But this is no wish list - it was an attempt to provide some form, other than simply accepting that which DD has offered. If you have a better idea, suggest it. If not, contact me.

Your fourth I’m confused by—he has resigned as an MP, so how can he make a statement in Parliament? And your 5th does indeed seem to be the basic point of his campaign already.

Would there be a general agreement that those conditions be

1. That DD retract his support for the abolishment of the HRA.

2. That DD retract his support for the death penalty.

3. That DD promises not to support either in future by vote, by act nor by word.

4. That DD first makes a clear public statement on these conditions in Parliament before any support be extended.

5. That the “war on terror” will not become a pretext for further encroachment on civil liberties and human rights?

To have the chance to put these to the candidate could be revealing. If these could be agreed on, then I, for one, would support actively with immediate effect.

To encapsulate your point: ’sup with the devil with a long spoon’? Would that be a fair analysis? If so, it is one I’d agree with.

But I don’t think a Liberal Conspiracy should allow itself to be marginalised in the civil liberties debate by a Right Wing Tory. Even if that means agreeing with him on the single point he has raised.

Most of us are against 42 day detention, I think. And, as long as that - or it’s close relatives like DNA databases and ID cards - is the extent of his campaign, we should give it conditional backing. With the word conditional being in capital letters. On these issues, and this issues only.

Avoiding the debate just makes us look, well, Labour.

If we want to make a difference, here is an opportunity. It is up to us to figure out how to exploit it. So, your point about a negotiated support is well taken.

1. Has David Davis sought wider support from Human Rights groups and NGOs, and is he getting it? The Liberty statement from 12th June is brief, and clearly does not indicate any negotiations having taken place, nor a stance on his election campaign.

2. Has David Davis indicated any softening of his views elsewhere in the civil liberties debate?

3. What are the means of preventing David Davis from helping abolish the HRA, selling the message of a specific mandate of civil liberties campaigners?

4. What are the means of preventing David Davis from campaigning for the death penalty under the same false pretence? Consider the media support he would have on these two points.

5. Would either of these two outcomes lead you to regret lending support to the current campaign? If so, how can they be guaranteed not to occur? Would official support from a leading civil rights organisation be enough to extract certain important promises?

6. How would the left regather itself without a Labour Party to defend it, and with a Tory party that claims to have its full support?

7. Not detracting from the substance of the 42-day debate and surrounding issues, but are they worth sacrificing the HRA over? And risking introduction of the death penalty?

8. What if Davis isn’t seeking the leadership, but is adopting the good cop role for the long-term? Shouldn’t we wait to see what the Cameron has to say about official party policy, or attempt to extract solid promises, before worrying about a name?

9. Both parties’ policy on Iran will increase the threat to Britain. If they continue, another, more fatal, attack seems hard not to imagine. What then, under a potential huge Tory majority, will civil liberties mean to David Davis and the Conservatives? These policies must be linked to wider policies that compromise national security, then use that damage as an excuse to impose further breaches of liberty.

10. I admire what appears to be a courageous stand. But human rights and civil liberties are inseparable. How can someone become national spokesperson on these matters when they clearly lack an understanding of the interdependency of rights and liberties? You simply can’t pick and choose - and this man’s choice happens to be one that could collapse his opponents in Government. That makes me, at least, suspicious enough to say I would ask for more before voting Conservative.

To those who say that this is a one-issue vote and we must be pragmatic - be pragmatic. This could well be much bigger than one issue, and you need to be prepared for that eventuality. If this issue is worth his resignation, it is also worth some negotiation before committing support. I do not want to appear unnecessarily negative; I’ll finish where I started - this is extremely encouraging stuff.

That is the essential point. If Davis was standing purely on the issue of 42 days detention I would certainly support him but if he is standing on a wider “civil liberties” platform then it is much more difficult.

Well, contribute, why don’t you? :-)

I agree with you completely. What does that make us, a gang of two? How do we progress this?

Perhaps wiser heads than ours are taking the weekend to think about it, but frankly we should be using this weekend to determine whether we can establish a liberal / libertarian position that would allow us to support David Davies without getting tainted with the illiberal / illibertarian shit he spouts on other issues.

I believe that the issue of 42 day detention has been sold to the general public as a soap powder, a product that will ensure your safety and white nappies for your children. When it is in fact another civil liberty withdrawn by a State that thinks it can, knows it can and then treats us as idiots. I think that sort of invidious propoganda needs to be put to rest, once and for all.

I’d prefer everyone to be upfront. Is Davies supportable on this single issue, or is he not?

I can’t help but think that your efforts would be better used in lobbying the politicians

We’ll be doing that too. But it’s a lot easier to lobby elected politicians if you can make the case to people and voters and show there’s genuine opposition to it.

To do that, you need a debate on the issues, which this forces, Murdoch and the Sun are now firmly behind the Govt case, we oppose alongside a lot of others. The public debate needs to be had, and we need to win it.

If we leave it and opinion polls continue to “back” the measure, then politicians have no motivation to block the measure, Tories in the HoL may decide it’s OK (many of them will want to), etc. Lobbying politicians is fine to deonstrate a principle, but to actually win an argument, you need to persuade the country.

Let’s do that.

‘The Labour party has today changed its emblem from a rose to a condom. This more accurately reflects this government’s political stance.

A condom
- allows for inflation
- halts production
- destroys the nexr generation
- protects a bunch of pr*cks

And gives you a sense of security while you are actually being f*cked’

Go for it David Davis. Ignore the politicians - they have their own agenda (geting/increasing their own power, or holding on to it)
Ignore the newspapers - there agenda seems to be supporting their political buddies at the expense of the population.

This is a sideshow that will keep Davis and Kelvin in the limelight whilst keeping the real debate on the sidelines. As long as we have the spectacle of ‘mad’ Mackenzie and ‘mad’ Davis on the TV screens, the ‘mad’ idea of 42 days detention will be glossed over. No amount of liberal bloggers turning up to lecture bemused constituents in H+H will change that.

Davis is right about his use of the term ’strangulation’ of our liberties, for that is what it is: not a sudden assault but a more insidious and creeping process….a line must be drawn and a stand must be made. It is a stand that should involve all good folk…not just Lib Dems and Tories but also Labour activists and I suspect a whole raft of people previously apathetic or disillusioned.

On the balance of probabilities, I would be pretty confident that there was not a single adult Jew who died in Auschwitz who hadn’t done something that most of us would not fully approve of. However, that does not make the victims of another police state morally equivalent to the SS who operated the gas chambers. Just because you don’t like Davis’s view on the death penalty or clause 28 doesn’t mean you should not support him in this context.

To quote Churchill: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

Failing to support Davis - even with reservations - is supporting 42 days, ID cards, universal surveillance and the database police state, just get over your 4th form squemishness and join the real world. Oh yes, you will also be supporting Rupert Murdoch.

It is also an opportunity to say to both the major political parties (who are both embarrased by this episode) that there are people who care about these issues.

Also, we already have an influential, non-politically-aligned pro-civil liberties organisation and very good they are too. What I find shocking about events in the last few years is not just the various infringements of our civil liberties which we have seen but that it is a Labour government which has been responsible. What’s more I have been genuinely shocked by certain comments on the subject I’ve seen from some Labour party members on other blogs. For me support for civil liberties has always been a fundamental aspect of a centre-left viewpoint and I really worry that the Labour Party is losing its soul on this issue. Therefore what really would interest me is a movement championing civil liberties in a wider centre-left-liberal context. To demonstrate a real alternative to New Labour thinking not only on civil liberties but on issues such as foreign intervention (especially relevant given Conor’s potential involvement) and public services.