Any questions for David Davis?
ConservativeHome's interviews blog has been neglected of late but now returns with a regular weekly feature.
Today we are seeking your questions for Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. Mr Davis has unsuccessfully challenged for the Tory leadership on two occasions but is now the most popular member of the shadow cabinet according to the ConservativeHome Members' Panel.
You can leave questions for Mr Davis in the thread below or you can email them here. They will be answered for the end of next week.















Have you hugged a hoodie yet?
Posted by: Simon Chapman | November 10, 2006 at 09:21
Or loved a lout?
Posted by: elrafa | November 10, 2006 at 09:42
Please ask David any (or all) of the following:
1. Would he have preferred to see the government lose the Police and Justice Bill rather than having the Conservatives finally give way on it in the House of Lords?
2. How does he think that the NuLab charge that the Conservatives are 'soft' on crime/terrorism (e.g. because of our opposition to the 90-day detention without charge proposal) can best be rebutted?
3. Is Edward Garnier destined for greater things? (I'm just very impressed every time I hear him.)
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | November 10, 2006 at 09:45
How can the Conservatives effectively counter the rise of the BNP?
Posted by: NigelC | November 10, 2006 at 10:23
At the last election the Conservatives lost some seats by a handful of votes taken by UKIP, Veritas and BNP candidates when far left candidates stood aside to allow the Labour candidate a free run. Any thoughts on an election strategy to deal with this?
Posted by: NigelC | November 10, 2006 at 10:27
As our future British Home Secretary, what will you make your first priority when in Government?
Posted by: Chris Palmer | November 10, 2006 at 10:32
Mr Davis' CV says he's a CS graduate so I'd be very interested to know:
1. Why are british governments, Conservative and Labour, so crap at IT ?
2. Do you think it's good policy for the british gov't to outsource IT, or should they develop in-house expertise?
Posted by: Dave B | November 10, 2006 at 10:53
In light of the recent revelation of the scale of the terror threat facing this country, how will you tackle this threat when you get into government?
Posted by: Toryboy | November 10, 2006 at 10:55
What do the Conservatives need to do to win more seats in Scotland and Wales at the next General Election?
Posted by: RobC | November 10, 2006 at 10:57
My question for David Davis is linked to yesterday's immigration paper and is:
"Other than for presentational reasons - How can you logically leave Asylum seekers (genuine or non genuine) and EU citizens out of the equation when considering immigration numbers?
Also, regardless of origin, what is your estimate of a sustainable population figure for 'England'?"
Posted by: RodS | November 10, 2006 at 11:08
Isn't a selective immigration policy that only applies to citizens from countries outside the EU unfair and possibly racist?
And why is selection alright when applied to immigrantion but not for secondary educational purposes.
Posted by: michael mcgough | November 10, 2006 at 11:33
I somehow doubt he'll answer this one... ;-)
"Ellenor Bland was quite rightly disciplined by the party for circulating a racist e-mail which she passed on to others, although she did not write it herself.
Yet your former Chief of Staff Iain Dale has approved comments on his blog which describes Scottish people as "Jock-roaches" says about Scottish people, "they’re pouring over the border. If north of the border is so bleeding great why don’t they all stay there", and, chillingly, says "what do the English have to do, adopt the wolves in sheeps clothing tactics of the IRA to get notied?"
Although Mr. Dale did not write these comments himself, he has approved them for public display on a site which is obviously associated with the Conservative Party. My question to you is, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Mr. Dale."
Posted by: RKO | November 10, 2006 at 11:50
Does Mr. Davis believe that the demographic trends this county is experiencing - along with old europe - are irreversible and how might a Tory government attempt to reverse or mititgate such changes without recourse to mass immigration.
Posted by: tired and emotional | November 10, 2006 at 12:59
Don't be so pathetic. If I censored, you'd be the first to complain. This is not the first time you have posted comments on ConservativeHome seeking to denigrate me. Perhaps if you posted in your own name you might be taken more seriously.
Posted by: Iain Dale | November 10, 2006 at 13:03
I agree that there should be greater control on immigration. Do you really think selective immigration policy is going to get us votes?
After so many years of ignoring the BEM votes we are now getting together to include all communities in the Conservative party.
Do you think the selective immigration policy takes us back to being the nasty party again?
Posted by: Patrick Ratnaraja | November 10, 2006 at 13:17
In light of today's Telegraph leader on immigration, how do you intend to determine what economic migrants to let in, when there is no reliable information on how many are here already, how many arrive daily, and where from?
Posted by: David Farrell | November 10, 2006 at 13:21
Iain Dale's and ConservativeHome's comments policy are both perfectly fair, RKO. Stop whinging and get a life.
Posted by: Chris Palmer | November 10, 2006 at 13:41
Do you believe the "surveillance society" has gone too far? Is the current proliferation of CCTV cameras a sensible use of time and resources?
Posted by: David Cooper | November 10, 2006 at 14:06
What can we do to improve relations with the Muslim Community?
Posted by: Sally Roberts | November 10, 2006 at 14:34
How can the Conservative Party refine its pitch so that it starts to resonate in the north and Scotland?
Posted by: Sam Coates | November 10, 2006 at 14:39
I'd ask Mr Davis;
1) Would he serve in a Cameron run Cabinet or opt instead to take his pew in the Lords?
2) If he does stay, would he accept any other Cabinet posistion (apart from Defence) if Cameron moved him from the Home Office?
3) What happened to the Katy girl who used to work in his office?
4) Will terrorism ever be defeated or is it now a realistic fact of modern life.
Posted by: Ben-in-the-jam. | November 10, 2006 at 14:49
If a Conservative Government inherited a ID-Card system created by a previous Labour Government, would we scrap, alter or preserve it?
Posted by: Thomas Wales | November 10, 2006 at 14:53
What would you have done differently had you won the leadership election?
Posted by: Jon White | November 10, 2006 at 15:02
What's the current thinking on elected sheriffs?
As I understand it, it was our policy at the last election, but it now seems to have drifted. Indeed, just before the Conference, Ken Clarke- leader of the Democracy task force- said "If you have locally elected police chiefs, who's going to say what sort of mad things will happen?"
"People with wildly populist views who know nothing about running a large organisation will stand. As soon as you have excessive local discretion you have public outrage about the postcode lottery."
(see here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/30/ntory230.xml&page=6 )
What does DD think?
Posted by: Wat Tyler | November 10, 2006 at 16:01
I take it you are a Scot, RKO. My bet is from the urban central belt Labour heartlands.
I am a Scot as well. I couldn't give a monkey's if people want to refer to me as a Jock-roach, a sweaty, an Aberdonian skinflint or a man in a dress. They can refer to my forbears as sheep stealers and my great grandmothers as fishwives from Broughty Ferry.
This is because I am proud of being a Scot and see no profit whatsoever accruing from being touchy about a few mash bastards getting lippy.
I suggest you muster what pride you possess, puff your chest out and laugh at them.
Sneaking on Iain Dale to DD makes you a wet and a weed. Get a grip, man!
Posted by: Og | November 10, 2006 at 16:18
Would you consider trying to persuade Cameron to listen to Associations? You seem to be coming up with some great policies in your area but elsewhere in the Party, Cameron seems to be thinking that the best policy is shafting Associations...and its not a popular policy.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man...
Posted by: James Maskell | November 10, 2006 at 16:28
@James Maskell
"Cameron seems to be thinking that the best policy is shafting Associations."
How so?
Posted by: Dave B | November 10, 2006 at 16:44
David,
I share your concerns about ID cards but how should we best counter Labour's claim that because we don't support ID cards we can't manage immigration?
Cllr Matt Wright
Posted by: Matt Wright | November 10, 2006 at 17:05
Changes to membership fees and other fees charged to Associations which increase financial pressure on them.
Posted by: James Maskell | November 10, 2006 at 17:41
Are you aware that just going by this Sunday Times opinion poll:
http://www.times-archive.co.uk/onlinespecials/toplinepoll.pdf
HALF THE POPULATION WANT FEWER THAN 10,000 IMMIGRANTS A YEAR
["Q6 Do you think the government should set a strict limit on the number of immigrants allowed into Britain each year?
IF YES: And what should be the limit? WRITE IN NUMBER"
The median response to the second part of that question was astonishingly low - about 10,000 a year. In other words, half of the respondents thought that 10,000 immigrants a year would be too many, while the other half thought that 10,000 immigrants a year would be too few.]
Posted by: Denis Cooper | November 10, 2006 at 18:13
How are we going to make the political (not the policy ) case on ID cards?
Could you clarify your stance on free vote issues- i've herad so many different versions of what you view is/ was.
thank you for making time out of your busy schedule
Posted by: outsider | November 10, 2006 at 19:13
Please ask DD why we appear, to me, to be obsessed with an arbitrary level of immigration that will be decided in advance without knowing what the economy will need or how suitably qualified the applicants will be. Wouldn't it be better to set standards rather than numbers and thereafter to let each application be judged individually on the probable impact to the UK economy?
Posted by: HayeksGrandad | November 10, 2006 at 20:02
Why do the Tories not respond to Tony Bliar's jibes about the Tories being soft on terrorism - as they opposed the 90 days detention without trial bill - by stating that the Government wouldn't have to take away Britons' liberty if only the government proposed a law to allow wire-tap and phone surveillance evidence in court (as that is the evidence which the secret services have on the alleged terror suspects) as every other country in the world does ? And remind Tony Bliar that the Tories (i.e. DD) has been calling for this since before the last election (see Question Time debate between DD and Charles Clarke in 2005 when Clarkey got his arse roundly whipped by an on-form DD), but that NuLab and Bliar have refused to implement it. I'd like to see them throw that at him during PMQ.
Posted by: Stephen Tolkinghorne | November 10, 2006 at 20:43
Do you regret orchestrating the removal of Iain thus giving Labour an unprecedented third term of office?
Do think that act gave the LibDems the opportunity of consolidating their position and that there may never be a Tory led Government ever again?
Posted by: Fred Baker | November 10, 2006 at 23:57
What can you do to help save us from a Conservative government uninterested in reforming our public services and cutting our tax burden? This question will have to be answered sooner or later.
Posted by: party member | November 11, 2006 at 01:48
HayeksGrandad,
In a way we did set standards rather than numbers - we said, eg, "If you're a Polish citizen then that's good enough, you can come and live and work here".
Surely without an actual numerical limit, the number will always be effectively unlimited? And (leaving aside the very small minority who are criminals and/or terrorists) it's the sheer number of immigrants which causes the problems.
Posted by: Denis Cooper | November 11, 2006 at 13:42
I've emailed Tim direct with a question about creating new units for mentally ill prisoners, that will be theraputic rather than just custodial. If it comes up, you can read it! I have posted about this before.
Posted by: Annabel Herriott | November 11, 2006 at 16:24
As Shadow Home Secretary would he as Home Secretary pursue those Independent Financial Advisors who deliberately defrauded many saving for their old age?
Also there were and are many companies sending their redundant employees to corrupt IFAs, who then persuade leavers into inappropriate arrangements. This is in order to reduce the company’s pension commitments. An actual “conspiracy to defraud”. What would he do about this?
We pay for the FSCS to sort out the mess but has anyone been jailed?
Posted by: Sally Rideout Baker | November 12, 2006 at 10:13
In 1997 the then Tory govt banned full-bore handguns. Labour then passed a further bill, which the Tories opposed and promised to repeal, banning .22 pistols as well.
These acts, it is now abundantly clear, have not increased public safety in the slightest. Even the Home Office now admits that there is no evidence to support them.
Given this, and especially considering the approach of the 2012 Olympics, are you prepared to stand by Conservative principles of liberty and trust of the ordinary citizen, and revoke this legislation in its entirety? If not, are you at least prepared to stand by your 1997 pledge and restore small-bore pistol shooting? And if you are not happy to do either, why not?
Posted by: Alex Swanson | November 16, 2006 at 13:26
Just one more question ... when do we get to see David's answers? ("For the end of next [i.e. last] week" was the promise.)
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | November 19, 2006 at 21:22
How can we have effective control of immigration, while we remain subject to EU regulations to have open borders to all member states?
Posted by: Derek | November 25, 2006 at 21:12
Make that the week before last ...
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | November 26, 2006 at 00:00
My fault for the delay - I've just emailed the questions - some sort of email snag.
Posted by: Editor | November 27, 2006 at 11:33
Thanks for the update, Tim. I dare say we'll forgive you! I await DD's replies with interest.
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | November 27, 2006 at 13:18
Did we ever get IDS's answers from July?
Posted by: Nicholas Slide | November 27, 2006 at 18:27
Let us know soon. A good friend of mine is prepared to swing behind the Tories if they get a commitment to elected sheriffs from DD.
Posted by: Praguetory | December 06, 2006 at 17:23
I do not see that any of the questions to IDS or to DD are particularly difficult, so what is the problem?
Time passes Gandalf waits …………
Posted by: Gandalf | December 15, 2006 at 23:56
... as do the rest of us.
Posted by: Richard Weatherill | December 16, 2006 at 12:13
Tim, why are these posts (and my email) about the IDS and DD questions/answers being ignored?
Posted by: Nicholas Slide | December 24, 2006 at 15:31
Mr Davis ,
You once wrote a seminal essay entitled Equality For the English
" If each of the other nations of the United Kingdom is going to have its own parliament , then England's choice should be no less. "
and
" The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with. "
You have gone very quiet on this key committment to an English Parliament . Have you been warned off ? . Do you realise that it remains a key committment and is likely to be th dominating topic of 2007 ?
Do you still stand by these words of yours ?
"Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land. If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom, that disaffection would be the way to do it. "
They are already proving to be prophetic .
Posted by: Jake | January 04, 2007 at 19:08