties such as the Miss Great Britain Party, the Church of the Militant Elvis and Make Politicians History, in working to make Davis’ campaign look silly. The same goes for the fuss over Geoff Hoon’s letter to Keith Vaz – another way of turning this into a process story rather than a discussion of substance. 

The by-election result is in no doubt. Efforts such as “David Davis” pledgebank page have therefore shifted emphasis to getting numbers up, hoping a sizeable turnout and majority would refute arguments that this safe-seat election does not matter. 

Debates on blogs such as ConservativeHome and a pro-Davis facebook group split along lines of full support and a view that Davis’ position looks inconsistent, especially after his ten-point plan: why 28 days and not 42? What of his calls for “more effective” use of CCTV and the DNA database? Is this backtracking or merely a sensible approach to the difficult balance between individual freedom and law enforcement? 

Most anti-Davis criticism has come from the mainstream media, though it has been easily distracted by international stories and continuing knife crime. David Aaronovitch at the Times notably criticised Davis as an unsuitable poster-boy for freedom.

While some left-of-centre netizens lament the left’s failure to find its own champion, at Liberal Conspiracy the verdict seems to be to give Davis support now and on this issue – but on this issue alone; to join the debate and use the opportunity of publicity afforded by the by-election.  

But then what? Loud though support may be from both left- and right-wings that already dislike “New” Labour, as well as from campaigns such as No2ID and Spyblog, is Davis simply preaching to the converted? With few, if any, vocally making the case for 42-days, is this really a debate about civil liberties or just lots of people who broadly agree on something talking a lot? Even Aaronovitch’s essay was more criticism of Davis himself rather than defence of the issue at hand. 

And where is debate on the wider issue of the trade-off between civil liberties and security? Perhaps powerlessness in the face of nearly seven years of post-9/11 security legislation has left many lacking in confidence that change can be effected. Beyond this by-election, Davis and others will need to better articulate not just what is wrong, but how it can be made right.