Congratulations go to David Davis for winning the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, but more than that congratulations go to him for turning the Tabloids on to civil liberties for at least a while, for enabling a poll that debunks Brown's "public support" myth, and for helping us keep this issue alive!

42 Hours that is, as we'll be waking up to hear the news of the H&H by-election result. Predicted (sensibly) to be down on general election turn out, with worries of the message being lost to more Northern by-elections, it is still vitally important that the process takes place. Of course, as I've said recently, it isn't the beginning and certainly isn't the end of the issue.

The excellent news is that someone decided, obviously reading the collective minds of liberals standing against the legislation, that a less biased poll was needed of the public. So thank you to the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust who have commissioned a poll that shows that when only slightly informing the public during questioning drops the level of support for 42 day legislation to around 23%.

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?

There is little more comforting to me right now than the idea of Keith Vaz fighting for his job. Whether it's because he was actually audacious enough to believe he would get away with gaining a public honour for voting (and convincing others to vote) for the illiberal 42 day legislation, or because he was simply so stupid as to stare evidence in the face and disregard it 6 months later, I'm just glad he's maybe getting screwed.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not vindictive, but as Aaron over at Tygerland says, if you're stupid enough to get caught then you deserve to be punished.

During my viewing of the 42 day debate I was most surprised by Keith Vaz and his sudden change of heart over the poposals. The leader of the Home Affairs Select committee, he and the committee announced in December that there was be "no evidence" for the legislation to take place. This is an important distinction as the evidence for and against the legislation did not change at all between December and the vote in June.

Now the telegraph is claiming evidence of at best ministers being blase about the feelings of the public on "paying off" people for support in votes, and at worst that Keith Vaz, who had prominent time in the debate with a speech of his own, has been promised reward for his allegiance to the party.

Last week (Monday 23rd) Unlock Democracy announced their plans to make the best use of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, and that is to raise as much money as they can to raise awareness about the illiberal 42 day detention without charge legislation. Asking for £20 ideally they would be happy to get as much as possible as they have worked out they need £5,000 to provide enough literature and bodies on the ground to ensure that all the facts are out in the open for people to make an informed decision come election day, on July 10th.

It's time to stop the bullshit, we've now been sitting around for about a week and a half doing little more than bicker about the integrity of a single person while standing around gawking. This has been more than long enough to be inactive in an area that we, the liberal contingent of the country, should be leading from the front on. But the question is what can we do, and can we do it, in a way that can unite those that support and loathe David Davis' stance? I don't ask this rhetorically, I'm unashamedly new to this aspect of national politics, but I do have a few points here to build from. What is for certain is that I'll be heading on the journey over to London on Wednesday (for a Liberal Conspiracy gathering) and hope that this subject can be explored in more depth by those that attend.

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.

All it would take is 4 or 5 Labour MPs to change their vote from aye to no to turn the 42 day majority around. So who are the blighters that decided to vote against 90 days but for 42?

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.

Gordon Brown has defended the use of CCTV, ID cards and the DNA database - saying they protect civil liberties.

In a speech to the IPPR think tank, the prime minister said they helped ensure people's right to live free from crime.

This is from the news story via the BBC regarding Brown's speech to the IPPR think tank. It seems as though the argument Brown wishes to deploy is that we're all safer if we're under greater governmental control and security service surveillance. In fact in a week or so's time Brown is going to unveil a policy that says we are all to be chained to our work desks or sofa's (depending on the time of day) to ensure that no-one has the opportunity to take anyone elses freedoms away from them via crime ever again!

Across the blogosphere the big question over the last few days has been "will you or won't you?", of course in reference to "backing David Davis" in his by-election campaign.

The political scene seems split, those that supported 42 days are joined by those that were against it as old partisan divisions resurface, the saddest reality being that principles come after party colours no matter how much those colours have run.

So where will I stand?