IT DOES, I must admit, have a certain lurid appeal. A grotesque scrap between two vain, grouchy, 50-something right-wing men, each of whom believes he is the true voice of ordinary, down-to-earth, no-nonsense Britishness. The looming by-election contest between the Tories' David Davis and former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie will certainly be worth watching – albeit for the same voyeuristic reason you might tune in to celebrity mud-wrestling.
If it was simply going to be diverting end-of-the-pier entertainment, we could treat the contest as a harmless piece of summer fun. But I fear it's not going to be like that at all. MacKenzie's presence will ensure the Haltemprice and Howden by-elect
ion, far from being the honourable and lofty debate about civil liberties intended by Davis, will descend into an orgy of politics at its most base.
If, as seems entirely feasible, MacKenzie is elected to the House of Commons as an MP, the blame will be shared by Davis, for calling the contest, and Gordon Brown, for refusing to put up a Labour challenger. I suspect that both will have plenty of opportunity in the months and years ahead to rue their decisions.
Of course, I can understand why Brown wants to keep out of this one. The bizarre decision by the Tories' shadow home secretary is the first good news the Prime Minister has had for months. I can appreciate the temptation to just sit back, savour David Cameron's angst and indulge in a spot of schadenfreude.
But MacKenzie's entry into the fray is a good reason to reassess Labour's decision not to field a candidate. Let's remind ourselves of Kelvin's mindset. While an editor, he was asked about the reader he was aiming for, and he answered: "He's the bloke you see in the pub, a right old fascist, wants to send the wogs back, buy his poxy council house, he's afraid of the unions, afraid of the Russians, hates the queers and the weirdos and drug dealers."
In a particularly rough-hewn corner of Yorkshire, this will also be his target voter. I've drawn up a wee list of issues, and during the campaign I expect to tick them off one by one: the death penalty; Europe; immigration; multiculturalism; gay rights. Who knows, maybe National Service and the birch as well.
The contest will not only be a platform for MacKenzie's own peculiar political peccadilloes, but also those of his employer. It was, after all, Rupert Murdoch who suggested to MacKenzie at a birthday party in London last week that he challenge Davis. Any MacKenzie campaign would be bankrolled by his boss.
On the terror bill itself, Brown is going to have to watch while his policy is reduced from a sophisticated piece of legislation to an eight-word slogan: "Lock 'em up and throw away the key". There may well be some in Downing Street who relish the opportunity for the Government's anti-terrorism policy to get the populist treatment from one of the best communicators in the business. But in allowing MacKenzie a free run to defend 42 days' detention and other anti-terror measures with his own motives and rationale, the Government will lose control of the message.
Who knows where it'll end up. MacKenzie is on record as saying he supports not just 42 days but "perhaps even 420 days, frankly". I shudder to think what he might get drawn into on the subject of Muslims and Britishness. Kelvin is not known for the elegance of his argument when it comes to racial minorities. No doubt the grasping, ungrateful Scots will get a mention. Maybe he'll call us 'Tartan Tosspots' again.
And what if MacKenzie does indeed become The Honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden? (If some of the disgruntled reaction from Yorkshire is anything to go by, Davis should start preparing himself for backlash and defeat.) Will Kelvin continue to be a thorn in the side of the Conservative Party? Probably. But with the tabloid hack's ability to skewer a politician with a well-chosen phrase, he would surely concentrate on a more powerful target. In the Commons, MacKenzie would get far more than his fair share of attention, and Brown would be in his sights.
Davis comes out of this looking vain and foolish. He has dressed up an act of egotism in the clothes of honour. He has resigned, he says, because of the esteem in which he holds the ancient principles of Magna Carta and habeas corpus. More recent innovations, such as parliamentary democracy, don't seem to figure so highly in his calculations.
Davis argued his position in the Commons, and argued it well. The vote went against him. Whatever the merits or demerits of his case, he lost. In politics, this happens, and when you're in opposition it happens regularly. Yet Davis lacked the grace and sense to move on to the next fight. Whatever the outcome of the by-election, he is unlikely to emerge with any influence, credibility or prospect of power.
As for Gordon Brown, there is still the chance to put forward a Labour candidate, sideline MacKenzie and defend a terror policy that has the backing of two out of three members of the public, according to a poll last weekend. Unfortunately, the ideal Labour candidate – Meta Ramsay, a formidable Scotswoman who was a senior figure in MI5 during the Gulf War and an adviser to the late Labour leader John Smith – is already in the House of Lords. But it should surely be possible to find another with a security background.
The judgment Brown now has to make is this: yes, this is a bad moment for the Tories, but ultimately who stands to lose the most from the MacKenzie agenda coming centre-stage in British politics, and MacKenzie himself planting his ample backside on the green benches of the House of Commons?
