Talk:David Davis (British politician)

POV

This article has been rewritten since the Conservative leadership campaign commenced and now has a rather anti-davis tone to it. Interestingly, and perhaps tellingly, the David Cameron entry is now much more pro-cameron. Parts need re-writing to maintain a neutral point of view. I will try to get round to it later.

I have deleted a paragraph critising Davis' oratory skills as I felt this was a POV (StudentSteve 07:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC))

Better Picture

I really don't think the current picture on this article is a very good likeness at all. There's also something strange going on in the background! Anyone got anything better?! Oliver Keenan 15:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

SAS regiment

This article claims that Davis was a member of 23 SAS, whereas the article for 21 SAS claims he was a former member. Which is correct?

Resignation

Surely he is still the MP at the current moment ? 195.157.52.65 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point. I'd assume that, no, he isn't, since he says he has already gone. At the same time, I don't know how long it takes for the Chiltern Hundreds or the Manor of Northstead to actually kick in. However, since all the sources say he has resigned, and he says he has resigned and nobody has information to the contrary, then under Wikipedia rules, we can take it as read that he is indeed a former MP. (For American readers, please note that the UK has no tradition of "lame duck" periods - the UK system is brutally swift, replacing one member with another in the space of a few hours. We don't do lame duck and we don't do delayed inaugurations.) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

if he had resigned, the treasury would have the press release here http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2008/press2008_index.cfm (they did it for blair and boris)ninety:one 19:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

False precedent. Blair was First Lord of the Treasury. Johnson controls largest non-Westminster budget in England. Davis is nothing to the Treasury. Better to look for an announcement at parliament.uk than to a branch of the government. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is the chancellor who nominally approves appointments to the Manor of Northstead and the Chiltern Hundreds, according to parliament's document here [1]. As such, the treasury would be the place to find such an announcement. I doubt the treasury announce Boris's mayoral election, a much more important change. Dmn € Դմն 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Upon receipt of a Member's application for the Chiltern Hundreds, a warrant of appointment is signed (in the presence of a witness) by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Since 1850, these have been registered and retained in the Treasury. On the day the warrant is signed a letter is sent to the Member, omitting the letters MP after his name, to inform him that he has been appointed to the office. Letters of notification are also sent at the same time to the Offices of the Speaker and the Government and Opposition Whips. As soon as practical, the appointment is noted in the London Gazette. It is also the practice for the Treasury to issue a brief press notice.

By looking at previous notices in the Gazette, here [2], it could take a few days before confirmation comes through. Dmn € Դմն 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Chiltern Hundreds

Question - if he takes the 'Chiltern Hundreds' (or the Manor of Northstead) how can he stand for parliament again until someone else relieves him of that post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.2.163 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He resigns (asks to be "released") from the job. Taking the Hundreds or the Manor is one of the UK's little constitutional games, a charade left behind from previous practice. Once it was a real and permanent thing. Now it is just a device. Davis has resigned and will re-stand for election. The actual charade of how this is done is meaningless and everybody knows it! ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 07:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

Follow Up Question - is the charade so meaningless that he can actually stand again, or does he have to resign the Chiltern Hundreds?

Question - is this resignation an 'abuse of process' or is there precedent for this kind of behaviour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.2.163 (talk)

First question: both - the charade is completely meaningless, so he can actually stand again, and he will be released from the Hundreds in order to do it. Second question: the resignation is not an abuse of process, it is entirely normal, and it does have precedent - all the Unionist MPs in Northern Island stepped down in protest at the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985, prompting, in effect, a mini-General Election in NI. They then all stood again and won their seats back. Davis is following this precedent, if anything. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 09:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Notes

The comments in the "Notes" section of the article are obviously biassed and should be removed immediately.

-Cymrob (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no comments in the Notes section - just half a dozen links to newspaper articles being used as references. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Someone edited the article to add some home-spun opinion. It was quickly reverted as it is against Wikipedia policy to put this type of blog nonsense in articles. You can remove this stuff yourself if you see it in future - just edit the page and remove it (and say what you're doing in the edit summary). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 12:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's gone now. I'll probably write something about the criticism of the decision in the "Resignation" Section - in an objective way. I registered just so I could correct that, I can't stand that kind of thing.Cymrob (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Just remember to cite your reliable sources for any criticism. Edit the article and you'll see the quick-and-dirty way we've been using (it's the stuff in the <ref>...</ref> tags). ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 13:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Former MP

Removed twice now. This is unsourced and therefore must not be returned without impeccable sourcing. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need a source for such a screaming piece of absolute common sense. In what universe can you resign from being an MP without becoming a former MP? Is he still meeting his constituents for MP matters? No. Is he still being paid as an MP? No. Is the constituency position vacant? Yes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

the thing is that he hasn't actually resigned yet :p resignation from the british house of commons ninety:one 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Jesus Christ. Well as Squeak box has forced me into three reverts, without even explaining why you need a source for common sense, or why he is blind to the numerous sources all over the article that state he has resigned, then we will just have to wait the whole weekend before it becomes 'official' and he takes the Kings money (I am actually presuming his is the basis of his revert, and not the original nonsense he gave about Tony Blair calling a general election being relevant to this). I only hope that we don't confuse any of his constituency members who mistakenly go and try to meet him on urgent business this weekend, on the mistaken belief that he is not their former MP, due to the excellent but rather ridiculous due diligence of Squeak Box on their number one resource for such facts. MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And we do need a source as it is disputed. With a source it would be fine but to calim "common sense" is not fine. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See above, I haven't got a clue why you're disputing it, and not sure why you're blind to all the references already on the page. Do you want to dispute whether the sky is blue while you're at it? MickMacNee (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to wade through all the refs on the page when you can do so and ref this. All I am asking for is a source but if we could reword the sentence to make us both happy I would be up for that too. And the thing is, with Boris or Blair (resigniong as MP) before him there is no real world controversy whereas with Davis there is and I would suggest that this is part of the issue. Ninetyone's statement is also relevant. All I would like is a source, and I am far from convinced that any of the current refs gives one (obviously I have been reading around the issue same as all of us). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that every single one of the nine references in the article contain the phrase "David Davis has resigned as an MP". I'm not seeing the controversy here, bar a technicality that matters not a jot (it was actually more important in the case of Boris/Blair than here). I'm not going to reference it on principle now. Nobody should have to jump through such ridiculous hoops when you decide to edit so bizarrely. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your hostile attitude is not welcome. I hope you can live with the alternative I have edited rather than trying to fight me with comments like "I'm not going to reference it on principle now. Nobody should have to jump through such ridiculous hoops when you decide to edit so bizarrely" which merely poison the atmosphere. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The conservatives offcial site has him listed as a "Parliamentary Candidate" rather than as an MP, that should be good enough for anyone: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=4881 , and he no longer appears on their list of MPs: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.mps.list.page&by=name ("David Davies" is different MP with a similar name) Tomgreeny (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant this Resignation from the British House of Commons. Regardless of what the sources say, he is still an MP until so appointed. we had this problem over at Boris Johnson when he got elected, when do we decide to eschew the legal truth in favour of being useful? the best option is to explain that whilst he still is an MP, it means nothing for a few days. ninety:one 14:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

David Davis and David Davies (with E and without E)

Apparently some people mistakenly took David Davis as David Davies. Both are conservatives.
see [3] we need to give a link to his page from this page. Some kind like:
"This page is about David Davis, Conservative politician from (insert text here). Click here to see a similarly named Conservative politician, David Davies

just my suggestion w_tanoto (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Still not resigned

According to Ben Brogan, David Davis is still an MP and will not take the Chiltern Hundreds until after PMQs on Wednesday.[4] Would people care to make the appropriate corrections to the article? DWaterson (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

does this means tony blair would be moved from his position in chiltern hundreds? w_tanoto (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

he will lose the position, yes. ninety:one 09:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-elected!

[5]