Dominic Grieve: Tories will repeal 42 days

In his first announcement as the new Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve confirmed that the Conservatives will repeal 42 days pre-charge detention if it is passed.

Our congratulations to Dominic Grieve.  He is a true gentleman and has been passed over for too long.

He was Conservative members' top choice for the shadow cabinet in our turn-of-the-year poll.

Comments

[Deborah]

Excellent announcement. That puts paid to rumours that Davis and Cameron disagreed on the need to repeal

[Frank McGarry]

Well done, Dominic!
A clear message and quickly delivered.
Congratulations on both counts.

[Jack Stone]

David Cameron should have taken this opportunity to appoint someone as Home Secretary who may come up with some enlightened policies that will fight crime without putting more youngsters in jail than any other developed country in the world not someone who seems to be from the hang them and flog `em brigade!

[englandism.com]

Heroic. Triumph for liberty. Making a stand for the people!

Is it just me, obviously, but didn’t the polls indicate that the inconvenient electorate actually support 42 day detention by a factor of 2/3?

Sure, burble on about liberal democracy by extolling the former and ignoring the latter: The will of the people. Democracy but only if we, the cowed masses, have the correct opinion.

Threat to Magna Carta? Well, what is the screaming great monster of the Lisbon Treaty supposed to be about then if we are talking about the fundamental basis of English rights?

Resign over that not some blinking side show that will affect virtually no one other than a limited number of self-combusting killers intent upon? What? Defending the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta?

Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Whatever:

Off with their heads!

[Edison Smith]

It's a no-brainer.

If for anything else it will allow Davis to rejoin the Conservative Cabinet with a clear conscience when re-elected.

If he was to re-join a party not pledged to undoing Labour's damage, his entire campaign would look like - and would be - a complete farrago.

[A]

It is a shame he is unable to ever even ask for the party line when he speaks on issues outside his brief (which is regular occurence) and will probably prove to be an enormous problem

[Bluesword]

Talking to my friends and colleagues - most have not paid much attention to the 42 days argument. They do not take such an interest in politics as I do.

This resignation has made them sit up and take an interest in the whole subject of the erosion of our liberties.

It is a high risk strategy and I applaud DD's stance on the issue. With luck he will be re-elected as a conservative to be included in a possible Summer reshuffle.

[A]

Thinking about it, I would put money that Grieve announced the party would repeal 42 days without bothering to check with DC.

[John Strafford]

Congratulations to Dominic Grieve. He will do a great job. I know, he is my Constituency MP and he has done a great job for the Constituency. Sure footed, listens, principled, and good on TV. A star in the making.

[Dale]

Wouldn't it have been better to inject some young blood into the shadow cabinet?

Dominic Grieve's insubordinaton has been a cause for concern for some time.

[Conand]

Great news! He was wondeful in his first interview for BBC in the new post.
This shows the wealth of talent we have on the Conservative benches (not to mention in the candidates around the countries of the UK)
I totally support what Davis, Grieve and Cameron have said.
If Labour don't run against Davis to make it a sideshow I look forward to Diane Abbot and Bob Marshall-Andrews campaigning with David Davis. (Or maybe they will even if Labour do put a candidate, that's where it gets very interesting!)

[ACT]

A very neat piece of work by Davis (& Grieve), bouncing Cameron into doing what he absolutely refused to do before: committing to repeal 42 days. Next stop: bouncing a Lisbon commitment out of him.

[Jay]

BAD comb-over. Urgently needs image make-over.

[Robert Simpson]

Congratulations to Dominic Grieve - I saw him speak a few months ago and was extremely impressed with how eloquent and quick-thinking he was. An inspired appointment, and all the better for being one made without any hesitatio, plugging the gap left by DD in time for the news bulletins.

[Kirsty]

Has David Cameron lost his mind? Dominic Grieve? Another White, middle aged, elitest, man in the shadow cabinet, GREAT NOT!

[Tel, spain]

Dominic Grieve is a disastrous choice. He has not got a profile with the public, he seems a bit of a geek and I do not think he is the right person to take on Jacqui Smith.

[David T]

I don't understand why Davis Davis resigned then. What's the point of it?

The only rationale I can imagine is:

1. Cameron said "Sorry Davis, I won't commit the party to repealing 42 days. It is a good stick to beat Labour with now, but the voters won't buy it"

2. Davis Davis thinks "Right then, I'll resign, have a by election, get the Lib Dems to promise not to run against me, and then when I win, claim that the public has overwhelmingly backed my principled stand against 42 days"

3. Cameron thinks "Oh dear. Everybody will think that I have no control over my front bench!!! This is a disaster!!! What are we going to do!!! I know - I'll get Grieve to announce that we'll repeal it when we get into power. Then NOBODY can say that there's a split."

[not happy]

Grieve just represents the stereo-typical Tory!

[ANNOYED]

I cannot believe this has the Tory party taken leave of it's senses?? Just when Brown was on the ropes, he has now been given a reprieve. The media has now been given the narrative they crave:

'Tories in disarray' and 'Tories are split'.

And DOMINIC GRIEVE as a replacement, PATHETIC!

[Carol-Ann]

Why do the leadership and frontbench not understand Brown is RIGHT on this issue. The public support him and want tough terror laws. There are so many other, much more important issues to people at large, that the Tories could take a stand against Brown on. This is sheer madness!

[James Cleverly]

Those on here giving Dominic a hard time for being white and male need to get a grip!

He has shown himself to be highly effective, playing an instrumental role in taking the scalps of more than one Home Secretary.

He is a good choice and I for one am very pleased with this choice. For what it's worth I have rated him highly for years.

[David T]

Oh, this is a very small point, but vaguely relevant.

http://tinyurl.com/4z22us

Here is the "National Rally to Defend Freedom of Religion, Conscience and Thought" which Grieve participated in a couple of years ago.

The National Rally was co-organised between Liberty and an outfit called the British Muslim Initiative. The British Muslim Initiative is a Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood front organisation, run by a man called Azzam Tamimi, who is the Hamas "Special Envoy", and who famously appeared on TV declaring his desire to act as a suicide bomber.

At the time, I thought that Grieve was utterly clueless to have allowed himself to get involved with this outfit.

[Tina]

Dominic Grieve is a rubbish choice for home sec. He does not resonate with the public and has a very strange voice.

[Alex S]

Is it true the party get to choose the day of the by election? If so i think it should be in 42 days from now. This will show people just how long potentially these people could be held. Just a thought?

Oh and why are people complaning about Dominic when Davis was himself white, male and middle aged and he proved himself very capable.

[STAN, UK]

Cameron is off his head! Allowing Davis to go banging on about CCTV, DNA databases, 42 days detention is lunacy. The public support government policy on these issues that is why they have elected them at the last three general elections!

[bluepatriot]

Grieve is great but I'm surprised that DC didn't install an acting Shadow Home Sec so that DD could return.

[PATHETIC]

This is a kamakazee mission and has now just highlighted the tories as being out of touch and fundamentalist. All the good work that has been done to make us electable again has just been ruined. I am very annoyed!

[grumpy old man]

Just take a look at the weasel-wording used in the 42 days opinion poll survey. People were asked if they were in favour of 42 days IN AN EMERGENCY. Without that qualifying phrase, the result could have been very different.

[GRIEVE, MADNESS]

I CANNOT BELIEVE CAMERON HAS APPOINTED DOMINIC GRIEVE. DOES ANYONE HONESTLY THINK THE AVERAGE JOE CAN NAME GRIEVE OR WOULD IDENTIFY WITH HIM?

[David_McD]

So, if DD agrees with DC and the rest of the Tory High Command, what is all the fuss about?

[soft on terror tories]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN. SAME INDIVIDUAL MAKING MULTIPLE COMMENTS UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES.

[Libertarian]

"I don't understand why Davis Davis resigned then. What's the point of it?

The only rationale I can imagine is:

1. Cameron said "Sorry Davis, I won't commit the party to repealing 42 days. It is a good stick to beat Labour with now, but the voters won't buy it"

2. Davis Davis thinks "Right then, I'll resign, have a by election, get the Lib Dems to promise not to run against me, and then when I win, claim that the public has overwhelmingly backed my principled stand against 42 days"

3. Cameron thinks "Oh dear. Everybody will think that I have no control over my front bench!!! This is a disaster!!! What are we going to do!!! I know - I'll get Grieve to announce that we'll repeal it when we get into power. Then NOBODY can say that there's a split."

Posted by: David T | June 12, 2008 at 16:28"

Spot on! The Cameroon neo-cons, e.g. Michael Gove and the Policy Exchange crowd, support 42 days. Davis called their bluff!

[Tories not ready for government!]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN. SAME INDIVIDUAL MAKING MULTIPLE COMMENTS UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES.

[David T]

But Davis Davis was in favour of 28 days.

So when did his principled Magna Carta based objection kick in? 29 days? 34? Would he have been ok with 41 days?

I'm unconvinced by 42 days - but only because the Government didn't make the case. But frankly, I'm amazed to find the Tory Party - not traditionally party of civil libertarians - has an ex-Shadow Home Secretary who'll go to the faux-stake on this issue!

[Publius]

The bewilderment of so many commentators just betrays how totally they have ceased to be able to recognise an act of principle on an important question. Instead they search for low motives everywhere.

DD's stand exposes Gordon Brown's low, grubbing venal politicking for what it is.

[johnC]

Another day of totally biassed reporting by the BBC. Following their attempt to spin the Davis bombshell as a setback for Cameron they are running a story with the headline 'Cameron heckled in Cornwall' which on closer inspection turns out to be someone using the presence of TV cameras to complain about the appalling state of the health service despite Labour's wasted millions. All we need now is a Crick non-story about Dominic Grieve on Newsnight.

[Francis]

If i, or you were to be arrested and held for 42 days without charge and then released without charge would we smile and say it was for the "greater good?"

[Cllr Chris Cooke]

Is that promise to repeal this 42 day thing very similar to the Labour promise to hold a vote on the EU Constitution (er - sorry - Treaty)? Isn't this the problem? How can you trust any politicians promises anymore?

That said. I would have far more respect for a Tory party led by David Davis than by David Cameron.

[HF]

I agree with the Editor, DC has made a very good choice in Dominic.

Impressive that he has acted so quickly.

[Alexander King]

This is short-term politics from Grieve.

What happens if there is another terrorist attack between now and the election? We will look like complete plonkers in promising to repeal 42 days,

Let's hope this foolish policy is quietly dropped between now and the election.

[David]

"What happens if there is another terrorist attack between now and the election? We will look like complete plonkers in promising to repeal 42 days,"

Why the immediate assumption that 42 days would have prevented an attack?

I could as easily say the same as regards a 2 year period.

[Caroline Strafford]

Congratulations to my MP Dominic Grieve. I have been very impressed around our constituency how people of differing political persuasions, faiths and ethnic origins have nothing but praise for Dominic. He is a politician of integrity, honesty, kindness and ability. He speaks eloquently, remains calm and unflappable when interviewed by Jeremy Paxman. He will do a first class job.

[Alexander King]

David | June 12, 2008 at 17:39

That is not the assumption I am making.

The point is that to look soft on terror at the time of another attack would be suicidal for this party.

We need to be very careful not to get on the wrong side of the public on this issue. We are supposed to be a government-in-waiting - not the Liberal Democrats.

We do not have the luxury of striking principled poses.

[David (One of many)]

Wow, Alexander King has something negative and cynical to to say. There's a surprise. The fact that public support might galvanise in the face of an attack does not mean we should surrender liberties in this fashion. A fashion which, might I add, has not been asked for by a consensus of law enforcement agencies. Gordon Brown woke up one morning and decided to present himself as tough on terrorism by extending the limit.

[Norm Brainer]

How can you say that this is looking soft on terror?
Brown is looking soft on terror by giving in to it.

I always wonder if people in other countries look at us and say "why do they stand for it?" in the same way as we wonder why those in dictatorships do.
Davis standing up like this stops us being the laughing stock of the civilised world.
It makes the conservatives look like a party of principals, aided by Grieve's excellent statements/interviews today.
It makes labour look like the wannabe authoritarian shambles that they are.

[David]

"That is not the assumption I am making. "

It is if you believe that to oppose a signficant infringement of our liberties is "soft on terror". There is no other logical conclusion to draw.

"We need to be very careful not to get on the wrong side of the public on this issue. We are supposed to be a government-in-waiting - not the Liberal Democrats. "

Being a government in waiting often means making seemingly unpopular choices for the bigger picture. I suspect a poll worded on civil liberties would show significant public opposition to the 42 day policy.

"We do not have the luxury of striking principled poses. "

Which makes it all the more important to do so, particularly with respect to our freedoms. It would be easy to just lock people up, round them up into camps until they can prove they are innocent. However, last time I looked, the principle was that they had to be proven guilty.

[Steve Green (Daily Referendum Blog).]

Good Choice. I'm sure DD had something to do with choosing his replacement. After hearing speak to the press today, Labour should be even more worried about the Shadow home sec.

[Alexander King]

David, Norm, and David: If you think that this policy would not look soft on terror in the event of another terrorist attack, then you are not living in the real world.

I'm not saying that it IS soft on teror - I think it would be silly to say such a thing. I'm saying that this is how it would be perceived - and how it would be presented by Labour.

And if Dominic Grieve really is standing up for an important principle? Then fair enough - so long as you don't all start complaining when this policy gets us into major trouble a little way down the road.

My great fear is that our opposition to 42 days is nothing more than centrist positioning. Ordinarily, I would be in all favour of such positioning. But when it comes to national security? Dodgy, dodgy territory...

[Owen Meredith]

We should really be clever with this , and move the rit at a time that gives us 42 days from today until polling. That would really prove the point, and demonstrate just how long this time period is!

[David (One of many)]

Alex, I would agree that this might look soft on terror, but I'd also submit that it shouldn't look as such. More than anything else, what DD and the Conservatives will have to outline is how this is a false solution and an unjust one at that. If you want to really get tough on terrorism, you need to get to the roots. You need to expel radical preachers, get sentencing right, and stop all this multi-cultural balls that is creating extremist ghettos in Britain. Those people who assisted the 21/7 bombers have just got between 10 and 15 years in prison. The attempted bombers themselves got life - 25 years. Why are any of them even being considered for release, ever? I'm going to paraphrase him massively, but before he became Chief Whitewasher for Tony Blair, Lord Hutton said something I have always agreed with. Remember, this is massively paraphrased: 'If, before you convict someone of a serious crime, you conducted your investigation properly, made sure the accused was never subject to unfair or unjust practices, and maintained values throughout, you are then entirely justified to shit on them from the greatest possible height when the sentence is passed'. Told you it was paraphrased ;)

[Wise Old Hand]

What is happening with all this fuss, overeaction and scaremongering? DD has gone and hopefully he will be The Home Secretary in any future Consevative Government in the future. In the meantime support the incumbant DG and let Labour get on with their discussions and problems.

[Helen]

Amazing how important that public support has suddenly become. The public also supports by a much larger majority the holding of a referendum on Constitutional Treaty Mark II, a.k.a the Lisbon Treaty. I take it all those in favour of listening to the public at its most illiberal and thoughtless (any reason to suppose the police will be able to do in 42 days they cannot do in 28?) are also in favour of the Conservative Party promising a referendum on that. No? Oh dear.

[David]

"I'm saying that this is how it would be perceived"

Well, clearly you place very little on civil liberties, appearing to be willing to give them up for mere perceptions, so it's really not worth debating further.

[Marjorie Bailey]

It was David Davies's attack on the whole of the way that our civil liberties are being eroded. As a matter of principal I am not interested in allowing my details to be put on the NHS data base. I have written to my GP to ask him/her to refrain from doing this. If we all did it, the Government would have nothing to collate! I am with Mr Davies 100%. Terrific to see an MP with principles he believes in and adheres to. Where do we send donations to his campaign fund?

[David Parker]

Whatever David Davis's ultimate motivations, he has, at the very least, highlighted the fact that there are still major, and important, conflicts of fundamental principle and policy within the Conservative party. Hitherto these have been carefully, but less than honestly, kept under wraps by both factions, for fear of damaging the current party resurgence in the polls. Upon the one side there are those who believe that regaining power, by whatever means, is all important and that only thereafter will they need to resolve their internal differences and decide which electoral promises they will actually attempt to honour. There is an equally strong faction which believes that the Conservative party must now clearly define its fundamental core beliefs and policies and campaign upon these, regardless of fickle swings of public approval or disapproval, but with the genuine intention of implementing their manifesto promises. Under present conditions this tacitly agreed suppression of internal differences is pragmatic and understandable, however, it is certainly neither principled nor permanent.

If there is to be an idealogical split within the Tory party, there is still just time for this, temporarily damaging though it may be, for the electorate to have a more honest and genuine choice of a really different Conservative party at the next general election.

Equally obviously, however, if the Tories fail to recognise or address this fundamental internal difference, they may eventually find themselves struggling to achieve the power which they so desperately desire,even to the extent of being forced to form a minority or coalition government in a Britain crippled by the ineptitude of their predecessors.

[david1]

It will be very interesting to see if the BNP run a candidate, perhaps even Nick Griffin.

[david1]

N.B.

To Marjorie, its Davis, Davis is the English spelling, Davies the Welsh!!

[Ulster Tory]

RE: Kirsty @ 16:25

"Has David Cameron lost his mind? Dominic Grieve? Another White, middle aged, elitest, man in the shadow cabinet, GREAT NOT!"

Another Racist, Ageist, Sexist comment in this article, GREAT NOT!

[Alexander King]

BNP are not running a candidate apparently.

Which is strange because I'd have thought there's nothing they'd love more than to campaign for banging up Muslims for longer.

[Goldie]

Unfortunately, Grieve comes across as a bit of a dweeb. Not the right man for this job.

[Rod Sellers]

Editor. The time has now surely come to BAN posts under obvious alias's or joke names. I someone wants to make up a false name there is little you can do but why allow extreme comments with no name or pack drill ?

[Mary O'Boyle]

I would have thought that anyone in the country was good enough to take on Jackie Smith 'lots of laughter Mo.b