James Avery’s blog

When I first saw the news headline about David Davis resigning, my first thought was to wonder what sort of scandal he had been caught up in.  Then it turns out that he had resigned entirely voluntarily, and that he was going to stand in a by-election of his own making.  This move has clearly stunned the Westminster insiders, and put Tory leader David Cameron in a difficult position. So, what the hell is David Davis playing at?

To a cynic like myself, the 42 day terror laws need to be opposed simply because they look like an obvious way for Gordon Brown to appear macho and appease the tabloid press, and there seems to be little legal merit in them. Does anyone really think that, in his heart of hearts, Mr Brown even believes his own rhetoric about “standing on principle” over this issue?

Until Wednesday evening, the Conservative party were appearing virtually united on this issue, with only one MP, Ann Widdecombe, voting with the government. If ever there was a battleaxe to defy all attempts to whip her into submission, then it was Ms Widdecombe! Reading through Friday’s papers, it looks like David Davis had already done a remarkable job in persuading both his shadow cabinet colleagues, and the rest of the party, that there was no case to support the government on its will to hold terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge.  Notwithstanding this unity in the Conservative party, the government had also had to go through the humiliation of relying on the support of the Democratic Unionist Party, and bribe or no bribe, Gordon Brown was still looking on very unstable ground by the time he came to his press conference on Thursday morning.

Clearly, the fact that this Bill has been passed, by whatever means, has sent David Davis to boiling point.  Right now, with the Liberal Democrats saying that they will support him, and Labour suggesting that they will not play along with what they see as a political stunt, it looks like he has scored a remarkable political own goal.  For someone who used to be a reservist in the SAS, this looks much more like a nose dive than a skydive, but he clearly feels passionate about this issue, and it is far too early to predict how this will play out.  Ultimately though, I have to applaud what he has done, perhaps because I can empathise so much with many of the character traits which he has displayed — recklessness, adrenalin seeking, being ego driven, getting heated up on a single point, but ultimately standing on principle.  I don’t mind how foolish may look right now, he has injected a great deal of sparkle into a debate which desperately needs it.

Unfortunately, it looks like the government will narrowly scrape through their new 42 days terror suspect legislation, as there don’t seem to be quite enough backbenchers with the backbone to put a stop to it.

This new law will do little to improve the safety of the travelling public.  Transport systems have long been a target of ambitious terror groups, but the statistical chances of any passenger being caught in a terrorist atrocity remain extremely small, as they are for accidents on public transport.  We were told on the BBC’s Question Time last week by Foreign Secretary David Miliband that the extension of questioning to 42 days instead of the current 28 would act as an “insurance policy” for potential future trials, but a much better insurance plan must surely be to prevent the radicalisation of young Muslims from happening in the first place.  Once somebody is hellbent on committing such acts (and we really are only talking about a very small handful of extremists each year), it won’t make a scrap of difference to them whether they are likely to be held for 28 days or 42, but holding any innocent person for up to six weeks is a total affront to the fundamental principles of habeas corpus, for which so many other countries look so admirably on the British legal system.

Instead, all we will see a further erosion of our civil liberties in the name of public protection, when the real objective of this legislation is to try and secure some desperately needed tabloid support for our blundering loser of a Prime Minister.  This whole debacle reminds me of a quote which is popularly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but which is actually believed to have originated from his fellow diplomat Richard Jackson:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

The travelling public now have the double whammy of needlessly heightened security measures and having to pay through the nose for the oil price bubble, both which can be attributed to the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Weren’t we told that this too would be an insurance policy against terrorism?

• Affiliates 4 U Forum Thread (For A4U members)

I’ve lost count of the number of people who have tried to get me join Facebook groups, or sign petitions against the recent fuel price rises.  There are two very simple reasons why the price of fuel is so high — one is a simple combination of supply and demand, which as a free marketeer I can’t complain about, and the other is the rate of duty the UK government imposes on petrol and diesel.

Many people might quite reasonably argue that fuel duty is extortion, but our government needs to get its money somehow, and just as we haven’t really heard how a Conservative government would reinstate the 10p tax bracket, I’m not really convinced that anyone has any serious proposals to reduce the tax rate on fuel, without a commensurate increase in other taxes, such as income tax.  So to anyone who is protesting about the cost of fuel, I have one simple question — which would you rather have higher income tax, or higher tax on fuel? Personally, I’ll take the tax on fuel any day, for one simple reason — it is much easier for most people to avoid fuel tax than it is to avoid income tax.

Having listened to the the news today, it seems that Gordon Brown will do everything he can to tap on other international leaders’ shoulders, and deflect attention away from his own government’s contribution to the high cost of fuel, so whether we like it or not, high fuel prices are going to be with us for a long time coming.  People can protest all they want, but even if there are reductions in fuel duty, these are only likely to knock a few pence off the cost of fuel at the pumps. Across The Pond, It also looks like Hillary Clinton’s promise  of a fuel tax holiday will shortly die a death, along with her presidential campaign, and I’ll have to say that I wish a good riddance to them both.

I know it is easy for me to say that people who really want to reduce their fuel bill should buy a smaller car, or convert to LPG, but I think it is far more sensible to try and leave the car at home and try walking or cycling.  Try doing this for just one week, and you might well find that there is a lot more on your doorstep than you might think.  Apart from the money saved, there are huge health benefits to be gained from cycling even just a few short miles each day, not to mention the environmental benefits that any self-powered transport brings.  For longer journeys, I’ve always felt that going by train is a much better use of time, especially when travelling to and from London where congestion alone makes driving there unthinkable, long before any additional charges come into account.

• The non fuel protest Facebook group