Why? “Tory” does not necessarily equal “authoritarian”. It just shows that the one-dimensional right wing vs. left wing spectrum is inadequate. This supposedly centre-left government has persistently been criticised for its illiberal tendencies.
Indeed. I would love, love for there to be an honest and open debate about terror laws in this country and how much of our freedom and liberty we can and should reasonably expect to give up. And whether draconian laws actually serve to help terrorism rather than hinder it. I would love that. But it hasn’t happened yet.
In the whole 42-day ‘debate’ (which was really just a re-hash of the 90-day debate from a couple of years ago) the sole argument from the government was (paraphrased) ‘The police tell us they need it’. Well, of course they do. They’re the police. If you ask a child if they want ten bags of sweets, of course they’re going to say ‘yes’ - it doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to let them have them. The majority of the police in the UK would like to see PACE repealed - it doesn’t mean that’s a good idea either.
So, that’s the best our elected government can come up with.
Now, Kelvin Mackenzie wants to get involved as well and debate this 42-day business with Davis. What sort of nuanced debate can we expect?
So this is going to be some high quality stuff as well. What a waste of time and money.
We have a government that buys itself a vote on an incredibly serious issue, solely so it can score cheap points by claiming it’s ‘tough on terrorism’ - a government whose ministers also leave secret Al-Qaeda intelligence files on the train. This would surely be an awesome time for the Tories and Lib Dems to deliver a series of knock out blows to the Labour.
But now Davis has gone and knocked a lot of this off the front pages by making it all about him - and the only person who can be bothered to show up for the by-election is some right wing nut who believes locking people up for 420 days without charge is fine. It’s pathetic.
On preview: As Wallenstein points out - Davis’ liberalism and libertarianism only goes so far. After all, he’s spoken out strongly against the Human Rights Act - which, if this 42 days stuff becomes law, will be the only legal route for challenging it.
I can tell you, no American Congresscritter would ever think of resigning to force a special election to draw public attention to a particular issue. I’ve never heard of that happening in the UK before either. Is this unprecedented?
Of course, I suppose running for election or re-election does not cost nearly so much money there as here.
I can’t remember the last time it happened. And responding to a previous poster - no Minister left the dossier on a train. It was some senior civil servant.
Aye - and to clarify i always feel that holding the elected government (of whatever creed) responsible for mistakes in the civil service that aren’t directly related to ministerial rules/orders/incompetence is a bit harsh. Not that the press/opposition make the distinction though (hence why this Davis bollocks is handy for Labour).
Davis is independently wealthy i believe, so money isn’t really an issue for him (don’t mean that as a criticism of him, just an FYI).
George Lansbury springs to mind
I think a Bunch of Norn Irish MPs resigned over an Ireland Act as well back in the 1980s, but i was busy watching Transformers and suchlike back then so no idea whether it was a pure protest or to force a “single issue” by-election. 
And he’s a self-made man, rather than using inherited wealth.
Special elections in our system don’t have the same significance in our system as a bye-election does in a parliamentary system. For one thing, we don’t call elections on a few weeks’ notice. By the time the special election has come around, half or more of your two-year elective term is gone and you have to start campaigning again.
I’m surprised to be supporting a Tory over this…
Actually, I think that’s it. I’ve self identified as (a) left wing and (b) a Labour voter for more than 20 years now. Although it’s been a long time since the two were close definitions it’s saddening and surprising how far ‘my’ government has gone and that I would find myself cheering for the opposition as it were. :: shrugs ::
ETA to make it clearer I wasn’t trying to edit Usram’s words, but to include context
According to the Guardian:
In summary:
1912-Landsbury, over the suffrigette issue
1929-Jowett, Liberal MP, offered post of Attprmey General by Labour
1938-The Duchess of Atholl, over appeasement
1955-Ackland, over nukes
1973-Taverne, over Europe
1982-Douglas-Mann, Labour MP, defected to SDP
1986 15 Ulster Unionists, over the Anglo-Irish agreement.
Random fact - George Lansbury was Angela Lansbury’s Grandad 
This has made me very leery of Cameron as PM: once presented with the fait accompli, he should have come out in full support of Davis. Instead, we’ve seen him dither and mess. This bodes ill should he become PM.