So the bloody David Davis hand-wringing continues. "Boo hoo, why won't the Lib Dem's stand", "Oh woe is us, DD doesn't fit out 100 point check list of a libertarian so we can't support him", or "Oh dear me, I can't possibly believe an MP can resign on a single principle without a direct hidden agenda!" is all I seem to hear from all but a select few. Quite frankly it's pathetic and getting more so as time goes on. Add to this some usual petty politics and over reactions on the blogs and this issue of 42 days is fast getting absorbed into the ether like a fidget in quicksand.

I don't like these points of view, I don't think they're productive (see more below for why) and they just muddy the waters. It is essentially exactly what Brown wants us to do so that he isn't scrutinised any longer. The realities here are that DD is running on a principle, a principle that says we should not for any reason be told to abandon our historic civil liberties through fear of a terrorist threat so readily. If you support the idea that innocent before proven guilty is important, and believe the mountains of evidence and support that states such a law is needless not only now but in the future then you should also do what you can to support David Davis' campaign.

To me it is obvious what the next stage is. Some will argue that the stage is set for the parliament act to be used and there is nothing that can be done to stop it, I don't disagree that it is currently being thumbed anxiously by Brown but not that it is unstoppable. The Lords and their ruling will be important for a start, and campaigning/writing to them could be important. It's expected the Lords will cut deeply in to the bill as it stands and send it in shreds back to the Commons. To me, this is where we still have a chance of influence.

I don't see a Labour party that just needs to tighten its belts, I don't see a party that is going to collectively say "if we lose after the Lords then we're done for." no, I see a party that is on the verge of never being able to claw back even a hung parliament. The idea that MPs will somehow become more loyal than they were the first time around on this issue after the argument was so emphatically lost and it became clear that the Labour party alone could not pass the legislation seems bizarre to me, especially when an anecdotal look at previous contentious bills shows that attendees and majorities fall with repeat votes.

There were only 9 votes in it...nine! One of these could have been discounted if a Labour MP had not effectively abstained. His name is David Taylor. He is, as far as I'm concerned, target number one in the list of people to convince to change to a no vote as he is closest to being a rebel. Getting him on board would move that majority down to 8, assuming no Tories skipped the gun and all other Labour rebels remained, something I see as very likely given how hard a decision it must have been to rebel in the first place.

All it would take is 4 or 5 Labour MPs to change their vote from aye to no to turn that majority around. So who are these blighters that decided to vote against 90 days but for 42? These are the real targets as they have some serious explaining to do as to why they've seemingly abandoned their desire to uphold civil liberties. I'm sure some simply thought 90 days too steep, but some of those MPs...surely more than 4 or 5...must have done it on principles that have since evaporated.

And the MPs that we need to be asking questions of are... Michael Clapham, Ann Cryer, David Hamilton, Doug Henderson, Siân James, Sadiq Khan, Mark Lazarowicz, Tony Lloyd, Andrew Love, Chris McCafferty, George Mudie, Dennis Skinner, Peter Soulsby and Jon Trickett. These MPs, including at least one who has worked for Liberty, and many that have been all too happy to rebel on issues such as Trident, are the priority as far as I'm concerned. If you live in their constituency or know someone that is get a letter written to them and let's see what their reasoning is.

And finally, here are my views on some of the recent arguments and situations to arise.

Lib Dem's should have stood a candidate

People that say this are absolutely batshit insane. The issue on the table for the Haltemprice by-election is a liberty issue and is obviously one that is in the Lib Dems yard. But guess what, they were too slow. Or, rather, they're too cowardly to support this move with equal measures elsewhere in the country. If they'd have been the first to call a by-election somewhere safe for them they would have expected the Tories to step aside, and given they'd have to pick somewhere with a liberal Tory (on this issue) the Tories would have been barmy to stand. As barmy as it would be to put a Lib Dem in to Haltemprice. it's political opportunism, it's against the mood and feeling of the reason that the by-election is even happening, and worse of all such a fight would become one about which colour is best...not about why we should all be opposing 42 day detention without charge.

David Davis isn't liberal enough for me, so we shouldn't support him

Well shit, if we thought like this about every MP that stands in our constituencies we'd never elect anyone would we? I know I'd never elect anyone because I can't stand the fact that MPs are not bound to respect the views of their constituents, are actively managed to ensure they don't and receive no incentive to keep their constituency's wishes in mind. But, I can forgo this glaring error in representative parliament because the reality is no-one is perfect. The guy I am likely to vote for at the next General Election seems pretty damn good in the sense he is in tune with my values...but I don't know him fully. I don't know if he believes the age of consent at 16 is a blanket good (unlike the unseen potential Scottish idea of ), I don't know if he goes along with the idea of more alcohol regulation, and I don't know if he believes in internet piracy being the scourge that others make it out to be. If he believes any of the last three he'll be directly opposed to my views.

What I do know is that out of the choices available, that should be available, he is at present the best and that will get my support. This is the way we need to think in this world people, wake up, stop being so fucking childish. Yes DD hasn't got a spotless record on civil liberties but on this one he is right, and in a single issue election it is the only thing that matters.

David Davis won't end up fighting this on one issue

Well then you're a paranoid fool who doesn't understand the principles of game theory. If you aren't willing to support the 42 day cause unless your knight in shining armour comes to do it for you then whether you're right or wrong on Davis's intentions then you have contributed nothing to the furtherance of our liberties. Now if you take a chance, at least if Davis is in this for his principles then you've helped. If he isn't, then everything is back to the same as it was before and nothing has changed. Political. partisan. bullshit. posturing. That's all such a stance is and I can't abide by it.

To make it all even more pathetic...

As if the above isn't bad enough, Andy Burnham and Shami Chakrabarti are having a tiff over some comments made by the former. "Sexism!" cries one woman. "Hypocrisy!" cries staunch 42 day advocates. My arguments that stand in support the way that libel operates in this country are for another day, but it is more than slightly harsh to tell someone to "fuck off" for simply warning an MP about their conduct and the potential ramifications of it. She did over-react, as the Three Line Whip article says, she has ultimately pandered to the more gutter residing aspects of this whole episode in not maintaining an air of integrity and principle on the subject, but she is perfectly within her rights to make such a statement and I don't think it is anything other than laughably ironic to see people in support of locking people up for 42 days to start using arguments about the little people being hurt by big bad oppressive laws.

Similarly where is the sexism? Please point out to me where Andy Burnham's one line statement even slightly singles out the female sex in the obvious innuendo rather than singling out the idea of a relationship, sexual or otherwise? Where will some of these bloggers get off over-reacting to their idols getting a bit of flack thrown their way to jump on their feminist high horse? All you do by doing so is bringing down the reputation of feminism. If the suggestion was reversed in terms of gender, that a female was on the phone to a male director of an organisation that is in tune with your cause, would that still be sexism? It would have to be by the pretty loose definition used to swipe at Burnham, but it would also be equally as absurd.