On Liberty

Posted on February 26, 2009 by bobpiper

If I remember correctly, when the Labour Government came to power in 1997 they didn’t include a Manifesto commitment on civil liberties. In truth, I’ll say this softly, the labour movement in general has always had an authoritarian streak and has never been big on individual liberty, often using a concept of some form of collective liberty as a fig leaf to hide behind. Many on the left see individual liberty as something which presents a threat to ‘society’ as a whole. So Blair tipped the nod to Thatcher by making ‘the family’ the cornerstone of a New Labour society, and individual liberties were not really addressed.
It didn’t really seem to matter back then. We had suffered the soporific John Major years, but the dreadful memory of life under Thatcher was still so recent in the minds most of the country, that Labour didn’t need to make any big pitch on civil liberties. Now, 12 years on, people are asking the question. On the doorstep I am still not likely to be asked about cctv cameras (unless it is a driver with a speeding fine) apart from being asked to provide more, and the whole issue of ID cards boils down more to whether people think it is a waste of money rather than an intrusion. But I do get the feeling that people think the Government (by which they mean the whole state machine) interferes far too much in their lives. They don’t want microchips on their waste bins, all of their computer transactions recorded and stored, local councils filming their homes over some suspicion or other, not to mention the whole crazy caboodle of anti-terrorist measures we are bombarded with by those who claim to be protecting our safety. Although it breaks no Manifesto promises, people didn’t vote for it, and I get the feeling they would much prefer it if government were just to leave them alone a bit.
I was moved to write this after reading this. I think they are correct to ask the question, because although the Tories make pretty noises about civil liberties, I very much doubt that the leopard has changed its spots. In the past their attitude to liberty has been in support of that individual liberty that I mentioned earlier the labour movement had such difficulty with. An attitude best summed up by the notion that every free born man and women is at liberty to sleep at the Ritz or underneath the arches of the railway line. But their record on civil liberties, in as much as they affect society, is no better (nor worse maybe) than that of Labour in Government. Modern technology, computers, phones, the internet have changed beyond recognition since the days of sleepy John, but there is nothing in the Tory past that points to a party of civil liberties. And even in recent years they ramble on about the ‘rights’ of people to hunt and kill little animals or for smokers rights to make us all as ill as they are.
I strongly suspect the Tory commitment to civil liberties, like its conversion to green politics, and pink politics, has got one thing, and one thing only at the heart of it. Power. They know they are unlikely to shake Labour’s core vote sufficiently to win a working majority. What they need to turn is the Liberal Democrat vote. Those wavering free market economic liberals are their target. Persuade the sandal-wearers that you care about polar bears, airport runways and ID cards… that’s the strategy.
Blair persuaded those Liberal Democrats that he was really one of them. Cameron and crew reckon that if they were daft enough to fall for it once, they might just do it again. It’s their best chance.
So, are they serious about civil liberties? Don’t bet on it, its just a cynical ploy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to On Liberty

  1. Tony Sharp says:
    February 26, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    Hello Bob. You are fair to say that there is nothing in the Tory past that points to a party of civil liberties.
    But then, there has never before been such a concerted effort by a UK government to explore every possible avenue to find ways of harvesting as much information about each individual as possible and monitoring their movements and preferences. Even questions on the census have become more intrusive.
    The right of the law abiding individual to enjoy privacy from the state is being destroyed because of an ideology that believes the state is the answer to all problems and needs to be all powerful. Even the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is being reversed as we are all turned into defacto suspects by the state machine.
    It is worrying that mechanisms reserved for law enforcement have been extended to state employees allowing them to assume a level of control over private individuals that is completely unacceptable.
    One thing socialists such as yourself remain incapable of grasping is the natural aversion of many conservatives to a large and powerful state. This erosion of civil liberties and individual freedoms is happening because of the socialist ideology of big government – something conservatives strongly oppose.
    The desire to govern this country does not require the disturbing intrusion into the lives of its population that is being pursued by Labour. So if, as you suggest, the Tory commitment to civil liberties is nothing more than a cynical attempt to win power, feel free to explain why the commitment existed even when polls suggested there was support for Labour’s assault on liberty, before most people started to realise just how destructive it was.

    Reply
  2. Bob Piper says:
    February 26, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    Tony… for the reasons I gave. They need to prise Lib Dems away from their natural home, and the ‘green’ agenda and civil liberties agenda is part of that move. It was never unpopular with their supporters, and that’s the votes they need to win… not those of the natural Tories, they are already in the bag.

    Reply
  3. Bill says:
    February 26, 2009 at 9:26 pm

    Bob.
    Consider the nations that do and have in the past lived under left wing regimes.
    How many of them have to prevent their people from leaving?
    Some kind of liberty that is.
    Consider under what flavour of ideology have the most extreme restrictions on liberty and the most appalling human rights infringements have occurred.

    Reply
  4. Bob Piper says:
    February 27, 2009 at 12:00 am

    Bill, perhaps you didn’t read the first paragraph, I make no apologies for it. However, history is littered with examples of regimes of all varieties that have suppressed civil liberties, from monarchies, tribalism, fascism, religious bigots and communism. You can pretend you are on the side of the angels if you wish, but I would suggest you are being slightly delusional.
    I find it strange that those who suggest that communist states ‘imprison’ people are usually those that who want to exclude ‘foreigners’ from coming in.

    Reply
  5. Mr. Jolly says:
    February 27, 2009 at 12:39 am

    Bob. You might be groping towards the truth here on some points, however: Going back into history, I believe it was that well known socialist Winston Churchill who abandoned the WW2 identity card scheme in what, 1952? I really don’t think that when the Blessed Margaret started going on about green issues and the environment back in the 80s’ (you must remember that rather strange footage of her scouring some god-forsaken wasteland for rubbish) she was really too concerned about attracting Lib-Dem (or were the SDP still going then?) votes though.
    As for the current bunch of Tories, well, apart from Mr. David ‘The Ego Has Landed’ Davis, who for all his faults did actually put his job on the line over an issue of whether the Labour party was right to bang up anyone they fancied to without trial, the evidence does look pretty slim. The thing is though, as far as this sceptical voter is concerned there is no-one in the Parliamentary Labour party (and certainly no-one on the front bench)who seems to give a monkeys about these issues.
    Given a choice, which way should a person who does care about these matters vote? For a party who are happy to tear up all kinds of hard-earned rights like habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, the right to a trial by jury, and the right to privacy both on-line and offline as part of ‘The Fight Against Terror’? Or for a party who have said they will tear up the ID card scheme, and let people get on with their lives without monitoring everything they do, say, or think?
    Until the Libertarian Party get their act together, and get around to standing in my constituency I think I know where I will be putting my X come next May.

    Reply
  6. Mr. Jolly says:
    February 27, 2009 at 1:03 am

    Bob. Sorry for posting twice in a day on the same subject, but here is a quote from part of an article from Philip Pullman at The Times.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5811412.ece
    “We know who our friends are
    And when our friends want to have words with one of you
    We shall make it easy for them to take you away to a country where you will learn that you have more fingernails than you need
    It will be no use bleating that you know of no offence you have committed under British law
    It is for us to know what your offence is
    Angering our friends is an offence
    It is inconceivable to me that a waking nation in the full consciousness of its freedom would have allowed its government to pass such laws as the Protection from Harassment Act (1997), the Crime and Disorder Act (1998), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Terrorism Act (2000), the Criminal Justice and Police Act (2001), the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Extension Act (2002), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Extradition Act (2003), the Anti-Social Behaviour Act (2003), the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act (2004), the Civil Contingencies Act (2004), the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005), the Inquiries Act (2005), the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (2005), not to mention a host of pending legislation such as the Identity Cards Bill, the Coroners and Justice Bill, and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
    Inconceivable.
    And those laws say:
    Sleep, you stinking cowards
    Sweating as you dream of rights and freedoms
    Freedom is too hard for you
    We shall decide what freedom is
    Sleep, you vermin ”
    A bit over the top perhaps, but only a bit.

    Reply
  7. Bob Piper says:
    February 27, 2009 at 5:12 am

    Mr Jolly, when Mrs Thatcher was displaying her green credentials in front of the cameras on that bit of waste ground… did she find her football supporters ID card scheme amongst the waste paper?
    Still, if you believe the rhetoric rather than know them by what they do, it would appear Cameron’s ‘you can fool some people all of the time’ strategy might actually work.
    But I suppose it’s better than waiting for the Libertarian Party to ‘get its act together’, which I think I’ll keep in my little book of classic quotes.

    Reply
  8. Gary Elsby says:
    February 27, 2009 at 9:03 am

    I remember in the mid 1980′s that I was pulled over by a police man on my way to work.
    Clipped a kerb? Wavered over the white line? Speeding? Nope.
    I was asked where I was going.
    Work, I said.
    Then came a myriad of questions regarding what I meant by work.
    Remember, this was at the height of Thatcher’s stormtrooping and scorched earth policies.
    It transpired that I,’looked like a miner’ and if I actually was a miner, I would have been sent back home!
    I’m glad the Conservatives have now found God, it makes me feel all good inside.

    Reply
  9. Bob Piper says:
    February 27, 2009 at 9:11 am

    Gary, you need a pair of Mr Jolly’s rose-tinted specs. Nostalgia makes the heart grow fonder when you put them on apparently.

    Reply
  10. Mr.Jolly says:
    March 4, 2009 at 12:48 am

    Bob.
    “her football supporters ID card”
    Apparently it wasn’t introduced by her:
    “- In 1988, the MP Tony Favell tried to introduce a Bill under the Ten Minute Rule to introduce a British ID card, to ‘help in the fight against football hooligans’ and ‘crime in general’. The Bill was defeated by 172 votes to 114. The Home Affairs Select Committee briefly considered and rejected the idea of ID cards. ”
    From http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/SCRIPT-ed/vol2-1/idcards.asp
    Apparently it seems that it was the work of one swivel-eyed loon called David Evans, if you believe the Grauniad anyway.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/24/conservatives
    So it didn’t spring from the fevered mind of La Thatch, and it didn’t get voted into law.
    So nice try, but no cigar.
    Oh and as for Mr. Elsby’s equally touching piece of nostalgia, I wonder if that policeman had the power under the dictatorial Thatcher regime to bang Mr. Elsby up for ten years if he took a photograph of him? (Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008)
    Oh, and as for your rather sniffy remarks about the Libertarian Party not being ready yet to put up a candidate in every constituency; no political party ever sprung into life completely formed. New parties form, old parties die. Just look at what remains of the Liberal party. A word of advice old chap, don’t ever get so complacent so as to think that the political landscape is immutable. (I think the Whigs might want to have a word with you over that too.)

    Reply