Come one Cameron, give the man a job as minister for civil liberties or some such, surely it's a good idea to let him raise the profile of all the stupidity coming out of uk.gov?

I was quite annoyed with the BBC interview on BBC breakfast this morning. I don't live in his area and I don't much care about what he did or why but the BBC spent the whole interview twisting facts to make his success look like a failure. I know the BBC long ago lost its ability to be impartial but this was above and beyond.

Nothing unusual then.......

Paris because I doubt she could suck as much as the interview did this morning.

As someone who abhors the ID database project and the undermining of habeas corpus in our desperate War on Terror, I should be in the cheering section for Davis, but instead I see him as a hypocrite and a phoney.

He knew he would be back in the Commons - he couldn't lose this election. He tried to tell voters in his constituency to vote on a single issue, despite that fact that they were electing an MP, not choosing an option in a referendum. He halved the turnout and - despite having no credible opposition - reduced his own vote by 25%. And he now has the audacity to claim that he has achieved a "spectacular" and "stunning" win as he shuffles into political oblivion.

We need champions to stand up against this ID database madness - but please, let they be credible ones, rather than opportunists and hypocrites. Civil liberties lectures from a man who opposed gay equality at every step of the way? Don't make me laugh.

All Gordo needs to do is decide who's going to run the tombola, and who's going to judge the 'I've got the best voting outfit' competition.

Joke icon? ID cards, 42 days, feeble efforts to entice people to vote... take your pick

The thing that struck me about this by-election is the deafening silence from the media. They have almost totally ignored the candidates and the issues. Even today when the results were declared, the news item (BBC News channel) was int second place behind a foreign news story - the austrian woman held in a cellar for year was going to be questioned.

The biggest side-effect of this election for me, has been to consider how democracy works in this country. It appears that giving people the opportunity to vote is one thing. However, to make the process free and transparent so that democracy actually takes place, the media (state, independent and foreign-owned) needs to have the ability to freely report it's operation and also the will to do so. So long as it fulfills it's responsibility and performs both of these functions, we can rest assured. Sadly, in this case - where there wasn't any drama, slanging matches or other components of "good" TV, they failed dismally in this duty.

It's no good candidates running on a freedom and liberty stance if the mechanisms to enforce those freedoms and liberties ignore them.

"The former Tory shadow home secretary pulled in 17,113 votes in the election, giving him a 15,355 majority, compared to the 5,116 he had at the last election. But the turnout was 25 per cent, compared to 70 per cent at the 2005 general election. "

What it tells you, is that people will vote against 42 days, but they won't vote FOR 42 days. The people who think, 'we'll maybe 42 is ok' didn't get off their ass and vote, but the people who think it's an abuse DID.

I tell you that everyone whose ever been falsely stopped and searched by a rozzer will vote against Labour. Because it's a humiliation to be stopped.

So they did polls, find 60% are in favour of 42 detention without charge ergo we must do it because it will help them get reelected... but the reality is that 40% will vote against them, and the other 60% will ignore the issue at election time.

Good fooking riddence to them. Would they set up Guantanmo camps if a poll said it was popular? What about death camps for blacks and jews? The man's not fit to lead, reading polls is not showing good judgement.

Its unclear how many of the other candidates supported the government line on more cctv, dna database, id database, etc - even if they all did (unlikely) I make it about 3:1 against the government line.

Haven't seen this mentioned anywhere yet, hence the helicopter...

Since the real power of democracy in this country is dead, I'm not suprised turnout was low.

I'm not sure how much more of this medicine I can take from the thugs in power, do need some sort of revolution/revolt.

We can do some looting too then :D

How many sincere politicians will get the message and do the same?

Ah, yet, oxymoron.... "sincere politician" ..well, apart from that then?

If the turnout in any election is below 50% then I think that clearly shows that there is no consent to be governed by any of the candidates. Without a turnout of at least 51% then I do not think the winning candidate can really claim a popular mandate. Some have claimed that low turnouts in elections show that the electorate are disillusioned with the electorar process, I think they show that the majority of the electorate do not wish to be governed by any of the candidates. This is the one lesson all parties should take away from low turnouts.

Labour will claim that they would have won had they fielded a candidate. After all a few years back after a kicking in local elections Blair more or less blaimed labour supporters for not voting.

Labour do not seem to believe the polls, they think that the only reason they ever lose an election is that labour voters don't turn out. They really seem to think that evrybody who doesn't vote would vote labour if they actually bothered to turn out. The upshot of this is that they think that by increasing election turnout they will suddenly start winning elections again.

Censorship? Most authors would publish comments about corrections and acknowledge corrections in the article.

You are still stating 25% on the first line, and the turnout at 34% is not actually that bad, considering the die-hard labour and lib-dem supporters would have stayed at home. The fact that so many came out under the circumstances is great for civil liberties.

The government are running scared of debates on civil liberties across the board.

It really is a sad comment that politicians have so enthralled the general public that the tremendous outbreak of apathy is virtually pandemic.

They have only themselves to blame, and as they've surrendered their duties to some unelected committee in Brussels, they only thing they have left to occupy their tiny minds is to perpetuate the trough in which their porcine snouts are generally to be found.

Bring back tumbrils!

> Because that's just the kind of guy I am.

I shall never again look at your piccies in the same way...

Howsabout a week-end in Paris?

Spot on. There is a debate to be had about civil liberties, but this wasn't it. It was a sad piece of attention-seeking from a someone who knows he has been sidelined after losing the leadership.

For the record, I'm ok with 42, as long as it's subject to judicial oversight. As long as it's a Judge who decides whether to grant the extension (and not the Police themselves, or the Home Secretary etc) then I think that's a fair balance between civil liberties and common sense. As always, the devil's in the detail, and it's something that seems to get missed in all the excitement.

You've got a moderaminion? Your very own PFY? I'm impressed.

Oh, and how come you've never emailed me a big kiss!

"it's just not that likely that anyone else will see it but me or my moderaminion."

you have a moderaminion and do you keep him/her on a leash under your desk?