The resignation of David Davis

LIKE MANY others, I was somewhat surprised by David Davis's decision to resign yesterday.

If he really is resigning to fight for civil liberties, then it's an admirable decision. However, this could easily be - and is - portrayed as a cheap stunt. I think it's a combination of both.

As much as people claim that David Cameron is furious with the former Shadow Home Secretary, I have a feeling that he could have sanctioned it. If he was furious, then surely Cameron could have blocked Davis from taking such an unprecedented step.

The Conservatives obviously feel aggrieved that they lost this week's vote. In addition, they want to be able to sustain the positive political coverage that they are not only winning in the polls, but on a regular basis with by-elections. Why else did the Conservatives wait two months before having a by-election for Henley? Davis has resigned for what I believe to be a perfectly principled stance on civil liberties - some of his constituents are likely to admire him for this. However, if he is re-elected unopposed it will look like a bizarre stunt and may even damage Cameron.

Nevertheless, I was somewhat confused with Gordon Brown's farcical response:
"At the first test of what their policy is on the big central issue of
national security, the Conservative Party are totally divided."

Interesting. Remind me Mr Brown - how many members of the Conservative Party voted with the government? One. And how many members of the the Labour Party rebelled? 36.

Who's divided now?