What is the point of a representative democracy if MPs resort to referendum by-proxy every time the majority of their colleagues pass legislation which they oppose? There is a very good reason why the Rousseau model of democracy is unworkable; the electorate elect representatives for a reason and not to then make every decision themselves.
The fact of the matter is that the issue was debated by our elected representatives in Parliament, and a vote was taken. All MPs, elected to represent their constituencies (meant in the broad sense - i.e. both geographically, and ideologically), had a vote, and they were free to use that vote in accordance with their own conscience.
Those who opposed the anti-terror legisation lost. In Parliament. Where legislation is decided.
Moving the debate over this issue to a constituency in Yorkshire is not how legislation in this country should be decided.
Hence I vehemently disagree with the view of former Davis henchman, Iain Dale, on the resignation - that:
"this isn't about one man's vanity. It is about the ability to sacrifice personal and public advantage for a greater cause."
And that:
"If [Labour don't field a candidate], they will be treating the issue (and voters) with contempt. The 42 day issue can now be debated fully during the by election campaign."
Rubbish. It is David Davis who is treating the issue (and voters) with contempt. Firstly, he is ignoring the proper institutions in which these matters should (and have) been decided. Secondly, he is forcing the taxpayer to fund his vanity exercise - money which could be better spent on public service provision, not ego-massaging.
Labour would do better to tell it how it is: David Davis put his arguments to Parliament. And lost. Therefore there is no need to re-engage him on this debate in a by-election.
It is to the Lords that Labour's attention should now focus. The bodies of Parliament - not Haltemprice and Howden - is where this matter should rightly be decided.
