Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘UK’ Category

Full leak of Westminster shakeup online leaves newspapers and broadcasters struck dumb – and irrelevant – until midnight.

Crumbling reporting restrictions…

Why on earth did the Boundary Commission think that releasing the results of its reshuffle of English and Northern Irish Westminster constituencies should be kept under wraps until midnight? The shape and size of constituencies is a subject of near obsessive interest to MPs – who like newspapers and broadcasters have already been briefed on the proposals today. All have told to keep quiet until the first minute of tomorrow, but in such an environment leaks are inevitable.

Guido Fawkes has published a complete set of the reform proposals – you can read that here. Some local media are already discussing them – here is something about the Isle of Wight if you are interested. Twitter is, well, atweet with similar details – Nick Bent who was a candidate at Warrington South at the last election has published a link to the proposals for the North West. And MPs are ringing the Guardian to comment, or would like to, were it not for the fact that this newspaper is under embargo.

It’s a nonsense. This is the modern day equivalent of the old 14 day rule – the rule that used to prevent the BBC from discussing any area of policy that had been debated in Parliament in the last fortnight. The 14 day rule was dropped in 1957 because it was obviously a nonsense then. That was the era of Suez. But, in an era where news moves that little bit faster, it seems to have returned in a new guise. Broadcasters and newspapers cannot report on or explain the changes to Westminster constituency boundaries, when the whole of Westminster knows the proposals and anybody interested can read all about it online.

If traditional media keep this up, they can look forward to the blogosphere cheerfully stealing some of the easiest scoops known to reporting. Somebody ought to stand up for serious journalism and break ranks. It’s only an embargo after all.

Read Full Post »

Man helped from Travellers’ site brands Leighton Buzzard arrests ‘rubbish’ as nine men refuse to help investigation

Police guard the Greenacre caravan site in Leighton Buzzard.

The police investigation into a suspected slave camp at a Travellers’ site in Bedfordshire has been challenged after nine of the 24 alleged slaves refused to help police with their inquiries.

One of the nine accused the police of heavy-handed tactics and described the five arrests as “complete rubbish”.

Police insist that the four-month undercover operation has broken up an “organised crime group”, and were questioning 15 alleged victims, who were being treated for malnutrition and other medical problems.

Police continue to question four men and are looking for two further suspects. One heavily pregnant woman, who is expected to give birth imminently, has been released on bail. No charges have yet been brought.

DCI Sean O’Neil, from the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire major crimes unit, said: “Those people who we continue to help are appreciative of the support that is on offer, but it will take some time to work through with them what has happened.”

He said he was confident the operation, called Operation Netwing, had broken up a criminal network.

Police have arrested suspects on slavery and servitude offences under section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act.

“The new legislation has allowed the investigation more scope and takes into account emotional rather than physical harm,” O’Neil said. “I am confident that while the investigation is in its early stages this is a family-run ‘business’ and is an organised crime group that has been broken up by the Netwing operation.”

At the well-established Greenacre caravan park in Leighton Buzzard, which has 16 mobile homes, one of the men taken by police, who did not want to be named, said he had been living in a caravan on a Traveller plot for several years, working as a paver and was being paid £50 a day.

“I think it’s all a load of rubbish and they just hate Travellers,” said the man, who is in his 50s. “Plenty of men who were here wanted to be here and they were getting paid. The police coming in heavy-handed like this is just wrong.”

More than 200 police officers raided the site in the early hours of Sunday, aided by a helicopter and dog patrols. Armed officers were also present.

Four men and a woman were arrested on suspicion of slavery offences, while 24 men were taken to a medical centre.

Police said the men had been kept as virtual slaves in appalling conditions, forced to work long hours doing physically demanding jobs without pay.

However, the man told the Guardian he had worked for 15 years with one Traveller family who had provided him with work and accommodation when he had nowhere else to go. After refusing to answer police questions he made his way back to the site.

He said: “The police told me I couldn’t come back but I told them it was my home and if I wanted to go back I would go back.”

Speaking at the door of her mobile home, one woman – who said she was the wife of one of the arrested men but did not want to be named – said the police claims were “ridiculous”.

She added: “The men who were taken were getting paid £30 a day, they had somewhere to live, this is all a load of nonsense.”

Police claimed the suspects lured vulnerable men from dole queues and homeless shelters to work at the site. But the woman said they came voluntarily because they knew Travellers would give work to men down on their luck.

“Isn’t it better that they have a roof over their head?” she said. “What are they going to do now – when the police have finished with them they will be homeless. It’s up to them how they kept their homes, but they could come and go whenever they pleased.”

She accused the police of harbouring prejudices against Travellers. “It’s complete lies and they are trying to make Travellers look bad. There are two sides to this story,” she said.

A police spokeswoman said the 24 men taken from the site were being offered help: “We are giving help to all of the men, but if they do not want it then obviously we are not forcing them to take it.”

Paul Donohoe, spokesman for Anti-Slavery International said that, although he could not comment on the details of this particular case, it was not unusual for victims of slavery to resist help from the authorities.

“We do often see the Stockholm syndrome coming into effect – it is not unusual for people who have been ‘rescued’ to psychologically identify with their enslavers.”

Police said on Monday that of the 24 men taken from the site, nine had left the medical reception centre and had chosen not to support the police investigation.

The remaining 15 continue to be assessed for welfare and health needs, and would be interviewed by detectives. Police said it would take a number of days to establish exactly what had happened to them on the site.

Of the men helping police, eight are British, three Polish, one Latvian and one Lithuanian, with two men of unconfirmed nationality.

The youngest person to be found on site was 17. Police said he has rejoined his family.

Read Full Post »

Unions have moved closer to an autumn of strikes as the Government was warned it faces a huge campaign of civil disobedience over spending cuts and “attacks” on workers’ rights.

Millions of public sector workers could be taking industrial action in protest at planned changes to their pensions, possibly on November 29, when the Government announces its autumn financial statement.

An announcement could made within days of widespread ballots for action, heralding the biggest outbreak of industrial unrest for decades.

Plans to co-ordinate industrial action will be discussed at the TUC on Wednesday, but sources said a large number of unions were now moving towards balloting for strikes.

At the conference on Monday, delegates agreed to consider a legal challenge against the coalition, alleging breaches of international labour law, and to campaign against “anti-union” legislation.

Officials lined up to attack the Government over its spending cuts and moves to strengthen laws against strikes and other forms of union action.

Paul Kenny, leader of the GMB union, said that if the Government brings in more laws, it would be in response to strikes against public sector pensions, which he warned looked set to be joined by millions of workers.

He said: “Bad laws have to be broken. Civil disobedience in protest at erosion of civil liberties and freedoms have a place in our history. Millions of people inside and outside of trade unions can and will fight. If going to prison is the price to pay for standing up to bad laws, then so be it.

“We will give politicians the biggest campaign of civil disobedience their tiny minds have ever seen.”

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said unions should not “meekly accept” anti-union laws, adding: “If tax avoidance is lawful and unpunished, let’s plan for anti-union law avoidance in the same spirit.”

Read Full Post »

Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer is the latest figure to become entangled in the telephone hacking scandal involving News International, the British news division of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.

The London Independent reported today (Monday) that the chancellor, George Osborne, was among those targeted by Glenn Mulcaire, a private detective working for NI’s News of the World , the Sunday tabloid that was shut down in the wake of the scandal.

Also targeted, said the Independent , was former prostitute Natalie Rowe, who was photographed with Osborne at a party in 2005 with what appeared to be a sheet of paper with a line of cocaine in front of them.

The photograph was featured on the front of two “red-top” newspapers, the newspaper said, referring to the red ink used on the mastheads of scandal sheets like News of the World. Rowe, the Independent said, is due to be interviewed sometime this week on Australian television and may shed some light on the question of why Osborne subsequently recommended that Andy Coulson, the News of the World editor at the time the scandalous photo appeared, be appointed Prime Minister David Cameron’s communications chief.

One broadcasting source was quoted by the Independent as remarking “Why put someone forward for a job, as Osborne did, when you know what a disservice they have done you?”

Read Full Post »

Bernard Hogan-Howe, the newly-appointed Metropolitan Police Commissioner, fits the bill for the “single-minded crime fighter” sought by the home secretary.

http://www.youtube.com/get_player

Theresa May had made the call after his predecessor Sir Paul Stephenson, and his assistant John Yates, quit amid criticism of the Met’s role in the phone-hacking scandal.

And the former Merseyside Police chief was well-placed to take on the job of the UK’s top police officer, having been called on to act as the Met’s deputy commissioner in the wake of the resignations.

During five years on Merseyside to 2009, Mr Hogan-Howe developed a high profile via regular web chats and broadcasts, appearances on local radio phone-ins and horseback rides through the city centre.

And he earned admirers for his tough approach to anti-social behaviour and stance on gun crime in the wake of the fatal shooting of 11-year-old Rhys Jones.

Born in Sheffield, the football enthusiast’s rise through the ranks began with South Yorkshire Police in 1979.

‘Tough stance’

He worked as a traffic officer, detective and district commander, gaining an MA in law from Oxford University and a diploma in applied criminology from Cambridge University along the way.

In 1997 he moved to Merseyside police and four years later joined the Met as an assistant commissioner, before returning to Liverpool in 2004.

During that time, crime dropped by a third, and the force claims anti-social behaviour rates were cut in half through a zero-tolerance approach.

Bernard Hogan-Howe’s career

1979: South Yorkshire Police

1997: Assistant Chief Constable, Merseyside

2001: Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police

2004: Chief Constable of Merseyside

2009: HM Inspectorate of Constabulary

He hit the headlines in 2006 for sprinting after a suspected drink-driver after spotting him from his chauffeur-driven car.

Mr Hogan-Howe was the man in charge in 2007, when 11-year-old Rhys Jones was shot dead as he walked home from football practice.

The killing horrified the nation and there were grumblings from some in the media when there was no immediate arrest.

But Mr Hogan-Howe got his man in December 2008 when Sean Mercer, 18, was jailed for life and several members of his gang were also locked up.

‘Clear philosophy’

That year, he accused some judges of being lenient on gun crime by overlooking mandatory five-year sentences for possession of a firearm.

He also called for those shielding gun criminals from police to be evicted from homes.

Mr Hogan-Howe set up the specialist Matrix team to tackle gun crime – the first of its kind outside London.

The home secretary and London mayor were “of one mind” in appointing Mr Hogan-Howe.

The unit’s former head, Det Supt Geoff Sloane, said: “When he came he had a clear philosophy. It was to tackle organised crime, gang-related crime but also to make sure victims were properly supported, which was backed up by strong neighbourhood policing.”

Before leaving Merseyside, he applied to succeed Sir Hugh Orde as chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

However, he withdrew from the application process to take up a role with Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabularies.

He was called back to the Met in July to support Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin – later a rival for the top job – in bringing stability to the force after Sir Paul Stephenson’s resignation.

The home secretary and London Mayor Boris Johnson said they were “of one mind” in their decision to appoint Mr Hogan-Howe.

Mrs May cited his “excellent track-record” in reducing crime had proven the deciding factor.

Read Full Post »

Tony Blair yesterday insisted “significant blows” had been struck in the war on terror but admitted: “It’s not over.”

The former Labour Prime ­Minister said that it was “deeply naive” to believe the West’s ­response to the 9/11 attacks had radicalised Muslim extremists. He said: “They believe in what they believe in because they ­believe their religion compels them to believe in it.”

Mr Blair warned on Radio 4 that the threat would only end when “we defeat the ideology”.

And he indicated that he would back an attack on Iran if it ­continues to try to make its own nuclear bombs.

Read Full Post »

The leader of Britain’s biggest trade union today issued a stark warning to the Government that ‘continued attacks’ on workers’ pay, jobs and pensions will provoke unrest.

Len McCluskey, general secretary of Unite, said it was little wonder that working people were standing up for their rights in the face of the “abuse” they were having to deal with.

He spoke ahead of this week’s TUC Congress, which opens in London tomorrow, when calls will be made for co-ordinated industrial action against the government’s public sector pension reforms.

Len McCluskey (left) appearing on The Andrew Marr Show. Mr McCluskey said: ‘All that this country has held dear for 65 years – education for all, our NHS, decent jobs and pensions in retirement, a future for our kids – is under attack’.

Civil servants and teachers held a one-day strike in June and further action is being planned for November, possibly involving a huge number of workers.

Mr McCluskey said: “All that this country has held dear for 65 years – education for all, our NHS, decent jobs and pensions in retirement, a future for our kids – is under attack.

“It is under attack by a government with no mandate and a feral ruling class that is being allowed to duck its duty to society.

“This abuse of the struggling many by the cushioned, untouchable few is causing division and stoking anger – little wonder that working people will be forced to stand up and defend what is rightfully theirs.

“Unite rejects the dogma of despair and fear peddled by this government. Let’s explode some of the myths surrounding the poison government is spreading on public sector pensions. These are not gold-plated CEOs of FTSE 100 companies.

“These are dinner ladies who if they are lucky will earn a pension of £4,000 – and this government is planning to slash this further still.

“I for one do not want my grandchildren to be asking ‘what did you do to stop this abuse and to stop my heritage being taken away?’ and for me to reply ‘nothing’.

“So, we rule nothing in or nothing out. From civil disobedience to industrial action, this is the moment we defend what is decent and fair.”

Mr McCluskey will speak in a debate on trade union rights tomorrow, with calls to resist government attacks on employment rights.

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber will tell the congress that moves by banks to water down far-reaching proposals that will split their high street and investment arms should be resisted.

He will tell delegates in his opening address that recommendations by the Independent Commission on Banking, chaired by Sir John Vickers, should be defended against attacks by the banks.

In a speech to the congress, he will will say: “The Vickers team have been asked how to make the banks safe, but the real question is how we make them useful.

“Tougher capital requirements and ring-fencing will be bitterly opposed by the banks, who will now lobby hard to water them down. They should be resisted.”

Public sector pensions will be debated by delegates on Wednesday.

Read Full Post »

Exclusive: Libyan Islamist reveals how wife and children were ‘rendered’ before Tony Blair visit.

Sami al-Saadi is considering whether to sue the British government after he and his family were ‘rendered’ in an operation between MI6 and Gaddafi’s intelligence services.

A Libyan Islamist has told how he and his family were imprisoned after being “rendered” in an operation MI6 hatched in co-operation with Muammar Gaddafi’s intelligence services. The rendition occurred shortly before Tony Blair paid his first visit to the dictator.

Sami al-Saadi, his wife and four children, the youngest a girl aged six, were flown from Hong Kong to Tripoli, where they were taken straight to prison. Saadi was interrogated under torture while his family were held in a nearby cell.

“They handcuffed me and my wife on the plane, my kids and wife were crying all the way,” he told the Guardian. “It was a very bad situation. My wife and children were held for two months, and psychologically punished. The Libyans told me that the British were very happy.”

Saadi says he is now considering whether to sue the British government, making him the second Libyan rendition victim to threaten legal proceedings in less than a week.

The evidence that the family were victims of a British-led rendition operation is contained in a secret CIA document found in the abandoned office of Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi’s former intelligence chief, in Tripoli last week.

In London, meanwhile, an official inquiry into Britain’s role in torture and rendition since 9/11 says the government has provided information about the UK’s role in the affair, and Whitehall sources defended intelligence agencies’ actions by saying they were following “ministerially authorised government policy”.

It is the first time evidence has emerged that the British intelligence agencies ran their own rendition operation, as opposed to co-operating with those that were mounted by the CIA.

Saadi was held for more than six years, during which time he says he was regularly beaten and subjected to electric shocks. Shortly after his arrival in Tripoli, he says, Moussa Koussa visited in person to explain how Gaddafi’s new friends in the west were helping him track down the regime’s opponents around the world. “He told me: ‘You’ve been running from us, but since 9/11 I can pick up the phone and call MI6 or the CIA and they give us all the information we want on you. You’ve nowhere to hide.'”

Saadi, a leading member of a Libyan mujahideen group who was known by the nom de guerre Abu Munthir, was interrogated on one occasion by British intelligence officers, who he alleges did nothing to try to protect him after he told them he was being tortured.

The Foreign Office has declined to say whether it knew what became of Abu Munthir’s family as a result of the rendition operation, describing this information as an “intelligence matter”. A spokesman said: “Our position is that it is the government’s longstanding policy not to comment on intelligence matters.”

Saadi says he was tricked by the British authorities into travelling to Hong Kong. While in exile in China in March 2004 he approached British intelligence officers via an intermediary in the UK, he says, and was told that he would be permitted to return to London, where he had lived for three years after seeking asylum in 1993. First, however, he would have to be interviewed at the British consulate in Hong Kong, and would be met by British diplomats on his arrival.

Saadi flew to Hong Kong with his wife, two sons aged 12 and nine, and two daughters aged 14 and six. They were not met by any British officials but were detained by Chinese border guards over alleged passport irregularities, held for a week and then despatched to Tripoli.

Saadi says he always assumed the British were behind his rendition, “working behind the curtain”. Confirmation came when Human Rights Watch, the New York-based NGO, discovered a cache of papers in Moussa Koussa’s abandoned office.

Among the documents was a fax that the CIA sent to Tripoli on 23 March 2004. Marked SECRET/US ONLY/EXCEPT LIBYA, it concerns the forthcoming rendition of Saadi and his family. The wording suggests the CIA took no part in the planning of the operation, but was eager to become involved.

It says: “Our service has become aware that last weekend LIFG [Libyan Islamic Fighting Group] deputy Emir Abu Munthir and his spouse and children were being held in Hong Kong detention for immigration/passport violations. We are also aware that your service had been co-operating with the British to effect Abu Munthir’s removal to Tripoli, and that you had an aircraft available for this purpose in the Maldives.”

It goes on to explain that although Hong Kong had no wish to see a Libyan aircraft land on its territory, “to enable you to assume control of Abu Munthir and his family”, the operation would work if the Libyans were to charter an aircraft registered in a third country, and that the US would assist with the cost.

The operation coincided exactly with Tony Blair’s first visit to Libya. Two days after the fax was sent, Blair arrived to shake hands with Gaddafi, and said the two nations wanted to make “common cause” in counter-terrorism operations. It was also announced that Anglo-Dutch oil giant Shell had signed a £550m gas exploration deal. Three days later Saadi and his family were put aboard a private Egyptian-registered jet and flown to Tripoli.

Associates of Saadi cannot understand why his capture and interrogation would hold any great intelligence value for the British authorities, and are speculating that he may have been a “gift” from the British to the Gaddafi regime.

“On the plane I was told I was going to be electrocuted, hanged,” Saadi said. “When we got to Tripoli my wife and I were in handcuffs, and our legs were tied together using wire and we were hooded. My wife recalls that she thought we were going to be hanged.”

Saadi and his family were held initially at a jail in the Tajoura district, which he describes as “Mousa Koussa’s family jail”, and then at Abu Salim jail, a location where prisoners have been murdered and tortured for decades, according to human rights organisations. He says he spent the first 14 months in complete isolation in a cell measuring 6ft by 7ft.

“Whenever they felt I was withholding information they would beat me and subject me to electric shocks,” he said.

As well as being tortured, he was repeatedly told that his family would be harmed and that he would be killed.

The UK was involved in the rendition of another Libyan Islamist earlier the same month. Other papers found among the Tripoli cache show that an MI6 tip-off allowed the CIA to abduct Abdul Hakin Belhaj in Bangkok. Belhaj, who later became a leading figure in the rebel forces that toppled Gaddafi, says he was tortured first by the CIA and then flown to Libya where he suffered severe abuse for several years, being hung from walls and immersed in ice baths. Belhaj says he too was interrogated by MI6 officers, who indicated they knew he was being tortured, but did nothing to help him.

On Thursday Belhaj met with British government representatives, who declined to make any apology. He too is considering whether to bring a claim for damages in the UK courts.

A number of Whitehall sources have said MI6 was complying with “ministerially authorised government policy” when Saadi and his family and Belhaj were rendered to Libya. However, the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Downing Street are all declining to say which department’s ministers authorised the operations. A spokesman for Tony Blair said he knew nothing about the matter.

Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time, said he welcomed the fact that an inquiry headed by Sir Peter Gibson would be examining the matter but did not answer questions about whether he had authorised the operation.

The inquiry headed by Gibson, a retired judge, that has been established to examine Britain’s role in the mistreatment of terrorism suspects since 9/11, says that it was informed about the UK’s involvement in the removal of Saadi from Hong Kong before the discovery of the Libyan government documents last weekend. It is unclear how much detail has been passed over to the inquiry staff.

It may be difficult for former ministers and intelligence officers to tell Gibson that they could not have expected Belhaj and Saadi and his family to be mistreated after they were handed over to Gaddafi’s government. The use of torture had been well-documented by human rights groups, while the Foreign Office’s human rights report for 2004 (pdf) states: “The UK remains seriously concerned by the human rights situation in Libya, including restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, political prisoners, arbitrary detention and conditions in Libyan prisons.” It added that the British were very keen to see Libya sign international agreements against torture.

Read Full Post »

You can tell it’s autumn not just by the change in weather and threat of storms… but because the party conference season is under way.

Party conferences are under way with UKIP meeting in Eastbourne and the Green Party in Sheffield.

The first two have already started with the UK Independence Party (UKIP) meeting in Eastbourne and the Green Party, led by the Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas, in Sheffield.

UKIP leader Nigel Farage is using the conference to appeal to disaffected Tories.

Nigel Farage is appealing to people unhappy with Conservative policies.

He describes his party as having an “open door” and believes the bulk of new support for his party will come from those unhappy with Conservative policies.

‘Mass deception’

Never one to shy away from controversy, he’s used strong language to describe the three main parties at Westminster as “a group of college kids”.

But his main target has been the Conservatives who he said were engaged in a “mass deception”, claiming they promised one thing about Europe yet delivered another.

Elsewhere, despite the fact the Green’s only MP represents Brighton Pavilion and the Brighton Council is the only Green-run administration in the country, the party is meeting in Sheffield.

Given the party’s achievement at the local elections in May, this year’s conference is particularly significant for its leader Caroline Lucas.

On national issues she’s blamed “unrestrained capitalism” for the riots last month.

She told her party conference that underlying issues, such as lack of jobs and wage inequalities, must be tackled.

And she criticised David Cameron’s “repressive crackdown” on those responsible for the disorder.

Just as UKIP want to appeal to disaffected Tories, Caroline Lucas hopes to appeal to disgruntled Liberal Democrats.

Caroline Lucas became Green MP for Brighton Pavilion in 2010.

In her speech she mocked the Lib Dem leader and Sheffield MP, Nick Clegg, as “the minister for meeting angry people and being shouted at”.

The party recently celebrated its first 100 days in power at Brighton & Hove City Council.

However, not all its pledges have been a resounding success – the idea for a “meat-free Monday” had to be dropped after a council official proposed piloting it with bin men.

But some of the pledges the party has introduced have fared rather better.

They’ve introduced an extra 60p on the minimum wage for 340 council workers to meet their living wage pledge.

They’ve also attempted to tackle the council’s pay gap, with chief executive John Barradell taking a 5% pay cut.

They may have only been in power in Brighton for a few months but there is clearly still a lot of work to do – such as tackling Brighton’s housing shortages and the lack of school places.

“National support for the Green Party in opinion polls has not increased significantly”
Louise Stewart

Despite Caroline Lucas’ high profile as party leader and the election breakthroughs in Brighton, national support for the party in opinion polls has not increased significantly and remains in single digits.

So while the conference is a good time to take stock of the party’s achievements, it’s often a time when delegates – and the public – start looking at whether their leader is really delivering.

Over the next few weeks we’ll see how Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and David Cameron all fare.

With the Liberal Democrats conference next, in Liverpool, Nick Clegg will be hoping he does not, in Caroline Lucas’ words, end up “meeting angry people and being shouted at”.

Read Full Post »

The junior Coalition partner’s policies have made a mockery of its historic name.

What is Sarah Teather’s party actually delivering for Britain?

If the Liberal Democrats didn’t exist, under what circumstances would you choose to create them? I’ll assume that it’s the “Liberal” bit of their historical accident of a name that matters (not many anti-democrats run for election these days). If we did feel the need for a Liberal Party, I guess it would be because neither the Labour nor Tory organisations were being sufficiently, well, liberal in their policy-making.

Ten years of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown making illegal anything that moved, while repeatedly trying to give the state the power to lock us up without charge for longer and longer periods? Yes, I can see a need for some more liberalism; that there could be a useful role for a party to react viscerally against Labour’s criminalising tendencies. Ten years of Margaret Thatcher? I’m hardly one to criticise my political hero, but I can’t deny that prolonged exposure to her governing style might make a voter yearn for something a little less prescriptive; a little more laissez-faire in matters social. Regardless of your own political disposition, then, I don’t think it’s hard to make the case that political space could exist for a party which prioritised the autonomy of the individual over either stateist or corporatist collectivism.

Now imagine that you are a Liberal Democrat. Your organisation has been in the wilderness for 80 years, since the time of Lloyd George. The general election of 2010 gives you the chance to share government with the Conservatives; this is the first time in recent history that an administration will have a serious Liberal presence. How would you behave? Me, I would be bending over backwards to demonstrate that not only is a liberal instinct a useful one to bring to the art of government, but that it also makes sense to have that instinct embodied by my organisation. Anyone anyone can call themselves a “liberal”. The trick is to convince voters that such an instinct requires a party to carry it.

Instead, what has happened? Andrew Lansley’s Health Bill, which made a tentative step towards liberalisation of health provision in the UK, is first of all postponed, and then watered down, largely at the behest of the Lib Dems. Even after the Bill passed the Commons this week, Baroness (Shirley) Williams and the dis-elected ex-MP Evan Harris continued to mutter darkly and publicly about their inability to support it. Lib Dems ensured that the planned GP consortia – supposed to act for us, the patients – will include hospital doctors and nurses; a prioritisation of the producer over the patient. Unelected peer and dis-elected ex‑MP – I withdraw my opening remarks about the party’s name: they’re not even democratic, let alone liberal.

Also this week, Nick Clegg gave a speech about the Coalition’s flagship free schools. These schools are the last, best hope of those children failed by local education authorities. Academic excellence through freedom of choice: what could be more liberal than that? Instead, Mr Clegg chose to focus on the importance of preventing anyone running such a school from making a profit – profit is bad, apparently, because successful schools might use the money to expand – and went out of his way to support an even greater role for councils – the LEAs – in controlling access. In a straight choice, the Lib Dem leader prioritises the producer interest.

I could go on. Lib Dems also want to delay the election of local police commissioners. Anti-democratic again; and when was denying a voice to the people a “liberal” characteristic? And I’ve not mentioned the party’s support for the Human Rights Act, largely because it defies parody, let alone analysis. “Votes for prisoners”, say Lib Dems. It’s not quite the heady fight of the People’s Budget of 1909, is it?

Ah yes, say Lib Dem activists, but think of all the good we bring to the Coalition. When pressed, they trumpet the lack of recognition of marriage in the tax system. I’m not clear why it’s liberal to penalise the natural pair-bonding affinity of human mammals, but there you are. They also claim to have secured the increase in the personal allowance for the poorest taxpayers, as well as the retention – thus far – of the 50p top rate.

The 50p top rate is economically illiterate, and needn’t detain us. Symbolism does matter, though, and if keeping it there for a few months longer means that those such as Simon Hughes (“Champion of University Access”, no less) continue to vote with the Government, so be it. But did we need the Lib Dems to make the case for the increase in personal allowances? Tories have campaigned against the complex and inefficient recycling of income from the poor, to the government, and then back to the poor, for years. More importantly, the Right-wing view of tax (to reduce it wherever possible) is truly liberal, because it seeks to free people from state dependency. Lib Dems view tax as an instrument of social engineering; hence the posturing over 50p.

Eighty years in the wilderness, 80 years protecting the flame, and they can’t even mount a coherent case for electoral reform (“AV is a miserable little compromise” – Nick Clegg. But then: “Vote for AV” – Nick Clegg). Measured as the opportunity to show that British liberalism deserves the vehicle of its own party, coalition has been a disaster for the Lib Dems.

We have to face up to this political category error. Just because we can all agree that there’s a need for some liberalism in our politics, just because some unpopular politicians have given themselves that name, we’ve taken the Liberal Democrats at their own valuation. But Shirley Williams and Evan Harris are not liberals, and nor are the other former leaders and big Lib Dem beasts who haunt the media airwaves with a greater prominence than the paucity of their electoral support could ever justify.

Not that a political position has to be popular in order to be worth holding; and if a party wants to act as a pressure group for the producer interest in health and education, or as a supporter of judicial activism on Human Rights, or to call for ever-greater European integration (as Danny Alexander did this week), then good luck to it. But it shouldn’t mis-name itself.

Where the Lib Dems have been politically effective in the Coalition, they have been anything but liberal. And when they claim to be liberal, they are merely copying policy which the larger party would implement anyway. Neither tactic makes them a worthwhile coalition partner for a Conservative; worse, from the Lib Dem point of view, neither tactic has demonstrated that the 80 years without them were a political loss for Britain. If the Liberal Democrats didn’t already exist, to answer my opening question, I suspect that few would contemplate breathing life into the politically unattractive, social democratic clay from which they are fashioned. We already have a party to represent the sectional producer interest. It’s called “Labour”.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »