ID Cards set to be scrapped & Other Coalition stuff

[Guest Bilo]

The voices of liberty have triumphed and Britain is better for it

The pernicious laws of the last 13 years are to be swept away in a repeal act thanks to a chance electoral result

One of the great pleasures of last week was hearing Jack Straw speaking on the Today programme in that patient, reasonable way of the true autocrat, and suddenly realising that I never have to pay attention to him again. Nor for a very long time will I have to listen to Mandelson, Campbell, Clarke, Smith, Reid, Falconer, Blunkett, Woolas or Blears: they're history and the New Labour project to extend state control into so many areas of our lives is incontestably over.

This is not merely a hopeful inference drawn from the change of government. The coalition agreement makes an explicit commitment to liberty and privacy, rolls back state intrusion, restores freedoms and puts a brake on the erosion of rights. There are omissions, of course, but overall this is a moment to cherish because along with specific guarantees, it is clear that the tone of government has changed and that the influence of the new administration may extend right down to the rude and officious exercise of petty authority that flourished under New Labour.

The Queen's speech, now being drafted, will establish a Freedom or Great Repeal bill – the title has not yet been chosen – as a major part of the coalition's legislative programme. All the areas detailed in the agreement between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, such as the abolition of ID cards and the children's database (ContactPoint database??), the further regulation of CCTV and the restoration of right to protest will be in it. Measures that weren't in the published agreement will reassert the right to silence and protect people against the huge number of new powers of entry into the home allowed by Labour.

Separate from this will be a complete review of terror legislation that will assess 28-day detention, control orders, section 44 stop and search powers, the harassment of photographers, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and its amendments, which sanctioned 650 agencies and local authorities to carry out undercover surveillance operations on, for example, people suspected of making dubious school applications for their children, eel fishermen in Poole harbour, punt operators in Cambridge, depressed police officers and malingering council workers.

The strategy is to keep debate on the terror laws apart from the Freedom Act, which in one fell swoop will repeal all the anti-libertarian laws that have accumulated on the statute book in what was described to me as "an absolutely comprehensive fashion". The government does not want discussion of terror laws to obstruct the swift repeal of Labour's attack on liberty in other areas.

Clearly, this all has to be watched very closely indeed – a lot has yet to be decided and there will be pressures from the civil servants, police, GCHQ and MI5 on such things as internet surveillance and phone intercepts. European plans for data collection and surveillance are a particular worry. But the essential point is that this exciting turn of events would not have been possible under a Labour-Lib Dem coalition or a Conservative minority government. It is a rare stroke of luck for the interests of liberty that the coalition allows the prime minister, David Cameron, to embrace this Lib Dem policy with open arms and ignore the reservations of the law-and-order nuts on his right.

This is a palpable benefit of the new coalition government, which should go some way to changing the minds of all those who protest that Labour was qualified to retain power by forming a "progressive alliance" with Liberal Democrats. Seems to me these people are still in the slow lane; or they haven't come to terms with the way Labour savaged liberty, while claiming support from progressives as its moral entitlement. At the end of an historic week, that looks very much like the old politics, because it involves a denial of the facts.

Four years ago, the day after an email exchange about liberty between Tony Blair and I was published in the Observer, the bad cop home secretary, Charles Clarke, set about briefing against this newspaper's campaign and made a speech at the LSE in which he accused me, and others, of spreading "pernicious, even dangerous poison". That was OK – Clarke's invective had the opposite of the desired effect – but it occurred to me then that I should think about what was behind the attack on liberty.

So I wrote a list of reasons, which I still have.

First of all, people such as Clarke, Reid, Straw and Blunkett had been involved in far-left politics in their youth and from those days they retained a belief in the inherent wisdom of the state and saw it as the only real force for good. This accounted for the largely undetected seam of authoritarianism that ran through New Labour.

Second, New Labour was a quasi-revolutionary movement that had fallen in love with the market and had no coherent ideology other than a belief in modernisation. These were people who were impatient with history and the great achievements of such things as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and so forth. The struggle for liberty seemed to mean nothing to them. All that was new and modern was good: the old had nothing to tell them.

Third, New Labour displayed a deep pessimism about ordinary people, which had quietly replaced the traditional compassion of the old Labour party. How this was allowed to happen is difficult to say –perhaps it was the brutalising effect of absorbing so much from Thatcherism. At any rate, that jaundiced view inspired ministers and civil servants to draft legislation that removed defendants' rights, to abandon faith in rehabilitation and redemption, and to assume ordinary people would always act in their own interests rather than those of society.

If you want an explanation for the looming mistrust behind so many of the databases and all the other expensive paraphernalia of suspicion it is this pessimism, which has spread through the media and society to the point where we think much less of ourselves and are disposed to believe the worst will always happen.

In that 2006 speech, Charles Clarke ridiculed this sentence of mine: "The presumption of innocence is no longer a fixed legal principle." The point I was making was that in narrow terms the government had undermined legal rights in such things as control orders, where a suspect is held under conditions of house arrest without being found guilty of a crime, or being told the evidence against him, and that more widely, everything from football banning orders to 28-day detention without charge, the use of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), terror laws and mass surveillance of communications and movement offended the principle that law-abiding citizens should be respected by the state.

Convictions were made easier and we reached a point where mere accusation seemed to become an indicator of guilt. Mark George QC – a left-leaning lawyer from a Manchester chambers – wrote passionately this year about the introduction of hearsay evidence and effects of introducing civil standards of proof (the balance of probabilities) to replace requirements in a criminal case (sure beyond reasonable doubt) in anti-social behaviour orders, serious crime orders and gang-related offences.

The culture of suspicion and of the state always knowing best led not simply to a weakening of justice, but to a process in which the public was gradually infantilised: we were to be protected by health and safety regulations and chivvied by various new manifestations of authority in high-visibility jackets. People returning from the supermarket in Brighton had their wine confiscated for being in possession of alcohol in a public place. A 75-year-old blind man whose guide dog fouled in a field was handed a £40 fixed penalty notice. The UK Borders Agency started asking people where they were travelling to and why, and whether they had anything in their luggage that would be of interest to it. The same agency started locking up thousands of innocent children in detention centres for asylum seekers, a seriously damaging practice that the new government – thank God – is going to abandon.

This mass disrespect for the public played out in parliament, where elected representatives were treated as an inconvenience, sidelined or bullied by Labour whips to pass laws that were clearly against the interests of transparent government. The Inquiries Act 2005, for example, changed the law so that official reports were presented to a minister, not parliament, and enabled ministers to suppress evidence, change the terms of the inquiry and dismiss the chair. I cannot see this law as being anything other than deliberately hostile to good government.

Thinking about the five years of this campaign, I realise that the most agonising part of it was the sense that few people were really paying attention, and that Labour politicians could dismiss those who were as cranks and hysterics. This fear was behind the setting up of the Convention on Modern Liberty last year by Anthony Barnett and me, and the commission of a survey of all the laws that attacked liberty by University College law students, which we published as he Abolition of Freedom Act. The same fear compelled David Davis MP to resign during the previous summer and campaign against 42-day pre-charge detention and the database state, a gesture that cost him politically but which was critical in the defence of liberty.

This vindication is almost as much fun as not listening to Jack Straw. The programme of measures listed in the agreement between the governing parties "to reverse the substantial erosion of liberties under the Labour government" proves for once and all that we weren't making it up. We are very fortunate that the election played out the way it did.

Excellent article from yesterday's Observer. One of the reasons why I hope the coalition holds firm and Labour returns to politics for the next election rejuvenated with a greater awareness of civil liberties.

[Jon the Hat]

Excellent article from yesterday's Observer. One of the reasons why I hope the coalition holds firm and Labour returns to politics for the next election rejuvenated with a greater awareness of civil liberties.

I am personally delighted by the idea of a repeal bill, we can start to reverse the corrosive influence of Labour as quickly as possible. I don't personally hold that this was the influence of a few people in New Labour, I feel it is a more widespread ill which attaches itself to socialism in general and I refer to a wonderful quote by one C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

[l444ry]

FFS what are you on? Tories and Civil liberties?

Stop smoking it whatever it is!

It is true that some Tories may appear to have ‘discovered’ liberty in the last year or two. But I suspect this is merely a marketing reaction to the slow (but fairly steady) growth of the Liberal Democrats since the 1980s. The Tory Party showed precious little sign of supporting civil liberties when last in Government, under Mrs Thatcher and John Major.

[Jon the Hat]

FFS what are you on? Tories and Civil liberties?

Stop smoking it whatever it is!

It is true that some Tories may appear to have discovered liberty in the last year or two. But I suspect this is merely a marketing reaction to the slow (but fairly steady) growth of the Liberal Democrats since the 1980s. The Tory Party showed precious little sign of supporting civil liberties when last in Government, under Mrs Thatcher and John Major.

Your mob have done more to take away the civil liberties of this nation than anyone in the our long history of elected government. Is it any wonder this has prompted a reaction? The article is right though, there is no doubt that Cameron has expediently taken advantage of the Liberal coalition to make some changes he would never have achieved otherwise. All parties are their own coalitions after all, and Cameron and his crew are on the Liberal side.

If only all Labourites could discover the same belated honesty as Liam Byrne...

[sw_fox]

To be honest, both Labour AND Conservatives have been chipping away at civil liberties over the last 30 years. Remember the stop & search laws and the criminal justice bill?

The Liberal Democrats are the only party committed to this issue, but the tory party do have a wing that is concerned with civil liberties. Surprisingly enough it is the Thatcherist fringe that believe political liberalism goes hand in hand with economic liberalism. This is why David Davis, on the right of the tory party, stepped down and forced a by-election a couple of years ago over the issue of civil liberties. Although Thatcher was a bit of an authoritarian, she was, strangely enough, broadly supported in her authoritarian measures by the 'one nation' wing of the party, as they believed there should be a greater role for the state in all aspects of life. So you get the strange situation that Thatcher's old supporters, whose lady took away civil liberties, were against her, and her opponents were for her on this issue!

[sw_fox]

And also, Labour, having its roots in being a Socialist party, has absolutely no tradition of concern for civil liberties, or liberalism of any form. If you had anounced you were concerned with civil liberties in the 1980s labour party you would have been denounced as a liberal. The Labour party has authoritarian roots, and this was displayed in the new labour nanny state/police state/surveillance state project.

[Guest Bilo]

Was it the Tories who introduced the Terrorism Act 2000 that has seen anti GM Food protestors lumped in with Al-Qaeda operatives?

Was it the Tories who used that Act to suppress legitimate protests against the Iraq War?

Was it the Tories who introduced the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act that has made it compulsory for UK ISPs to monitor users' browsing habits?

Was it the Tories who pushed for the introduction of compulsory ID Cards in this country for the first time since World War II?

Was it the Tories who introduced the Criminal Justice Bill that has limited the right to trial by jury, double jeopardy, increased notoriously racist stop and search powers and detention without charge?

Was it the Tories who pushed for suspected (key word there, suspected) terrorists to be detained without trail for 90 days?

More to the point, which party led the charge against that being passed into law?

Was it the Tories who turned a blind eye to extraordinary rendition to countries known to practice torture?

Was it the Tories who were complicit in the scandal of Guantanamo Bay?

Was it a Tory home secretary who came out with this pearler on civil liberties?

"We could live in a world which is airy fairy, libertarian, where everybody does precisely what they like and we believe the best of everybody and then they destroy us."

Was it the Tories who effectively banned any protests near Parliament through the use of SOCPA?

Is Shami Chakrabarti a Tory for describing Labour's time in office as 'one of the most authoritarian ages in living memory?'

What can be made of Nick Clegg's declaration that this is one of the most spied upon countries in the developed world?

If the Tories' time in office between 1979 and 1997 was an attack on basic civil liberties, and there's a strong argument in favour of that when you look at the way that Irish hunger strikers in the Maze were treated, Labour's time in office has been characterised by a war on them. An open, full-scale war of control freakery against the rights of individuals where even the man charged with upholding our freedoms describes civil liberties as 'airy-fairy'. The fact is that this was a major issue, if none of these issues existed I might even have voted Labour, but authoritarianism has so embodied Labour over the past 13 years that I simply couldn't bring myself to vote for them.

[l444ry]

No, but the Tories were responsible for, amongst other things-:

Use of the Police as political shock troops in the miners strike.

The operation of a shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland.

The ban on Sinn Fein spokespeoples actual voices being heard in the media (probably the most stupid anti-terrorism idea ever put forward!)

Spycatcher

We should not make the tragic error of believing that simply getting rid of the current Labour Government is the answer to all our prayers. Especially as Cameron is calling for The Human Rights Act to be repealed.

[Alexikokopops]

So, they've both done some bad things and both done so good things? Well, this was a constructive use of my time.

[FoxyPV]

No, but the Tories British were responsible for, amongst other things-:

The operation of a shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland.

The ban on Sinn Fein spokespeople’s actual voices being heard in the media (probably the most stupid anti-terrorism idea ever put forward!)

[Webbo]

If the Tories' time in office between 1979 and 1997 was an attack on basic civil liberties, and there's a strong argument in favour of that when you look at the way that Irish hunger strikers in the Maze were treated, Labour's time in office has been characterised by a war on them. An open, full-scale war of control freakery against the rights of individuals where even the man charged with upholding our freedoms describes civil liberties as 'airy-fairy'. The fact is that this was a major issue, if none of these issues existed I might even have voted Labour, but authoritarianism has so embodied Labour over the past 13 years that I simply couldn't bring myself to vote for them.

They were in jail for committing crimes of violence including murder. There's not a regime on earth that wouldn't put them in jail. Why is that depriving them of their civil liberties?

[Fosse Boy]

I can't understand why the actions of previous Tory administrations in eroding civil liberties makes it somehow OK for New Labour to take it further during their time in office?

The ban on Sinn Fein spokespeople’s actual voices being heard in the media (probably the most stupid anti-terrorism idea ever put forward!)

Any excuse...

[sw_fox]

They were in jail for committing crimes of violence including murder. There's not a regime on earth that wouldn't put them in jail. Why is that depriving them of their civil liberties?

Many of them were detained without trial, SUSPECTED of committing murder. Their right to habeus corpus had been withdrawn. Nothing short of fascist tactics there, much like our current terror laws used for detaining people for walking on the wrong tow path, and used to stop an search people without reason.

[Guest Bilo]

They were in jail for committing crimes of violence including murder. There's not a regime on earth that wouldn't put them in jail. Why is that depriving them of their civil liberties?

That those convicted of terror attacks should have been in prison is, obviously, beyond dispute. However, not all were actually convicted, there were numerous human rights abuses committed which led to the hunger strike itself such as the withdrawal of Special Category status and attacks on prisoners by guards.

[l444ry]

I can't understand why the actions of previous Tory administrations in eroding civil liberties makes it somehow OK for New Labour to take it further during their time in office?

Any excuse...

It doesn't. Labour's record is a fooking disgrace.

[Webbo]

Many of them were detained without trial, SUSPECTED of committing murder. Their right to habeus corpus had been withdrawn. Nothing short of fascist tactics there, much like our current terror laws used for detaining people for walking on the wrong tow path, and used to stop an search people without reason.

All of the hunger strikers that died had been convicted of a crime that would lead to imprisonment today to anyone of any race.Wiki

[Webbo]

That those convicted of terror attacks should have been in prison is, obviously, beyond dispute. However, not all were actually convicted, there were numerous human rights abuses committed which led to the hunger strike itself such as the withdrawal of Special Category status and attacks on prisoners by guards.

Why should murderers receive special treatment?

[FoxyPV]

Why should murderers receive special treatment?

Depends on whether or not you see them as criminals or political prisoners.

[Webbo]

Depends on whether or not you see them as criminals or political prisoners.

Well I see murder as a crime.

[FoxyPV]

Well I see murder as a crime.

Not arguing that but they had been given polticial status beforehand and thus the British Govt had accepted that this was a political struggle so they were deemed political prisoners.

[Guest Bilo]

Not arguing that but they had been given polticial status beforehand and thus the British Govt had accepted that this was a political struggle so they were deemed political prisoners.

Very true, and with all the better treatment that came with it. Withdrawing those privileges for what seemed like political pointscoring triggered all the upheaval afterwards.

[Webbo]

Going back to the original point, treating convicted prisoners as prisoners was not an infringement of civil liberties.

[AoWW]

So, they've both done some bad things and both done so good things? Well, this was a constructive use of my time.

I'm so glad you said that. I was starting to think it was just me.

[Jon the Hat]

It doesn't. Labour's record is a fooking disgrace.

Now that wasn't so bad now was it?

[Jon the Hat]

Next up! Home information packs (HIPS) have been sent. err packing, Good move. Some idiot from the body who represents inspector types who will find business drying up a little was trying to make out that this would cost the treasury £100m in tax reciepts. Yes... becuase people who are buying and selling houses could not find a better way to spend the money...