The intervention of Kelivin McKenzie - apparently backed by the Sun and with financial support from Murdoch, if the BBC report is accurate - makes this potentially very interesting.

McKenzie's position is described by the BBC as being as follows:


So, as well as the civil liberties issues, we've got that old chestnut, Europe, and a rag-bag of issues which, given McKenzie's record as an editor, are likely to be the usual issues; so-called "political correctness", immigration,  opposition to public service broadcasting (if there's Murdoch money involved, you can guess where this is heading).

All of which suggests the interesting spectacle of a Tory - and one who, in his role as Shadow Home Secretary is no stranger to populism - taking a stand on civil liberties and being opposed from the position of the old populist right, by a man whose decision to stand appears to be motivated by the absence of New Labour.

So, whatever the motivation behind the events, the outcome could be a lot more interesting - and important - than would have been the case before McKenzie's intervention.  If Davis wins, and wins well, one could see this as a firm rejection of the odious values behind The Sun and other right-wing tabloids - something which I, for one, would cheer long and loud.  If it's closer - or even if, God helps us, McKenzie wins - then there is a real battle on our hands between the values of liberal tolerance and a poujadism which is barely distinguishable from the position of a party that we don't name here, but has recently got its first London Assembly member and regularly gets more than ten percent of the vote in local by-elections.   McKenzie could be a stalking-horse for the values of the unnamed party.

So my feeling is that if McKenzie does stand, this could be a political event whose significance could be much greater than Davis might have realised, for rather different reasons.

The depressing thought is that with a battle between Davis and McKenzie, we have something like the 'choice' on offer in American elections

ie. between Davis and Murdoch.

Except in one respect:  Murdoch has never actually faced the electorate - he's used his money to buy media outlets through which he has poured out his bilious message, and influence with successive generations of politicians (both Thatcher and New Labour).  The one positive thing that might just emerge from this whole saga is the trouncing of Murdoch's candidate at the polls.

But I agree it could go the other way, in which as a society we have a real problem on our hands.

I agree.  An honest debate would be essential.  In those circumstances, the position of the main parties will be important: it will be interesting to see whether the morally-compromised lobby fodder that is the Parliamentary Labour Party - and indeed their equally compromised remaining Labour Party machine outside Parliament - might rummage up some vestige of the things they apparently once believed in and actually be prepared to make a stand for them.  And whether the Tories could deal with the large part of their membership that support's Mckenzie's world view (even while being horrified by his accent) would be significant too.


I don't know what the law is on this.  But there are ways of getting around such laws - as both Labour and Tories well know.