Turnout in Haltemprice and Howden was a measly 34 per cent, less than half of what it was at the general election.

No doubt DD’s apologists will claim that this is all the Labour Party’s fault for not standing a candidate (shame on us for not jumping when DD clicks his fingers!). But no amount of spin or argument can disguise the fact that the Haltemprice and Howden by-election has been a colossal waste of time, effort and money.

More importantly, it has had not the slightest impact on public support for (or opposition to) the policy of 42 days detention.

Visit Tom's blog. 

Start giggling now. There are 25 independent and wacky candidates who have decided it is a good use of their money to stand against Davis in Haltemprice and Howden.

My old class mate (college class, that is, not social class) George Pascoe-Watson, the Sun's political editor, just said something on Sky that's taken me by surprise. Referring to Dave's commitment to campaign for David Davis in the forthcoming self-inflicted by-election, George said this might mean that the Tories "might not stand a candidate against him". What on earth does that mean? That DD has resigned as a member of the Conservative Party? That he won't be the Tories' official candidate?

Davis's own claim that this by-election will give his electorate an opportunity to pass judgment is perhaps true, but what happens if and when he arrives back at the Commons with his new mandate? That the 70,000 voters in Haltemprice and Howden should have a veto over policy agreed by the House of Commons, a policy supported by an overwhelming majority of citizens (including, presumably, a similar proportion of Haltemprice and Howden's voters)?

The rather magnificent Denis MacShane is on Sky at the moment, being gloriously patronising about DD's "little by-election". At least half of the Labour MPs I met in the tearoom in the past hour have told me they think Labour shouldn't stand a candidate. Not sure yet; we should probably let the dust settle before that decision is taken.

I had lunch a few weeks ago with a good friend of DD's who said DD had given up any hope of leading his party. If rumours about an irreconcilable split between Dave and DD are true, could this be DD's last throw of the dice, a chance to attract some attention after years in Dave's shadow? He says he wants to take a stand against government infringements on civil liberties. Does that mean he feels that no-one else in his party (aka Dave) is willing to do so?

What is fascinating about Dave's most recent pronouncement in this is his statement that "I wish him well" in his by-election campaign. He sounded like a disinterested commentator, not the leader of the Opposition and the Conservative Party.

Visit Tom's blog (but only if you've nothing better to do). 

A poll in today’s Telegraph suggests 65 per cent of the electorate supports an extension of pre-trial detention for terrorist suspects to 42 days. The only surprising thing about that figure is how low it is.

I spoke to a Tory frontbencher last week, who effectively admitted that in government his party would be far more likely to support this kind of measure, on the basis that a government’s first duty is protection of the country’s citizens, whereas the duty of the opposition… isn’t, really. Pretty shameful attitude. Labour, in the years BT*, voted regularly against the annual renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Only under Tony did we come to our senses and realise that only parties which take security seriously in opposition can be trusted with government.

The same is true today. The 42 days clause should be supported, not because it’s popular (though it is) but because it will help protect people. If the Tories understand this but oppose it for party political reasons, then they are not fit to govern.

*Before Tony

Visit Tom's blog (if you can stomach it).