It Was Worth It
ConservativeHome and PoliticsHome yesterday questioned the value of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. They countered the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and ICM’s poll showing a majority of people against 42-day detention with their own PHI5000 poll showing a negligible change in opinion before and after the campaign. This was backed up by UK Polling Report’s Anthony Wells, who took issue with ICM’s methodology, accusing them of skewing the result by asking leading questions.
The PHI5000 poll however is just as flawed, at least, as ICM’s. The debate revolves around context: Wells claims that ICM is prejudicing the outcome of their poll by inserting context. Anyone who has watched Yes Prime Minister! will know how exactly what he means. The problem here however is that the context is vital to assessing Davis’ campaign. Unlike either poll’s sample, the voters of Haltemprice and Howden went to the polls after weeks of campaigning revolving around the issue. They would, naturally, be better informed. ICM’s inclusion of the “leading” reference at the beginning had the effect of replicating the mindset of voters in the by-election.
Politicians like to claim that “the only poll that counts” is the one organised by the Electoral Commission. Davis’ campaign revolved around challenging the orthodoxy that the public backed the 42-day detention by holding just such a poll. The conflict between the ICM and PHI5000 figures demonstrates exactly why this was necessary. The opinion polls could not be trusted to provide an accurate result, and so a mini-referendum was held instead.
Neither poll is better than the other: they look at the question in different ways. What they show however is that when put into context, the public oppose 42-day detention. Davis’ campaign was to provide that context to the public at large in order to elevate the tone of debate. At the very least, the campaign was worth it to provide a better barometer of opinion on the issue than an abstract poll that ignores other relevant factors. The results of the poll vindicate his decision: the turnout was respectable and the majority significant.
The claim that “the public” support 42 days is now squashed. Regardless of how you interpret the results, the government can no longer argue that there is a strong public desire to lengthen the period of detention without charge; if there had been, Davis would not have been returned. He should be congratulated for his efforts.
Sphere: Related ContentGovernment Debates Davis
Sky News organised a debate between David Davis and Tony McNulty over the central issues of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. This may be the closest we get to an actual debate with the government over the issue, so I’ve reproduced it here.
Sphere: Related ContentBravo David Davis
David Davis’ resignation as an MP last night is a move that ought to be welcomed by all who favour good government and the protection of the rights of the citizen. The arguments presented in the House of Commons throughout yesterday in favour of extending pre-charge detention were notable by their absence. Much like the justifications printed in The Sun, on close inspection the case is much weaker than one would believe (of their much-touted “42 reasons for 42 days, 34 were not reasons but simply statements of “Look! There’s a shifty man with a beard over there!”) They boiled down to the following:
- The police want it so they must get it;
- We might need longer in the future;
- It’s popular.
The first argument I have addressed rather exhaustively in a previous post on this blog, so I will not repeat it unnecessarily. The second has also been addressed, but I will add two extra points: first, there is no reason why legislating if the need arises in the future need be “knee jerk”. The only reason such legislation has been in the past is because the government has a tendency of acting like headless chickens in a crisis. It is perfectly conceivable that the Commons could introduce good legislation on the issue if it were not unduly pressured by the government to chase the relevant Daily Mail headline. This point is tantamount to an admission by Gordon Brown that the image he cultivated last year of being calm and firm in a crisis is a myth.
The third argument however is far more deceitful. Certainly, on the face of it, the polls do suggest that an extension of pre-charge detention is popular. However this is because the public have been misled by the government as to the alternatives. When faced with the two options of “do something” or “do nothing” in regards to terrorism, the public will naturally (and correctly) favour doing something. Nevertheless this does not equate to a mandate for draconianism. The polling presents a false choice where the only means of “doing something” is to extend pre-charge detention. Numerous alternatives exist, ranging from the admission of intercept evidence to allowing greater post-charge questioning. Any curtailing of Habeas Corpus should only occur after the alternatives have been exhausted. In this case it is clear that they have not. Were the public to be polled on the issue presented with the alternatives, the level of support for the government would no doubt drop. Were they to be informed of much of the practice of this current measure likewise, the level of support would further decrease. Gordon Brown however seems insistent on presenting 42-day detention as the only means of combating terrorism, and weakening our capability to effectively counter it by shutting down reasoned debate on the problem.
The comment by Gordon Brown in Prime Minister’s Questions that something “cannot be both draconian and useless” is also rather ill-informed. Draconian measures often prove in the end to be useless by undermining the support for the underlying aims of the policy they are meant to advance. Sir Robert Peel’s reforms of the death penalty acknowledged this, as did Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish. The draconianism of policies ultimately evokes popular opposition that undermines the effectiveness and legitimacy of the law. They become useless because their unpopularity means that people are unwilling to support it. The present measure combines both a draconian message that will alienate the very people the government needs to get on board to combat terrorism, and will be a useless weapon because of it.
The government won by the worst combination of pork-barrel politics, bribery and factionalism. Debate was replaced by MPs voting for self-interest. Gordon Brown sold any claim to statesmanship he had last night with this desperate series of bribes to various sectional interest groups. He then insulted the intelligence of the electorate by insisting that no such deals had been made. To invoke the Parliament Act subsequently to ram it through potential opposition in the Lords would further undermine the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom.
I met David Davis during the Conservative leadership campaign. He is a man of principle and conviction. This decision will not have been an easy one for him to make, but nonetheless it is the right one. A victory in the resulting by-election will undermine the claim to a popular mandate that is tacitly required for invoking the Parliament Act. It will also commit the Conservative Party to the side of liberty over the worst sort of creeping authoritarianism that has characterised the Home Office in recent years. It will also open the debate on liberty and security to the public at large, hopefully undermining the simplistic and false dichotomy newspapers such as The Sun have presented.
He is right to challenge the attitude in government that the rights of the British people should be trampled on, ranging from ID cards to the right to a trial by jury, and the arrogant attitude that one is guilty until proven otherwise. The government has placed itself on the opposing side of freedom on nearly every issue imaginable. This principled stand against the erosion of the traditional rights and liberties of the British is long overdue. Bravo to David Davis and good luck.
Sphere: Related Content
