Evan and David: showing what liberalism is all about

There are times it’s good to be a Liberal Democrat. Take, for example, last December’s Private Members’ Bills ballot for the 2008-09 Parliamentary session. Four Lib Dem MPs were drawn in the top 20, with David Heath and Evan Harris in the top five. David announced the subject of his bill last week: ending fuel poverty.

And yesterday, as widely trailed in the media, Evan announced what he would devote his bill to – reversing centuries of discrimination against Catholics and women under the Act of Settlement and other enactments. Here’s an excerpt from Evan’s press release:

Dr Harris said, “It is wrong that anti-Catholic discrimination is written into the UK’s constitution”.

The Bill would end discrimination against women in the line of succession, so that any daughters of Prince William would succeed their father on the basis of their age, rather than their younger brothers doing so.

“It is not acceptable that our law continues to relegate women down the succession to the crown, at a time when no sane politician would argue in its favour”. …

The Government has indicated that it wishes see these changes take place but has failed to identify any legislative opportunity to do so in the current session of Parliament.

“Although the current discrimination does not have a wide practical effect, because this is still part of our constitution, it is an ongoing symbol of the lingering 2nd class status of Roman Catholics and women.”

So why do these two very different bills make me proud to be a Lib Dem? Because they show a profound understanding of what is at the heart of liberalism: a keen sense of justice and fair play.

While David’s proposals to end fuel poverty is a perfect combination of social justice and environmental action, Evan’s bill aims to right some basic wrongs, ending symbolic religious and sex discrimination by the state which applies to the most privileged section of society.

Can you imagine both of these bills being put forward by either Tory or Labour MPs, and supported wholeheartedly by their colleagues? Neither can I. And here’s why.

Labour ‘gets’ social justice in a way that most Tories just don’t. But for Labour the only inequalities which matter are economic, and Evan’s bill will be seen by many as an irrelevant indulgence; while for many traditionalist Tories it will be regarded as a presumptuously interfering and dangerous strike at the established church.

Not for Lib Dems: injustice can affect the poor and the wealthy, the educated and the uneducated. Anyone who finds themselves powerless to control their own destiny needs an advocate: that is what liberalism is all about. I’m delighted that, in their different ways, David’s and Evan’s proposals reflect the core of this party’s philosophy.

Read more by or more about , , , , , or .
This entry was posted in News and Parliament.


  • MPs usually take well over a week to respond to any correspondence, including emails. They do get hundreds a day sometimes. How long have you left Evan Harris?

    Well, given that it was only publicised last Friday you cant have given him more than 5 days. If you think that “isnt good enough” perhaps you would support an increase in office expenses for MPs so that they can hire more staff? No, I didnt think so…

  • Matthew Huntbach 22nd Jan '09 - 9:58am

    Evan Harris says

    “It is not acceptable that our law continues to relegate women down the succession to the crown, at a time when no sane politician would argue in its favour”

    but then no sane politician would argue for a post which is hereditary in the first place.

    As a Catholic, I really am not bothered by this mention of my religion in the law of succession, for how can one worry about this discrimination when the system discriminates against anyone who isn’t the eldest son (or daughter if the other bit changes) of the previous postholder anyway?

    In fact the whole thing is a bit of colourful nonsense which reminds us of our past. Now, unlike many Liberal Democrats it seems, I’m rather in favour of colourful nonsense, so long as it isn’t too harmful. I quite like the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy so long as it has no real power, and if we’re going to keep this anachronism as a symbolic link to our past, I’m happy to keep all its anachronisms. That includes the anachronistic mention of my religion, for I quite like the way it symbolically labels me as “subversive”.

    If Dr Harris wishes to tackle anti-Catholicism, he would do better to consider the way it is considered in liberal circles acceptable to misrepresent it or to pick out, distort, and over-emphasise negative aspects of it, in a way that would be considered completely unacceptable for other religions.

  • It’s the economy stupid!

  • David Morton 22nd Jan '09 - 10:31am

    Jeffrey Archer introduced a Bill to end Primogenature in the Sucession.

  • If the Monarch became a Roman Catholic where would they be prepared to publicly criticise the Pope and the Vatican ? If not, then they should not be the Monarch.

  • There are other bits of anti-Catholic legislation that survived a very long time. Until just before the 2001 election Catholic priests were barred from standing for election.

  • Liberal Neil 22nd Jan '09 - 8:19pm

    I suspect Evan is simply trying to highlight that we should be against discrimination wherever it is found.

    I very much doubt he seriously expects to win over people like the Editor of the Catholic Herald, but it is down to his belief in equal rights for all that he beleives that Catholics should have the same legal rights as anyone else.

  • “But for Labour the only inequalities which matter are economic,”

    This is borne out by Labour’s approach the the ban on Catholic priests which I discovered on checking my facts above.

    In October 1998 the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended a change.

    There was a 10 minute rule bill in June 1999.

    There were election law acts in:
    1998 (Registration of Political Parties – possibly passed by this point)
    1999 (European Elections)*
    2000 (PPERA and A Representation of the People Act)

    At least three, maybe four acts covering election law. However it was not until 2001 that this law was changed (with a bill of 2 clauses and 2 schedules introduced in January). Purely co-incidentally, shortly before that point Labour selected a former Catholic Priest (David Cairns) as a candidate.

    * Ok it’s a stretch to have included it in such a bill – but no more than (to take a purely random example) than amending the Data Protection Act in a bill on Coroners.

  • David Morton 23rd Jan '09 - 1:58am

    Let me try and draw the East Wickham result into this. I don’t know the area though I know the Sandwith and Kells ward very well on Cumbria CC. They share in common very recent near misses by the BNP.

    Evans bill is very clever in an abstract liberal sense. Any discussion of the Act of Settlement would soon expose the absurdity of Monarchy, the establishment of the Church and the fact Evan would also be change the laws of succession of over 20 other countries which share our head of state.

    I don’t begrudge him a minute of parliamentry time. However while he is looking at the stars the rest of us are definately in the gutter. The “its the economy, stupid!” comment upthread is spot on. The national mood is not focused on the abstract at the moment or the whimsical.

    the social dislocation caused to a consumerist and debt ridden society by a 4% or 5% GDP contraction is going to be immence. Women and catholics will be a “second term” priority for the BNP. A more immeadiate worry will be ethnic tensions, stigmatisation, rising domestic violence rates, depression, addiction….

    If the political class doesn’t talk about these issues then the BNP and other will. or at least feed off the anger.

  • After the near disaster of the East Wickham by-election, will you start to realise that you are so far out of touch you are making the whole party irrelevant to almost all of the country?

    No wonder in spite of us having Vince, we are getting no benefit in the polls. You’re not liberals who understand liberty is not easy, just a bunch of trendy lefties on your soapboxes.

  • Anon – I like the way the “us” and “you” changes round during the course of a sentence. One council by-election, does not an electoral disaster make (however much you might wish it to be so).

  • Grammar Police 23rd Jan '09 - 12:57pm

    Sorry, anon above is me!

  • Grammar Police:

    Firstly, Us and you are not mentioned in the same sentence, but in different paragraphs.

    Secondly, It’s not a single disaster but one of a series – see the Sandwith and Kells comment further up. Every time the BNP get elected, its a catastrophe.

    Finally, I want to prevent these disasters/catastrophes, not wish it to be so. I hope you have the same aim too.

  • P.S. Am I the only one who is amused by an id of Grammar Police not knowing where a sentence ends and a new paragraph begins?

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Martin Bennett
    It is likely to be the case that Labour will do less well than current polls and electoral calculus indicate and that Conservatives will do better, with Reform ...
  • David Allen
    We should support the ICC prosecutor, who rightly seeks to charge both Hamas and Israel for war crimes and crimes against humanity. https://www.theguardian.c...
  • Geoff Reid
    We all speak as fools in guessing General Ellection results. That being said I can’t help thinking ththat one of the best outcomes might be a Labour small to...
  • Neil Hickman
    I’m not convinced about this supposed non-aggression pact with Labour. One of the few successes for the Tories this month was in a by election in a seat near ...
  • James Fowler
    Holding the balance of power after the forthcoming election would appear so improbable as to be absurd. However, if we do secure ca. 30+ MPs it's possible that ...