65% of Tory members "inspired" by David Davis' move

1,291 Tory members have been voting this afternoon in a survey of grassroots reactions to David Davis' decision to resign his seat and fight a by-election in defence of Britain's historic liberties.  Most members are inspired by his move and 70% would like to see him reinstated as Shadow Home Secretary should he win his by-election - as he almost certainly will.  The survey also shows that just 12% of Tory members support a 42 day detention period.  50% actually want 14 days or less.

THE FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS FOCUSED ON REACTIONS TO TODAY'S NEWS.  RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED TO AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

There are better ways of making a protest than this:
Agree: 38%
Disagree: 48%

This is an inspired move that will draw great attention to a vital issue:
Agree: 65%
Disagree: 25%

David Cameron should invite David Davis back as Shadow Home Secretary should he win the by-election.
Agree: 70%
Disagree: 19%

The Conservatives should repeal 42 days pre-charge detention when/ if we come into Government.
Agree: 87%
Disagree: 8%

67% of the public support 42 days and Conservatives need to be careful not to get on the wrong side of that popular opinion.
Agree: 24%
Disagree: 72%

David Davis probably resigned because he did not think David Cameron was tough enough in resisting 42 days and promising to repeal it.
Agree: 26%
Disagree: 49%

WE THEN ASKED ABOUT THE ISSUE AT THE HEART OF THIS ROW:

Which period of pre-charge detention would you like to see in Britain?
14 days or less: 50%
28 days: 38%
42 days: 10%
More than 42 days: 2%.

The survey is still open if you want to vote.

Comments

[Alexander King]

This site should be rebranded Libertarian Home.

Typically of the internet, we seem to attract more cranks with an opposition to any type of government authority whatever than we do genuine, old-fashioned conservatives.

[Ceidwadwyr]

There is nothing conservative Alexander about abandoning our ancient liberties so Brown can make a cheap political point.

[Aloicius]

In light of today's developments shouldn't Conservative Home revisit yesterday's editorial?

It would be a show of maturity and political nobility.

[Vince]

Do you change your views according to opinion polls Aloicius?

[Kate Bollinger]

What a silly suggestion! Do you agree with every editorial in the newspapers you read? The editorial began with the fact that it wasn't representative and it sparked off a top notch debate. The liberatarians Alexander King referred to have bordered on the fascist in their comments today and yesterday.

[Graeme Archer]

I hate to get all statistics nerd on you. But releasing the "interim" results of polls to a constituency of people who are yet to vote isn't the *best* way of protecting the integrity of the final inference.

[B]

The more i think about this, the more i think it was a bad move on Davis' part.

Yes many of us are strongly against the extension to 42 days and the gradual erosion of our historic freedoms, but in the short to medium term he has detracted from the story which was Brown under pressure and having to cajole, bribe, and manouver on a supposed matter of 'principle' which was nothing more than a piece of dirty politics.

Personally Davis will also look ridiculous if Labour refuse to put up a candidate, which is looking increasingly likely.

The only silver lining is that DC has now removed the only major roadblock to his project from the shadow cabinet.

But our party's ability to needlessly shoot ourselves in the foot never ceases to amaze me...WHY?!!!?

[Editor]

You are of course right Graeme (18:33)!

[Mark Fulford]

Stick those numbers up your opportunistic derriere, Passing Leftie.

[Ted]

Mr King - Conservatism has at its heart the principle of "conserving", building on and developing from the institutions and liberties that are the heart of our nation. Not preserving in aspic but neither radically re-structuring nor throwing them away, building on the good and replacing the rotten.

Old fashioned conservatives fought for those liberties you seem so keen to throw away.

[RichardJ]

"Typically of the internet, we seem to attract more cranks with an opposition to any type of government authority whatever than we do genuine, old-fashioned conservatives."

I think you're confusing European Conservatism with its love of Big Government and British Conservatism which has traditionally preferred the authority of common law and the flourishing of Burke's little platoons (which necessitates a small state). As Conservatives we should also favour the conserving of our traditional liberties.

[David (One of many)]

"Personally Davis will also look ridiculous if Labour refuse to put up a candidate, which is looking increasingly likely."

B, I have been thinking about this for a while, and I respectfully disagree. If Labour refuse, then DD has won. He has made his reasoning clear, and it shows they will not debate him on the issues. Labour can't refuse to run on the same ground as the LDs as they'll look like idiots. So their only choice will be to badmouth DD's intent, which is something that I don't think the public will respond to at all well. And then for three or four weeks, Labour have this man hanging around their necks reminding them that they're cowards.

[Saltmaker]

What's the chance of Gordon Brown mentioning this poll next PMQs?

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

The liberatarians Alexander King referred to have bordered on the fascist in their comments today and yesterday.

Lol, someone thinks the libertarians are being fascists. I can't believe that anyone is dumb enough to even write that. We think its right to defend ancient liberties under Common Law and we are branded fascists...only an authoritarian can contemplate that sort of inanity.

[John Prendergast]

DD has been brave and quite radical. Time will tell whether he was "right" or "Wrong",
at least he did something.

What it is focussing people on is the 42 day issue, our liberty, and I hope, ultimately, our subservience to Europe.

[NickL]

David (one of many), you are right. Not to oppose David Davis' challenge would demonstrate that Labour's case for 42 days et al. is not itself rooted in principle.

[olivepeel]

The narative is right , but the action is wrong. Oposition is via a party.

DD will get back , perhaps with a reduced majority, but will be finished. This is such a sad miss-judgement by someone who could have been a great Home Sec but now will never be, by someone who thought he had it to be PM but clearly never did.

It may also turn out to be a very bad day for the liberty wing to which I belong.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

The survey proves that Turkeys will vote for Christmas.

[Alexander King]

(1) If this is such an issue of ancient principle, why are we agreeing even to 28 days? By such logic, it should be 0 days.

(2) David Davis should under no circumstances be given back his previous role in the Shadow Cabinet. His disgraceful stunt - at the expense of his own party - betrays him for the egotistical loose cannon he has always been. On his return, he should slot straight in beneath Edward Timpson in the ranks of seniority.

[Rightwingery]

Perhaps another theory: Imagine this... the sleaze issue which has been dogging the party over the last few weeks is about to come back with a vengeance. Several more MEPs, as well as some MPs, have been found with their preverbial pants down. DD and DC could see the potential for news management problems and saw this 'stunt' as being a wonderful opportunity to bury the bad news.

[Edison Smith]

David Davis MUST be reinstated as Shadow Home Secretary when he wins his vote.

No ifs or buts. He was an excellent Shadow Home Secretaty and he and DC actually complement each other quite well in the eyes of the public.

[Libertarian]

"This site should be rebranded Libertarian Home."

If only that were true, Alexander King. This site's Editor is a typical neo-conservative supporter of this fascist government's 42 day detention without charge Bill.

[Rod Sellers]

Clearly if Labour do not put up a candidate it is Game,Set and Match to DD.

What most commentators (particularly the odious Nick Robinson) are missing is that DD's stand is tapping in to to the unprecedented contempt in the country for ALL elected/career politicians. I hope that the Irish feel the same way tonight !!

Time for another St David's Day I think.

[Will James]

Amazing how quickly this debate becomes overtaken by rude and narrow-minded persons on either side of the argument. This is an issue of vital importance to the country and our way of life as a whole.

Accusations of being fascist or 'cranks' do not belong here - and that should go for the accusations flying towards Mr Davis as well, who has resigned on an issue of principle which I thought would be something respected (if not approved of) by everyone on this site.

David Davis has obviously not come to this decision lightly or for his own personal or political advancement, seeing as he has almost guaranteed he will probably never now be Home Secretary - a position that he seems to have been born to occupy. So is it possible for everyone to lay off the personal attacks on a decent and honourable man?

[Andrew Bradley]

I did not realise there are so many active syphophants in the Conservative Party or maybe active bloggers.

I simply cannot understand Davis'real motives. Recent polls have suggested that 75% of the public agree with 42 days. Personally I have no problem with unlimited detention of people who the security forces consider to be a real threat and I suspect the silent majority of this country do not as opposed to liberal bloggers to this site. Perhaps the Isle of Wight could be used as a holding centre that is a flippant comment borne out of exasperation.

Surely it must be worth holding people who are considered a risk to avoid the ghastly bombing campaigns/suicide bombers we havewitnessed in recent years. Also what is wrong with ID cards - if you have not done anything wrong you do not have anything to worry about.

I bet Gordon cannot believe his luck. Just when the opinion polls are running in our favour this entirely avoidable own goal crops up.

I don't live that far from Hull - would I go and campaign for Davis - not under any circumstances. Whilst hypothetical, if I had a vote there I would go for anyone who supported 42 and above but not Davis. I speak as someone who has never voted Labour or anything else in my life.

I also speak as someone who desperately wants to see the return of a Conservative Governement at the next election and will be doing my very best to ensure that this happens.

[Edison Smith]

The common theme on the BBC website in the Have Your Say Section is this:

"David Davis is a British hero."

Wonder if Nick Robinson reports that on the news at 10pm.

[John Peel]

David Davis’s decision indicates that he lacks the judgment, discipline and loyalty to be a member of the shadow cabinet.

He is toast.

[RichardJ]

My gut feeling is that this is a big mistake and that most people will just think "What the Hell?!". Hopefully I'm wrong though.

[Alexander King]

Will James,

Your naivete is breathtaking.

Apparently David Davis's own colleagues in the parliamentary party are baffled, confused and upset by his decision to resign. Channel 4 news quoted no fewer than 7 separate MPs with extremely critical quotes of Davis - including one that said "It's his Reggie Perrin moment".

I find most interesting the contrast between the critical attitude of the parliamentary party and the mostly adulatory and cheerleading attitude of the non-parliamentary party.

David Davis's egotism and ambition are notorious amongst those that know the man. Some posters ought to be a little less credulous.

[One marcus]

This move is madness rather than talk about the dreadful abuse of Parliament and democracy by Labours blatant arm twisting and abandonment of their principles by many Labour MPs we are instead debating David Davis move.

Sometimes it is best to take a step back when you are annoyed and think David Davis has so clearly not thought this one through.

In two years time he could be Home Secrtary and would repeal this law anyway he so obviously is not the man I thought he was!

[ACT]

"1,291 Tory members have been voting this afternoon". No they haven't. At most, 1291 people who claimed to be Tory members were voting this afternoon. You have no way of validating their claim to be members, yet still you persist with stuff like this. Truly remarkable.

[John Leonard]

Andrew Bradley:

Recent polls have suggested that 75% of the public agree with 42 days.

Now if you also saw a poll which said only 13% supported 42 days and 70% supported the Conservative position of 28 days, how would that change your view?

That is exactly what a Liberty/ Yougov Poll said 10 weeks ago (end of March - available on the Yougov site).

There is little that has changed since that time to effect public opinion (unless you count the Government's paltry bureaucratic concessions) which would suggest there is something strange about the polls.

I follow the view that there is no solid opinion on this matter as David Davis pointed out. I suspect it all depends on how the questions were asked.

However, the actual issue of detention without charge is something that goes to the very core of our society. Without it Britain is no longer Britain.

Personally I have no problem with unlimited detention of people who the security forces consider to be a real threat and I suspect the silent majority of this country do not as opposed to liberal bloggers to this site.

De Menenzes was considered a threat and they shot him. What if they mistakenly considered you a threat?

Do you also support Guantanemo as well?

You might be happy to live in a society where the police can lock you up based on rumour and inuendo for however long they feel like but I am not.

You are welcome to your world but just not in my country or perhaps they should cordone of an area around Hull and all those who want a police state can live their in total security with indefinite internment as one of the police powers (as with your Isle of Wight comment, this last one is somewhat flippant)?

[John Leonard]

Andrew Bradley:

Mistyped a word so to clarify:

However, the actual issue of detention without charge is something that goes to the very core of our society. Without it Britain is no longer Britain.

Should read:

However, the actual issue of detention without charge is something that goes to the very core of our society. With it Britain is no longer Britain.

[Scottishfield]

Up until now all the analogies have been of Gordon Brown in his Fuhrerbunker waiting for the inevitable downfall.

However today was a moment when perhaps David Cameron had his own Fuhrer moment when David Davis decided to do a "Rudolf Hess" and head off on his own flight of fancy!

David Davis was a frontbench spokesman in a collective responsibility shadow cabinet, covering one of the most sensitive jobs in government.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, the unconvincing response from Cameron seems to indicate it would be very difficult for him to return the frontbench after this ill-disciplined grandstanding?

As a result the Tories now end up fighting an election on the one issue where Gordon Brown is seen to be "on your side". If Labour now don't put up and support an independent who backs the 42 days "Rudolf" could have created a situation where instead of there being a by-election over the record of the government we end up with an election in judgment of the 42 days. "Rudolf" may need quite a a lot of messages of good luck as he is going to need it!

[F T P Topcliff]

People like Alexander King and the Tombstone group are so in love with the state that they'd have supported the personal rule of Charles I.

They are in the Roman Catholic, continetal model of conservatism which is a lesser-evolved beast than good old British Conservatism.

One of the key distinctions is that all major continental conservatisms are tainted with fascism, whereas we risked everything to lead the global fight against that particular brand of socialism.

That said, I would have hoped that posters here would understand what Neo-Conservatism is instead of aping the left ignorantly bandying it about as an intended insult.

[Victor, NW Kent]

Andrew Bradley

I saw no poll that suggested 75% of voters were in favour of the 42 days. I saw 69% reported but the question was suspect and designed to force the answer. Suddenly, in Labour circles that became "three-quarters" - a mathematically challenged exaggeration as two-thirds is more accurate.

But, we have an opportunity to see. There is poor, plucky Davis, supposedly only supported by 31% of the voters putting his political life on the line. A walk-over for Labour then, as they start off with 69% of the vote.

Are you a betting man, Andrew?

[houndtang]

Just when Labour is on the ropes, Davis throws them a bone with this bizarre ego-trip. Sad really considering he had done a reasonable job as Shadow Home Secretary and could have expected high office in the next government. One wonders if he has been waiting for a moment such as this to 'spit the dummy'.

[Dale]

Wow, Centre right and Conservative home on news 24 (or whatever its called these days).

And guess WHAT?

They are reading all of the negative comments that have been made!

People are doing serious damage by criticising David Davis on this site.

[Dale]

"Whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue, the unconvincing response from Cameron seems to indicate it would be very difficult for him to return the frontbench after this ill-disciplined grandstanding?"

Michael Heseltine thiks differently!

[Harry Palmer]

I'm amazed to see so many socalled conservatives on this site supporting 42 days.

What is conservative about giving the government the right to lock people up without charge? It's a complete disgrace. We already have local councils using anti terrorist legislation against people who don't recycle their rubbish properly and yet we are asked to trust the state with this power.

DD is doing a fine thing, it would be good if more conservatives chose to be supportive rather than making disloyal comments to the media....

[pattif]

Andrew Bradley -

If you really think "they" are only going to bang up for six weeks without charge genuine, certified terrorists, you have a much more trusting nature than I have. In the first place, a person suspected of committing, or planning, a terrorist act is innocent until proven guilty. In the second place, the police do not have an unblemished track record of meticulously observing the right of the citizen to go about his lawul business unharrassed, or even safely. In the third place, the intelligence services do not have an unblemished track record of providing accurate, objective intelligence, untainted by what the government want to hear.

This country endured decades of terrorist outrages perpetrated by Irish terrorists, and the unwavering response was, " We will not let them interfere with our way of life - we carry on regardless." If we now just roll over and accept that the right NOT to be banged up without charge for weeks on end is expendable, exactly what way of life do we think we are defending?

And if you really are prepared to accept a legal obligation to carry a card with every bit of information that exists relating to you, given the frightening inability of government departments to treat with proper care the sensitive personal details they already hold (for example, the bank details of every child benefit claimant), then there must truly be no limits to your trusting nature.

[David Galea]

David Davis is a British hero. The media is completely out of touch with the people.

[Jack Thompson]

Im not so sure that people who support 42 days would be so keen if they were the ones locked up for that time.

The police have said they dont want it, so apart from "looking hard on terror" what does it achieve? Nothing.

[Ali Gledhill]

Dale @ 20:41: People are doing serious damage by criticising David Davis on this site.

I cannot imagine that the Editors were too happy with being quoting at PMQs, but that is no reason to stop writing. Debate and discussion should not be suffocated for fear of having your voice heard!

[Dale]

"I cannot imagine that the Editors were too happy with being quoting at PMQs, but that is no reason to stop writing. Debate and discussion should not be suffocated for fear of having your voice heard!"

I hardly think expresing an opinion on an important issue that is against the party line is comparable to mud slinging.

Brown only quoted an editoial of conhome, the bbc are reading the comments and the names of the posters while showing screenshots of the comments.

The only name I remember was Graeme Archer, but there were several comments about rifts between David and Cameron, which we all know, is simply untrue.

[One marcus]

Dale Said: People are doing serious damage by criticising David Davis on this site.

That is rubbish DD did serious damage by taking this ill conceived ill thought out move. I am very annoyed that he has let Brown off the hook as I said rather than debate the abuse of parliament yesterday we are debating DD. There was a wide open net and he only had to put the ball in that net but instead he has turned round and scored a goal in his own net.

[Dale]

"That is rubbish DD did serious damage by taking this ill conceived ill thought out move. I am very annoyed that he has let Brown off the hook as I said rather than debate the abuse of parliament yesterday we are debating DD. There was a wide open net and he only had to put the ball in that net but instead he has turned round and scored a goal in his own net."

By the bbc's own admission, you are not repesentative of the public who apperently regard his as a principled stance.

[Norm Brainer]

"By the bbc's own admission, you are not repesentative of the public who apperently regard his as a principled stance."

.... and not representative of this site too given the survey results and the mostly positive comments!

[Dale]

Sorry to double post, but I would be extremely wary of these noobies, who seem to have appeared this evening.

[Alexander King]

F T P Topcliff | June 12, 2008 at 20:28

What are you on about, man?

Fascism? Roman Catholic centralism? Charles I? World War II?

Do you really think that a difference of onpion over 14 extra days deserves such ludicrous epithets?