Trust you’re sitting down, but it’s another day and another Daily Mail front page pushing a positive civil liberties story, reporting on good news from government as another idea from the Conservative part of the Coalition is failing to win favour. It’s becoming rather a habit.
* Mark Pack is Party President and is the editor of Liberal Democrat Newswire.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
So many turns (Glee Club Comperes)
Tom Arms’ World Review (Tom Arms)
Al Pinkerton MP writes: The Falkland Islands – a liberal’s guide (Dr Al Pinkerton MP)
Another close shave? (Simon Foster)
Observations of an Expat: Kamala’s Foreign Policy (Tom Arms)
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The Joy of Six 1266
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Tim Farron MP in Gateshead
Judy Collins: Farewell to Tarwathie
Reform's by-election leaflet
Peter Martin 
Mick Taylor 
Michael BG 
Jennie 
Nell Jerram 
18 Comments
I am certainly not a regular fan of the Mail, the Sun or any other tabloid or other mid-brow, but it’s impossible for a political party to prosper if it can’t get these papers on its side, at least from time to time. It’s desperately important for the Lib Dems to milk good publicity from them when it’s there. I can’t give numbers, perhaps I’m exaggerating slightly, but I would think that more people read the Mail on a single working day than read the Guardian in a whole week. It’s surely time that Vince Cable’s column in the Mail was re-introduced, obviously not by VC, as he’s a government minister, but surely there must be some backbencher, AM, MSP or peer who can command respect from middle Britain in his stead?
Is this really good for LibDems? It’s the “Mail’s open justic campaign” that is getting the credit. And the millionaire’s daughter is not helping. I suppose the eggs are reminiscent of LibDem policy. Paul is right, but a single column doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. And some kind of TV presence would be helpful.
George Galloway’s entry into light entertainment last night shows what can be done – I just the caught the end when he challenged someone to a fist fight, but the serious message is that this kind of show is the only place where millions of people really get to hear their concerns raised – this place could be where the politics of the future gets debated.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2124770/Secret-justice-liberal-Mr-Clegg.html was published a couple of days ago – and as an earlier poster pointed out it praised Nick Clegg for being a liberal (albeit with a dgeree of sniping).
When these papers are on your side, then your press department needs to go on overdrive. People notice – by the million. It might only be ten thousand votes on polling day, but you can’t know when that will make the difference between winning and losing a marginal.
I know it’s easy to snear: it’s a fault of mine. But don’t do it.
I suppose the big question is whether you think it’s more important for things to be good for the Lib Dems or to be good for civil liberties.
It is a rare day when the Mail is good for civil liberties. This would seem to be one of those days.
Paul: You’re right about the importance of the size of the Mail’s readership. See figures at http://www.markpack.org.uk/14703/newspaper-readership-habits-of-liberal-democrat-voters/ and also http://www.markpack.org.uk/1874/what-newspapers-do-liberal-democrat-voters-read/
Not a good day today with Lynne Featherstone and the banning of wearing of crosses at work. This is not seen as defending civil liberties and will be seen as a further attack on christianity and indeed the ‘British way of life’. The Daily Mail has come out guns blazing with a highly personal attack. If the party supports this expect the same.
The Home Office submission to the ECHR was specifically based on two cases. It wasn’t a general statement about ‘banning crosses at work’.
Clue: any article which relies on quotes from Lord Carey and the Christian Legal Centre is worth taking with a large cruetful of salt.
And Quentin Letts surpasses even his high bar of bitchiness with that piece on Lynne.
I hate to break it to you but civil libertarianism is not the exclusive USP of the LibDems. Civil libertarians are found in all mainstream parties.
“Civil libertarians are found in all mainstream parties.”
As, indeed, are authoritarians, as we have discovered this week.
If Lord Carlile is correct and all these plans were signed off collectively by both coalition parties, then I’m not sure it can be dismissed as “another idea from the Conservative part of the Coalition”.
One thing’s for sure – this civil liberties storm, based entirely on information that has been out in the open for months, has done a fantastic job of obliterating from public consciousness the government’s troubles over the budget, party funding, and (today) huge tax increases for millions of people who qualified for credits. So this hasn’t been quite as bad a week for news management as some think.
“The Home Office submission to the ECHR was specifically based on two cases. It wasn’t a general statement about ‘banning crosses at work’.”
If the reports are accurate, then the Home Office submission makes a general case that the wearing of crosses should not be a right protected under section 9. So while you are correct that this is not tantamount to “banning crosses at work”, it nevertheless argues that no worker should have the right to wear a cross (and by implication any employer should have the right to ban it).
I agree with those who say that the government is taking an anti-civil liberties stance here. People should have the right to wear a cross if they wish to and not be sacked for it.
@Paul Staines
Yes, it is true that there are civil libertarians in the Labour and Conservative parties, but it is only in the Liberal Democrats where they are in a majority. Indeed, Lib Dems would, almost without exception, style themselves as “civil libertarians”. I think it is fair to say that if it is a selling point, it is a unique one.
@Stuart Mitchell but if you take the British Airways case, one of the two, Nadia Eweida has not been sacked. Indeed, British Airways have now changed their policy and allow visible crucifixes to be worn. In the other case, involving Royal Devon and Exeter NHS, the lady in question, Shirley Chaplin, was not sacked either!
I’m far from being a fan of the Mail and similar publications, but from what I’ve noticed, they do have an odd lean toward civil liberties in places. Whilst being a more Tory-leaning publication, they will speak up for the outraged middle class or more traditionally minded person in “middle England” – quite often, that means highlighting what are really civil liberties issues.
People do not like authoritarianism, and as a party, it is opposition to that which tends to unite all Lib Dems. Where there is opposition to unfairness, or opposition to assaults on liberty, it is quite right that we highlight our position. When people, any people, take a stand against the larger parties getting involved in their personal lives, we need to tell them we agree. We need to say, “we’re the only party that will oppose that. We’re the only party that doesn’t want the government to spy on your, malign you, or treat you like a child”.
I believe in liberalism because I believe in, have a deep respect for, and an unbreakable trust of, the people of this nation. We ought to remind everyone that we do believe in them, and that we do trust them, and that we will stand up for them.
JamieApr 06 – 6:33 pm……………I’m far from being a fan of the Mail and similar publications, but from what I’ve noticed, they do have an odd lean toward civil liberties in places. Whilst being a more Tory-leaning publication, they will speak up for the outraged middle class or more traditionally minded person in “middle England” – quite often, that means highlighting what are really civil liberties issues……………..
David Davis’s immediate condemnation (whilst our leadership prevaricated) makes me wonder when/how we will ever distance ourselves fromthe Tory party.
@Paul Walter
Shirley Chaplin, a nurse of 30 years, chose to leave rather than be shunted off to a desk job.
Nadia Eweida was suspended without pay and was eventually forced to back down rather than lose her job.
I didn’t actually say that either of these two women had been sacked – though it’s pretty clear they *would* have been, had they not resigned orbacked down.
@Stuart Mitchell Please remind me. Where in Bible does it say one should wear a visible crucifix?
@Paul Walter
I don’t see how your question is relevant. Observance is as much to do with tradition and personal conscience as adherence to a text.
@Stuart Mitchell It seems central to the FCO submission to the ECHR:
“The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”