The Controversial Cllr Luke Akehurst

Immersed in the World of Boris as I so often am these days, I'm still catching up with the stir caused by Councillor Akehurst when he suggested that if Labour wouldn't run against David "Danger" Davis in Haltemprice and Howden there should be a pro-42 day independent candidate instead,

"...preferably a recently retired senior police officer, or a survivor or relative of a victim of a terrorist attack, to run under the following 5 word candidate description: 'Independent - for detaining terrorism suspects'."

What appears to have been almost a passing thought has so far provoked a staggering 172 comments, a great wave of reaction through the blogosphere and front page coverage in the Gazette. I'm amazed: firstly by the Gazette actually sourcing a story to a local blog rather than just stealing it, which is what it usually does (although in this case that would have been difficult); secondly, by the excitement Luke's suggestion has caused. Given that Labour is too pathetic to contest to the seat, I can't see what's so outlandish about his idea.

Not that I agree with the Councillor over the issue at stake, except insofar as we're judging it by the same, pragmatic, criterion. He thinks that the power to detain people for up to 42 days without charge will reduce the threat of terror attacks. I think it will increase it. We agree that there's a balance to be found between liberty and security, but disagree about where it lies.

Comments

[Glyn]

I think that Cllr Akehurst is misguided in his beliefs, and it seems as though I am not the only one to think so.

I wish that Labour would put up a candidate in Haltemprice and Howden, which would, perhaps, prove to be a form of mini-referendum on (what I believe to be) these highly misguided plans. As it is, the party lays itself open to accusations of being frightened of public reaction.

[Mark]

Irrespective of one's views on the proposal to detain some suspects for 42 days before a charge is brought, could we not agree that David Davis's resignation and re-election has no relevance whatsoever to that discussion?

If he is relected, which he likely will be, he will continue to speak and vote against the proposal, just as he would have done had he not resigned. But his mandate will be no greater than it was before, since his electorate has not expanded in any meaningful way.

I suggest that the proper way to make these decisions is through a series of votes in parliament. A process that has started but which is not yet over. And Mr Davis should be more honest about the fact that his actions are more about his future role in the Conservative Party than about the issue of 42 days.