It's been 2 and a half weeks since I said there was a need to stop dithering on 42 days and the liberal campaign against it. Yet unfortunately we unfortunately still have a significant air of the supposedly most liberal people in the country throwing their toys out of the pram. "It's too late", "I don't want to fight with the Tories" and more of the same are still coming out of peoples mouths, as if liberty is only important if they are the champions of it.

Lynne and people like Sunny over at Liberal Conspiracy, myself obviously included, just simply cannot sit here and let personal ego's, partisan politics and sulky petulant behaviour stand in the way of defeating this legislation. So, as if it needed any more saying, what do we need now?

What we don't need is retrospective defeatism. Lib Dem's did have a chance to do something and they did throw it away. No, it wasn't contesting H&H, it was not following their lead in doing the same in a southern constituency to broaden the debate out nationwide. That time has passed, the train has departed, the next step is to lobby the MPs that were (according to voting patterns) the most hypocritical in their votes on the 11th of June.

All the following images are used without permission from Theyworkforyou.com, please use the site to get in contact with your MP. For reference I'm using a general marker of 10% swing to the Tories at the next election for my comments.

The top targets: These people are in seats that are likely to be lost, or have made votes that are the most likely to waver. Pressure on these MPs surrounding acknowledgment of campaigns being run against them at the next election because of a aye-vote when the legislation comes back to the House of Commons is suggested.

David Taylor

David Taylor effective abstained. Did he mean to vote against the legislation but accidentally voted for? or was he seriously completely opinion-less on one of the issues with immense amounts of information surrounding it? people of North West Leicestershire, put pressure on David Taylor and ask him why he made this stance. At just under 5,000 votes this seat is extremely likely to be lost to the Conservatives at the next election. Against the war and Trident, he is uncommitted on ID cards.

Ann Cryer

Keighley: Under 5k votes, potentially one of the easiest seats to lose to the Tories, and worse still potentially more endorsement for BNP's Nick Griffin. Ann Cryer needs to show she is actually better than the BNP on these issues, not the same. She is strongly against the war, against Trident, but is pro-ID cards.

Chris McCafferty

Calder Valley: This MP is pretty much certain to lose her seat to the Tories at the next election regardless of how well Labour pulls back. She's against Trident and the war, but for ID cards. Perhaps she should realise that the ID card scheme amongst other legislation is exactly why people are voting less and less for her in her constituency?

Lib Dem contested: These MPs are safe but are having runs made on them by the Lib Dems. Nothing should be stronger in persuading these MPs than that the Lib Dem movement is marching and if they want to stand any chance of keeping their seat as safe as it is come the next election, they need to appease those people shifting in these constituencies over to the golden party.

David Hamilton

Midlothian: Having over 7k votes, he is situated in a fairly strong seat that is relatively safe from the Tories. Lib Dem's could make serious gains here at the next election after being on the up in 2005. Strongly against the war and Trident, but for ID cards.

Doug Henderson

Newcastle-upon-tyne North: He's got a decent majority but the Lib Dem's have made huge gains in the past here. He's against the war but that's about where his liberalism ends. He's pro-ID cards, he is for Trident. The perfect target for a Lib Dem based campaign.

Mark Lazarowicz

Edinburgh North: A pitiful majority and the Lib Dem's making big gains last election. This MP needs to listen carefully about liberal matters as it is clear his constituents don't take lightly to the Labour government's big state approach. He is against the war and Trident but for ID cards, a great Lib Dem target.

Peter Soulsby

Leicester South: Whether Mr Soulsby keeps his seat in Leicester South is down to how much Labour support is being lost because they like the Tories more, and how much is because they hate Labour. if it's the latter then he is likely to be deposed by a Lib Dem, if it's the former then he may just keep his seat. We know in reality people are simply leaving Labour, he needs to be convinced that the way forward for him keeping his seat is to show those people ready to vote Lib Dem's that he can be just as liberal on the big issues too.

Tory contested: These MPs are likely to be safe, depending on the swing come the next election. That doesn't mean their majorities aren't going to be severely dented, and using David Davis' by-election (result dependent) to push upon them how dangerous this game Labour MPs are playing with supporting their Prime Minister regardless of policy is probably the best route.

Sadiq Khan

Tooting: Formerly worked for Liberty, has been on the receiving end of authoritarian police measures and yet he still votes for 42 days. To me he feels like another Keith Vaz, but given his seat could be one of the safer seats to fall to the Tories maybe it's time to re-evaluate his stance and again find his principles. He votes with the government on pretty much everything, if he wants to be a front runner in the party in the future perhaps he can join those shaping a new path for them and standing AGAINST illiberal legislation?

Safe seats: These people are going to have little leverage under them that we can use, they don't really see much threat from other parties, they should weather all storms. The only thing we can do with these MPs, as with all of them, is appeal to their better nature and their principles that they momentarily lost.

Dennis Skinner

Bolsover: Probably the strongest MP on the list, and perhaps for that one of the most important? He is not in any danger of being unseated, but he has a very reasoned and liberal voting background. I can understand why someone like Mr Skinner would vote to save his party's face, but we need to ask him why that's the most important thing. I would wager that this MP changing their vote would mean a lot to perhaps turning the tide against this legislation.

Michael Clapham

Barnsley West: With over 50% of the vote in 2005 this is a pretty safe seat for Labour, pressure needs to be exerted on Mr Clapham solely over his hypocritical standing on this issue. Against the war and seemingly cautious on ID cards.

Siân James

Swansea East: Another MP with a 50%+ majority. She is unfortunately looking fairly illiberal, with a strong inclination for ID cards and all the government's anti-terror measures...except for the 90 days. This seems to be the only chink in her stance, and if she could be persuaded 90 days was too excessive, she should be persuaded that 42 days is as well.

George Mudie

Leeds East: Mr Mudie is a strange fellow, not quite on board with gay rights, but against top-up fees. He's not entirely there on ID cards but was pro war. I'm not sure how much this person can be persuaded away from supporting his party, and I'm also not sure exactly where his principles lie. He did vote against 90 days, and that's what we have to work with.

Jon Trickett

Hemsworth: This MP looks like the perfectly principled person, aside from his support for ID cards, but sits in a very safe seat. Against even things like top-up fees we should have been able to rely on Jon's support against 42 days, why didn't we get it?

Tony Lloyd

Manchester Central: Quite safe here but leaking votes quickly in 2005. He is against the war and Trident but pro-ID cards. His voting record is favourable to our view on 42 days, but for some reason he voted for it anyway.

Andrew Love

Edmonton: One of the only MPs to stand for 42 days on my list that actually sits for London. He's safe and he's got no liberal principles whatsoever. Why he voted against 90 days is a mystery, perhaps Andrew is a lost cause in a generally safe Labour seat.

Ignoring the "safe seat" MPs, there are 8 MPs that could be swayed here, certainly 4 or 5 of them that have a good chance of being swayed by a strong show of public opinion against their vote. This is all we need, assuming everyone else votes exactly as they did in the last vote. The strategy of targeting this 8-14 MPs is important because not only does it potentially win back votes, it makes it clear to all those that did vote against 42 days that they are being applauded and need to stay the course. Now is not the time for complacency nor for crying over spilled milk.