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%.

A couple of days ago a speech that MP and Minister David Lammy made to the Fabian society was published on Liberal Conspiracy. The speech was largely devoid of content and was little more than a rallying speech about how amazing American politics is compared to UK politics in engaging people...apparently. What it did try and touch on, however, was parliament and government and how perhaps both can be more open to sources outside the Westminster Village.

What a shock and a shame it is to hear today then that in a vote on expenses made yesterday, parliament made it fairly clear that such an idea is very far from the minds of politicians. Expenses and perks of the job first, fair and representative politics second (if even that high) it seems!

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.

I've been added as one of a handful of bloggers helping out at Liberal Conspiracy with their daily "NetCasts", and Thursday (for now at least) is my day in the sun. You can check out my offerings on the last 24 hours best blogs over at Liberal Conspiracy.

However I also wanted to mention a few blogs here that didn't quite make it in to my list of 6 or 7 items, and intend to do so each week here (if the quality of articles is out there!).

Lib Dem Voice - Mark Pack questions the way the Tories are picking their next Henley MP. Read the comments for the wider argument about how the Lib Dems do it too!
Political Betting - In an issue obviously close to Mike's heart, he wonders why it's taken so long to get the transparency needed for a controversial Ken Livingstone poll.
Alisdair's Blog - Get past the garish header and you have a 15 year old that manages to sound sensible on the subject of the new cluster bomb treaty.
Dizzy Thinks - Dizzy takes a look back at the websites of the main political parties as far back as before the 1997 general election. How times have changed...

You can also click below to continue reading and see the full list on this site if you so wish!

According to the Times the answer is emphatically no. If you enjoy a government that slaps itself on the back for any minor achievement and backs itself up at every pitfall, a government that criminalises our children and refuses to undertake previously promised constitutional reform, and a government that refuses to help pensioners out of the same rut that they were in a decade ago on fuel pricing while overspending on the irrelevant and economy sapping event otherwise known as the Olympics, then perhaps you'll be happy to hear that Miliband (David kind) is planning in "secret" to run for PM when the opportunity arises...backed by every sheriff of Nottingham that currently resides in power.

Steve Webb, Lib Dem MP, has recently said online that online campaiging such as e-petitions offers a great way to get people involved in campaigning. I completely agree, I think that the more avenues open to people to easily show their disgust, horror, disapproval or disenfranchisement with policy the better. However one area that I don't agree any of this works is E-Petitions.

I found this consultation on the Bristol City Council website. If you're from Bristol then I would really suggest filling it out with your views as I already have done. But what struck me about a lot of this survey was that it was inherently negative about alcohol. I'm not necessarily suggesting all the questions should have asked people to praise alcohol to high heaven but I believe this to be a poor survey worded in such a way that simple positive answers are being sought from complex questions. Read on for some of the questions and what I feel about them.

The EU treaty was last night sent a step further towards being accepted by British parliament as the Labour party successfully managed to vote out the possibility of a referendum on the document. As the debate showed there is a lot of hostility towards referendums as a way of making decisions, contrasted with the moral dilemma of breaking a promise to the country. The following are a few of my thoughts and I have to say watching the debate sharpened my mind on the issue and was very worthwhile for me personally...

However it must be said, if referendums are supposedly no good because of lack of information, lack of clarity over why a decision has gone the way it has and because the act of debate is supposedly so essential to democracy in Britain, why have three line whips been used in this vote meaning that this great debate held yesterday is effectively nullified by party lines, and why has the time allotted to the debate been insufficient to actually fully debate the issue and thus leaving even our MPs only partially informed when they come to make their decision?