Canvassing in Haltemprice and Howden


by Anthony Barnett    
July 11, 2008 at 2:16 am

“It’s a total waste of bloody money!”; “I have not made my mind up yet”; “I’ve voted for him already” (one of 10,000 postal ballots requested, 59 per cent sent them in); “I just don’t know about politics, I don’t vote.

A lady somewhere will be turning in her grave” (clearly meaning her mother); “I never thought I’d vote Tory, but this time I will” (an enthusiastic Lib-Dem); “Look at all these leaflets!”; Definitely I’m voting for Mr Davis … I don’t need a car thank you, my son will walk me there”.

I canvassed for David Davis on the eve of the by-election. The uncertain did not want to discuss. We had a single conversation with a man who did raise 42 days - he was for locking them up, but not, on consideration, if they were innocent. Davis’s core team is very competent. But it is hard for them. Many voters are puzzled about why David Davis has done it, especially Conservative voters. I’ll come back to this, his core problem at the moment. But also party activists who worked especially hard to ensure he won the constituency in 2005 to frustrate the Lib-Dem’s “decapitation strategy”. They backed a leader. They wanted him to be Home Secretary.

Now, on election day many will be fifty miles away for the close of the 150th Great Yorkshire Show of agriculture and country life at Harrogate rather than mobilising turnout. While some of the Conservative voters are enthusiastic for his call many others don’t think it is a Tory issue. But then, there are non-voters who have pricked up their ears and admire Davis as much for his demonstration of integrity as out of concern for the issue.

I also attended a packed and perfect lunchtime meeting, a small rally with quiche. Bob Marshall-Andrews opened with a wonderfully funny short speech, in part drawn from a great piece he wrote for the Yorkshire Post that Tom has already blogged. I hope Bob will publish his list of Labour’s iniquities in OK. He laid special emphasis on how regular forms of protest, for example against GM crops, are now being defined as acts of terrorism.

Rachel North followed, her presentation was quite exceptional. Starting from the experience in a carriage of 7/7 she said the terrorists want us to “lash out”. Their outreach is our panic, their aim to spread fear, sow division, and “turn our nightmares against us”. “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything” she concluded to great applause. It was hard for Shami to follow, but she did a great job, projecting the need to be firm on principle but practical. One of her many strengths as a campaigner is unique: she makes the audience feel safe in her hands (usually charismatic leaders make one feel slight nervous as well as elevated and inspired).

In the questions, Rachel was asked if the victims of 7/7 had been consulted. “NO”, she said, but she was glad. “It is not appropriate to make law on the basis of feelings”

Davis was asked why he had not resigned over the Lisbon Treaty, surely this was a much greater threat to our way of life (a point, indeed, made by one of the citizens we canvassed as his explanation of why he would not vote). DD replied that while he was very happy with the Irish vote there was nothing he could do as an individual to change Brown’s policy on the EU. Whereas, even if 42 days is defeated in the Lords it would come back to the Commons. But if everyone in Westminster still believed that 69 per cent of the public supported 42 days it would go through, with much else sucked behind it. Whereas now, he argued, his action had already sparked a wide debate. One that seems already to be shifting opinion (he had read out the Rowntree ICM poll result at the start of the meeting).

This is quite a difficult argument to communicate especially because it has an unstated, implicit criticism of his own leader’s potential for backsliding. DD’s action has these justifications:

1. Parliament is suborned it now cannot stop 42 days
2. The Lords isn’t and may force parliament to vote again
3. This vote CAN be won, but only by public support
4. This can’t happen without DD’s knight’s move

But this is a hard argument to get across. It is, as Davis said at the meeting, the start of a ten year effort.

So, my three memories of canvassing for freedom: Fine, tall trees, hedges, bushes and greenery (a good omen); drizzle, damp and overcast skys (a bad omen); hairy letterboxes (unspeakable!).

· About the author: This is a guest post. Anthony Barnett is editor of the blog Our Kingdom and a founder member of OpenDemocracy and Charter 88.

· Other posts by Anthony Barnett

· About this article:
Print it   |   Trackback link   |   Track comments   |   send to del.icio.us   |   to Facebook
Filed under: Blog , Civil liberties , Conservative Party , Our democracy , Realpolitik , Westminster


4 Comments in response   ||   Add your own



[...] when it becomes clear after Anthony Barnett’s “ten year fight” that actually Davis’ “knight’s move” changed [...]

at 1:56 pm on July 14, 2008
- direct link -  
2.  comment by
     ukliberty

He laid special emphasis on how regular forms of protest, for example against GM crops, are now being defined as acts of terrorism.

Do you mean the protests where property is destroyed?

Such actions do fall within the legal definition of terrorism. I’m not sure they should be classed as terrorism, but they certainly seem wrong.

at 2:10 pm on July 14, 2008
- direct link -  
3.  comment by
     Lee Griffin

Coupled with the fact we can’t deal with the food situation we’re in without GM foods and I think it’s a prime example of terrorism. ;)

at 2:36 pm on July 14, 2008
- direct link -  
4.  comment by
     thomas

um, isn’t there a legal problem with defining unharvested crops as property, seeing as land can’t technically be destroyed?

From what I’ve seen criminal damage and trespassing already adequately covers this area of law, but these lesser laws don’t confer sufficient powers which address the political context of their commission and therefore are less of a priority when it comes to allocating enforcement resources.

In this sense the artificial creation of the new term ‘terrorism’ is understandably applied to protests, but it fails to take into account the distinction between the various natures of non-violent protesting (traffic disturbance, trespass etc) and politically motivated crimes (bombing, murder etc).

As such it is not even a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but of using the sledgehammer to cut a cake - it is prinicpally a matter of using legislation to paper over the cracks opened up by insufficient resources for law-enforcement.

Getting back to the topic at hand, this is where DD’s single-issue crusade falls down. Civil liberties aren’t enough on their own, they demand institutional and organisational support to prevent chaos and repression entering the vacuum left by any neglect.

In this way a good police force, properly trained, regulated and sufficiently resouced for the job becomes a force for liberty, when a demoralised, confused and stretched force becomes a tool of authoritarianism.

Post a comment using the form below

  • We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
  • We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.
  • Abusive, sarcastic or silly comments may be deleted.
  • Misogynist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic comments will be deleted.
  • Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy.

HERE AND THERE
Featured blogs

Boris - the gaffopedia


David Lammy MP -

Can we follow Obama's lead?


Lynne Featherstone MP -

What about the dads?



Recently popular
The 'Gordon Brown is insane' meme
(160 replies)

A-Z of right-wing online commenting
(116 replies)

Lesbian mothers and 'traditional' families
(111 replies)

Should we take a stand on the BBC?
(103 replies)

We should have open primaries for elections
(102 replies)

Latest comments
» Lorna Spenceley posted on Bad Chancellor. Bad journalists.

» Mystery Dyke Squadron (Bombing Division) posted on About that male 'enlargement' surgery...

» Mystery Dyke Squadron (Bombing Division) posted on ‘The biggest gamble in American political history’

» Larry Teabag posted on ‘The biggest gamble in American political history’

» Sunny Hundal posted on ‘The biggest gamble in American political history’

» BenSix posted on Income inequality - Tories v Labour

» Hugo posted on Income inequality - Tories v Labour

» Sunny Hundal posted on Income inequality - Tories v Labour

» Diogenes posted on Income inequality - Tories v Labour

» Xylokarabes posted on About that male 'enlargement' surgery...

» sally posted on What is the Tory health plan exactly?

» Devil's Kitchen posted on Income inequality - Tories v Labour

» Sam Tarran posted on What is the Tory health plan exactly?

» mart posted on The 'Gordon Brown is insane' meme

» septicisle posted on The 'Gordon Brown is insane' meme

  Last 50 // Comments feed