One goes mad at Westminster
Who said politics was dull? There has been a variety of reports on the bizarre resignation of the UK’s Shadow (i.e. opposition) Home Secretary, a move that is presented as taking the argument on civil liberties to the people.
Most of these reports seem to work with a (false) dichotomy: is he principled or a showman? But why can’t he be both? This does seem to me to be principled. He really believes in what he’s standing for. It also seems to me to be stupid: he is totally messing up what he stands for.
- Consider (1) that he was on track to being Home Secretary after the next election, when he would have been able to reverse this legislation, even if it had been brought in (which is unlikely).
- Consider (2) the possibility that no-one from a main party will run against him. How long can he gain any attention for his views, without expressing them in more and more extreme ways, if there is no contest? How likely will that be to help him?
- Consider (3) the possibility that no-one from a main party will run against him and that he ends up campaigning only against the official nutters (the monster raving loony party) and the unofficial nutters (UKIP and others).
- Consider (4) the possibility that Labour will run against him (as Paul Linford is encouraging them to do). Currently everyone expects Labour to be not only defeated, but badly defeated, in any election. Any result short of absolute humiliation for Labour (even a defeat only a bit worse than before) will be spun (with some justification) as a victory.
This is so bizarre a strategy that one must question David Davis’ judgement. I think he is principled. But there are reasonable grounds for thinking him either vain, ambitious, or unbalanced. I see no reason why a person of principle may not also be the teensiest bit stupid as well.