Friday, June 13, 2008

The Sun may stand by-election candidate...

The Sun may put up their own candidate to take on David Davis in the parliamentary by-election he called today after failing to defeat the Government on '42 days'.

Former editor Kelvin McKenzie told BBC's This Week programme that he had already met media mogul Rupert Murdoch who said that if Labour decided not to stand a candidate against Davis, then The Sun should.

McKenzie says Murdoch asked him to consider standing - with the backing of Britain's biggest selling newspaper.

He added: "Rupert is good for the money...and I might well do it."

McKenzie made it clear that both he and public opinion are strongly in favour of extending detention for terror suspects to a maximum 42 days.

Earlier in the programme, presenter Andrew Neil said that while Davis had not discussed his by election plan directly with Tory Leader David Cameron, he had consulted with Liberty campaigner Shami Charabarti.

7 comments:

Brynley said...

Not quite right Phil. Shami tried to talk David Davis out of it.

But I'm glad that David Davis went ahead.

Internment without trial is wrong.

What was it that Churchill called it?

In the highest degree odious.

Given a run-off between Murdoch and Davis there is only one sensible move.

Vote Davis.

Anonymous said...

This has some interesting implications for the Electoral Commission.

If the propriator of the "Current Bun" is funding the election expenses - Is each edition of the Sun supporting Makenzie a declarable expense ?

Even with the generous limits placed upon by-election expenditure this would soon exceed those limits.

Deliberate over expenditure is a corrupt act !

Perhaps some registered elector in Haltemprice could take the matter up ?

GW

fairdealphil said...

brynley:

yes, i agree with your comments on internment which was used in NI to round up large numbers of IRA 'suspects' who were locked up indefinitely.

42-days is about extra-ordinary individual cases which are the exceptions to the exception and which would have to be justified every step of the way.

Yes, odious, but considerably less odious than bombings...

fairdealphil said...

anon:

an interesting question...iand one for the lawyers, but i'll be looking out for an 'imprint' on every copy of the currant bun...

Anonymous said...

Brynley - WSC may have called it odious, but that was the same prime minister who enacted Section 17 of the Defence of the Realm Act.

Authorising internment of any citizen. Oswald Mosley was interned under that act, as well as many Jewish refugees.

GW

Brynley said...

GW

Interesting that Winston Churchill released Mosley from internment during the war to great protests from Labour once the threat of immediate invasion had passed.

fairdealphil said...

WSC is still hated in Wales for sending in the troops pre-First World War to 'deal with' (my words striking miners.

My wife's father was a Welsh miner and like many, never forgave Churchill...