In praise of a troublesome and fearless MP

LET US take the opportunity, ahead of the return of Parliament, to praise Philip Davies MP – the tribune of Shipley’s people.

He’s outspoken, he’s stubborn, he’s a dedicated user of the House of Commons’ rules in all their vicious glory. He has never seen a left-wing sensitivity that didn’t look perfectly primed for treading on, to the outrage of his critics and the satisfaction of many of his voters.

He doesn’t court the approval of the lobby, and he doesn’t back down from his opinions even when they make his colleagues cringe – knowing that to apologise for something he really believes would be to defeat the point of his existence. In short, Parliament would be the poorer without him.

Back in 2006, at the Conservative Party conference in Bournemouth, I had the task of introducing him at The Freedom Association’s first Better Off Out conference rally. I suggested he was the man to take up the mantle of Eric Forth, the Bromley MP who had died a few months earlier. For the Daily Telegraph, which was running a “Mods and Rockers” theme to contrast between Cameron’s modernisers and their opponents, this was “the ultimate rocker accolade”. I didn’t say it lightly – Forth was a Commons institution, a selfdescribed “parliamentary yob”, a politically incorrect champion of the filibuster and Davies’ mentor.

The man from Shipley has more than lived up to that title over the last decade.

His talking out of Private Members’ Bills drives many MPs, on all sides, round the bend, but he is a stalwart bearer of the torch which Forth passed on: “Lots of these [Bills] have all got a worthy sentiment behind them but you can’t pass legislation on the whim of a worthy sentiment because it affects people’s lives and livelihoods… It is a very unsatisfactory way to pass legislation.”

His firm application of that principle hasn’t always made him popular with the media, various groups of voters and other MPs. To name but two examples, sinking attempts to further regulate landlords, and trying to prevent the aid spending target being embedded in the statute book, drew bitter criticism.

But anyone who thought such incoming fire would make Davies run, rather than dig himself in deeper, has misunderstood his character. If anything, it’s likely to encourage him.

The question of whether to value his existence cannot be answered by whether you agree with him or not. I share most of his views on the EU, but disagree with him strongly on samesex marriage and Government snooping powers.

However his value is twofold. First, his presence on the green benches ensures that there is someone in Parliament willing to stand up for a range of views which, if it were left to the leaderships of each party, would be unheard and unrepresented in Westminster. MPs have become more independentminded in recent years, but it takes a rare bloody-mindedness to put one’s head down and charge through consensus and taboo every time you come across it – like Forth before him, Davies performs that public service on principle, regardless of the risk or cost to his own interests.

Second, Parliament needs champions – not just those who write or lecture on the importance of an activist, rebellious Commons, but those who actually deliver one in practice. Governments of all stripes will abolish powers and rules they dislike, and such functions require someone using them regularly to keep them polished and functional. His presence makes it far harder to erode the Commons. He would hate the comparison, but he is like a parliamentary Swampy, camping out high in the boughs of the Westminster tree to defy the ministerial bulldozers.

So yes, he may make almost everyone wince at one point or another – but when he said he opposed political correctness, at least he really meant it. Yes, he may drive his colleagues batty by

It takes a rare bloodymindedness to charge through consensus and taboo.

sinking their carefully crafted Private Members’ Bills or wasting their time with hours-long speeches to carry a debate over a deadline – but if he wasn’t willing to take the criticism for ensuring the powers of individual MPs are exercised and preserved, who would? And yes, he doesn’t care if his views offend the orthodoxies of polite London society – but plenty of voters would do so, too, given the chance, and they deserve a voice as much as anyone else.

A House of Commons without Davies would no doubt run more smoothly. MPs’ and Ministers’ blood pressure would be lower. A variety of special interest campaigns would be much happier. But since when was it the purpose of Parliament to deliver a quiet life for politicians, or to fulfil the every wish of any lobbyist who might come along?

As Forth always used to argue, easy, unquestioning consensus is a reliable breeding ground for bad laws and worse government. For reliably opposing consensus, and making as much noise and mess as is necessary to do so, we should thank Philip Davies – and the voters of Shipley who keep sending him to Westminster.