Plenty of examples of martial law being declared with the approval of those groups. Martial law in the Philippins under Marcos had the backing of elected representatives for example.

Looking back at the last poll released – YouGov’s 43-33-14 last weekend – it’s interesting to speculate what this might mean in terms of seats in the House of Commons. Electoral Calculus (yes, I know – but see below) reckons it would produce a Tory majority of 48.

BUT that’s based on no fewer than 45 Conservative gains from the Liberal Democrats. I think it’s generally agreed (and probably universally agreed here) that this is a substantial overestimate of Lib Dem losses, because of various factors that have been discussed endlessly here in the past.

If we rather arbitrarily halved that number of losses (which would leave the Lib Dems with around 40 seats), that would virtually wipe out the predicted Conservative majority.

The point I’m making is that even without any further Labour recovery, some of the polls would probably put us near hung Parliament territory. If the Tory lead in the polls fell by another few points, things might become much more interesting – not least within the Conservative party.

> Behave like a sober-minded expert.

This sounds like image handling rather than substantial action.

I want an expert not just someone skilled at looking like an expert

Following your train of thought, let me offer two contrasting ways of playing the game, for contemplation and entertainment:

1 – Act distinctive. Dress up like a chicken and go around squawking. Oppose the bail-out. Support financial meltdown. Date a Cheeky Girl. Propose unbelievable policies (and you can guess what I mean by that).

2 – Act presidential. Try to look as if the world’s leaders hang on your every word. Behave like a sober-minded expert. Make helpful, practical suggestions. Don’t try to let off fireworks, there are enough going off all around you just now anyway.

Which approach might we think is going to “resonate” best with all those scared people out there?

I think I was only concerned to point out that no-one’s claiming tax cuts are a panacea for the whole problem, just for (some of) the effects on individuals. The difficulty (as we essentially agree) is whether anyone cares just now. The trouble with the Guardian piece for me was that it failed the same “So what?” test – it was all about how to solve the crisis by co-operation in Europe. Great, and I agree, but Europe is hardly a tubthumping issue for the nation to get behind.

FWIW, so far as I can see the only way we could have been genuinely distinctive on this would have been to attack the bail-out package, on the grounds that the taxpayer shouldn’t bail out the banks. And of course that would have been partisan. I leave that one in the ring…

As regards the Tories, however, the activists themselves aren’t too happy with Cameron’s limp responses (see the FT, http://tinyurl.com/45cxjd). So while I’m quite content for us to beat ourselves up over not improving our poll ratings, at least there isn’t much of a contrasting success story from their side.

If it makes you happy I’ll freely admit it sends the wrong signals and if you want to propose a campaign to repeal or reform the Anti-social Behaviour Act then I’ll enthusiastically second it.

The practice of extrodinary rendition highlights the major weakness of the convention even when undertaken by signitories that the convention simply doesn’t have the teeth to be fully effective.

And no I don’t agree with the Conservative position that the HRA should be repealed, as this would be an even greater waste of time when our efforts would be better spent by making it fit for purpose backing it up with a solid practical rationale and an internationally-mandated inspectorate rather than the ad-hoc arrangements which currently exist.

Operation Goodnight in Redruth can hardly be considered ‘martial law’ when it has been undertaken in response to a request from a residents association and the controversy over it has lead to wide consultation and debate on the subject.

If anything it exposes the need for greater democratic participation of under-16s in the political process to ensure that Lord Justice Brooke’s ruling that the Antisocial Behavior Act of 2003 provided powers which are “permissive, not coercive” is upheld to be true.

However I also agree that the ABA is largely irrelevant and curfews are socially damaging because the police already have sufficient powers to take appropriate and proportionate action.

I think it is far more productive to know why something is wrong than to just know that it is illegal – the law is an ass if it doesn’t match with experience.

Yeah Neil, because people are completely incapable of enjoying a pub without smoking.

Also, of course we’re talking about “some measure of control” (oh, and nowhere did I say you could get music banned in all pubs – but if a pub was causing you particular probs you could call environmental health in) – I’m not even particularly defending the smoking ban (as opposed to some other form of restriction). I’m just saying you can make a reasonable liberal argument for it – which is apparently what you’re arguing.

There is in pubs. Sorry.

You are wrong if you say that i could, by going to my local council, ban all music in all pubs, or even just those in the council area. The comparison you are making there would be valid if all the smoking ban was about was H^S guys being able to insit on good air conditioning in particular pubs. That is in no way similar to what we get.

Where your playing with knives comparison falls is on the “Some measure of control of even small risks” particualry the words “some” rather than “total” & “small” (or even quite big with regard to flying knives) & “to tiny to be even positivekly identified even on a statistical basis”. On the other hand the risk of being a fisherman is actually quite substantial. If you are going to argue this on principles then you have to be able to exercise the principles equally in proportion to the risk.

The evidential basis that passive smoking is less than the statistical error limits in those surveys which have purported to find it & many have not. The evidential, as opposed to theoretical, basis that we are suffering catastrophic global warming is non-existent. Both make very good hay for those who want to dictate to others but that is a philosophy exactly opposite to liberalism.

Torture is prohibited absolutely. In no circumstances whatsoever is it permitted.

Freedom of movement (found in the First Protocol) may be restricted provided such restriction fulfils a pressing social need and is proportionate (no more than strictly necessary).

Martial law for under 16s neither fulfils a pressing social need nor is it proportionate, as the Court of Appeal didn’t take long to find.

After 300 years without martial law, why do we need it now?

Your wishy-washy talk of “compromise”, and your smearing of those who defend fundamental human rights as “fundamentalist”, suggest that you agree with David Cameron that the HRA should be repealed.

Anyway the argument that evidence gained from torture is unreliable is stronger than the one which says torture contravenes any idealised ‘fundamental’ right, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to abolish torture on practical grounds (NB not prohibit) – and probably more liberal as a result.

I’m perfectly happy to take the pragmatic line to talk about the conditions by which we maximise our liberty and how that conditionality builds a means of understanding which can be applied across seemingly unrelated areas like curfews and torture. On the other hand it seems you are all too prepared to stray into dogma.

Neil says: “As regards the fisherman example all the difference seem to me to add up to fishing being more hazardous than working in a bar & fish being somewhat less of a staple than alcohol & thus err on my side of the argument.”

I’m (a) not sure this sentence makes sense, and (b) not sure how it supports your position. Fishing is riskier than passive smoking and fishing is also more of a benefit to society than passive smoking; the risks in fishing are inherent in fishing (largely); the risks of passive smoking are not inherent in allowing people to drink in pubs. There is no link between smoking and drinking. Sorry.

Some measure of control of even small risks to those who have not consented, especially ones unconnected with any wider societal benefit, is not in of itself illiberal. See above re sharp knives.

You don’t believe in man-made global warming; you don’t believe in dangers to health from passive smoking – but these are evidential arguments. What I’m saying is that this it’s a fairly poor argument that to say someone who does believe these things, and who does support specific ways of dealing with these things, is not a liberal.

You say we shouldn’t talk about some theoretically perfect organisation – I’m not, but we’re talking about principle here. Whatever the existing flaws as you perceive them to be – support for supra-national bodies such as the EU is not in of itself illiberal.

Sesenco,
apols on the name thing. I happen to disagree with you on your fundamentalist stance, as I don’t believe freedom is unrestricted or absolute. So, yes, the conditions are determined by the balance of freedoms and where greater restrictions are required it is the result of systemic failure: address the failure and lift the restrictions.

I don’t think it’s clear cut either way on a smoking ban – but I think it’s perfectly acceptable for a liberal to support the ban, without making them the raging authoritarian straw men you’d like them to be.

The difference with the fisherman is that the dangers are inherent in the job; without the risk there wouldn’t be the benefit (ie the catch). The connection with smoking in workplaces (pubs or otherwise) is not exactly the same now, is it?

Why should a patron is a pub or a fellow office worker be any more able to risk my health through smoking than to risk my health through juggling sharp knives at the bar/by my desk?

They may be really good at juggling sharp knives (so the risk is minute) and really enjoy it (benefit to them), but there is no benefit to anyone else. Arguably same with smoking – it’s a classic example of the harm principle, which liberals of all types tend not to have a problem with.

As regards the smoking ban – I regard the claim that passive smoking is a serious threat to be untrue (indeed since the ban came in it seems to have been largely dropped) the “interfering with the freedom of others not to experience it” as illiberal sophisty. On that basis anybody has the right to prevent anybody doing anything because they don’t like it (it causes them emotional damage). That is not even the thin end of the wedge that is a big blunt club. On that basis anybody should have the right to stop pubs having music that annoys them or even bright (or dark) wallpaper – loud music in pubs does actually have real health implications. Nobody is forced to go into a smoking pub though we are all now forced to go to only non-smoking ones.

For non-smokers to have a veto over what goes on in every pub is not morally diffent from having a veto over any newspaper publishing that the Iraq WMD or Kosovo genocide stories were lies so that Messrs Blair, Ashdown & co might be free of accidentally reading it. This is an Orwellian use of the word freedom, as Senesco demonstrates.

As regards the fisherman example all the difference seem to me to add up to fishing being more hazardous than working in a bar & fish being somewhat less of a staple than alcohol & thus err on my side of the argument.

I do believe the concept of “liberal” does have some specific meaning & since I have it offically from the leadership that cutting taxes is “illiberal”, or at least was 2 1/2 years ago, I consider mayself a better judge of the term than anybody supporting them.

“Senseco, can you see the irony in your defence of the smoking ban whilst you remain the staunchest critic of youth curfews?”

No 1. Please be courteous enough to spell my name correctly.

No 2. In answer to your question, NO.

Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right which we have enjoyed without significant interference since the 17th century. Being in a public place after 9.00pm is neutral as regards its impact on 3rd parties.

Smoking, by contrast, is an activity that is inevitably extremely negative as regards its impact on 3rd parties. I don’t object to people poisoning themselves in private. They can drink bleach as far as I’m concerned. What I object to is PUBLIC smoking.

“A consistent grasp of conditionality would be a positive thing.”

Translation?

I apologise – I didn’t realise you thought that.

But no, the leadership line was to abstain on the Tory amendment calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, though obviously there was a sizeable rebellion in the Commons, and the Lib Dem peers refused to accept the abstention line.

The referendum we were calling for – as a diversionary tactic – was on whether the UK should remain a member of the EU. (Though again, I think Lib Dem peers refused to support a motion in the Lords in favour of such a referendum.)