Modern Liberty. I hear it and my skin crawls.
What is modern liberty? How is modern liberty different from plain, boring old liberty?
See, thanks to this shower of lemons we’ve currently got running the country, the word ‘modern’ has never been more foreboding. If anyone’s been keen on ‘modernising’ the state’s attitudes towards civil liberties, it’s been our social democratic chums over in the Labour Party.
Modernise, in the context of this Government, means, “we’re doing it our way now.” It’s not enough we Liberal Democrats have a bird as our logo – we’ve got ‘the bird’ being flipped at us on what seems a daily basis. Modern Liberty? Well, that’s being flipped the bird and being politely invited to both ‘sit’ and ‘swivel.’
See, we have this strange belief in this country, growing all the time, that civil liberties and security are a zero sum game, that one must always come at the expense of the other.
We’re supposed to believe that as the demand for greater security increases, the more civil liberties must be sacrificed, a little bit, for the greater good. Never fear, though – these restrictions are temporary – just while terrorism and crime exists, that’s all. After they’ve been fixed permanently and forever our freedoms will be restored in their entirety.
Well, actually what’ll happen is that the social democrats and conservatives of the future will say, “No! Look! We’ve eradicated crime and terrorism! Why would you want to go back to the old fashioned past when people were criminals and terrorists? No, these restrictions have made the world a better place!”
Liberals of the future: Get used to being branded pro-crime and pro-terror. That’s the point of all this rubbish, after all. It’s not really about terrorists, or criminals, or protecting people. It’s stupid party political willy waggling. They get away with it because all the parties are at it, with their lads in their hands, shoved in your face, demanding you decide which is best. We tut and roll our eyes, but they don’t get the hint. All it takes is one poor unsuspecting sucker to say, “I think I like the blue one best” and the game starts all over again, this time with higher stakes.
So that’s your modern liberty right there: It’s whatever’s left, whatever you can get, and enjoy it while it lasts, because once it’s gone it’s not coming back.
I say this, as clearly as I can: Talking about ‘Modern’ Liberty is a huge tactical error for Liberal Democrats. We’re being suckered, once again, into perpetuating the Government’s spin.
Why? Because accepting there’s any such thing as “modern liberty” is sending a strong subconscious message, one that reads, “real liberty is old fashioned. The question for this generation is how to balance liberty and security in the modern world.”
Sound familiar? It should. It’s the Government’s line every single time they clamp down, lock out, shut down, ban, restrict and control.
We do the Government’s work for them at our cost. If Liberal Democrats aren’t prepared to set the terms of the Liberty agenda then others will do it for us… and that’s like leaving Environmentalism to the Tories, isn’t it? Surely this is our niché, our speciality?
So I suggest we start looking at the root cause of this constant roll towards degraded civil liberties: It’s politicians, basically, isn’t it? And we shouldn’t get defensive about this just because we happen to be a collective that includes a good number of politicians. We should deal with it head on, accept the criticism as constructive and figure out a way to deal with it properly.
The freedom bill was all well and good – even if it doesn’t go anything like far enough – but if as a party we’re not arguing for constitutional change, for the protection of the civil liberties of individuals so that there are some things Governments can never do for cheap and easy political gains then we’re wasting our time. We need to “sandbox” the politicians so as to limit the harm they can do while they’re off trying to impress their focus groups.
Let’s fight not just to have our rights restored, but protect against any future Government ever eroding them again. And let’s unite on this, a part of liberalism that we all hold very dear and what separates us from other political creeds… and while I’m making idle wishes, can we ditch the ‘modern’ in ‘modern liberty’?
* Charlotte Gore is a Lib Dem blogger, most recently at her own blog here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Damian Collins at Hereford Military History Festival in September
The Joy of Six 1529
Labour deputy claims that Farage is a threat to democracy
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
Mick Taylor
Chloe
theakes
Kira Collins
Peter Martin
26 Comments
I’m not going to try defending the word ‘modern’ per se and agree it has been devalued by Labour. But the idea that liberty doesn’t face new challenges in the 21st century is gobsmackingly naïve.
The main reason for the current headlong rush towards a database state? Technology. And we will need more than a few Lockean platitudes to combat it.
The case for liberty has to be remade by every generation. I’m sorry Charlotte would rather sit back and snark from the sidelines.
Of course the case for liberty needs to be restated by every generation.
But my point is that liberty is liberty is liberty, you understand? There’s no special modern version of liberty, just new challenges, obstacles and threats.
Modern threats to liberty, yes. Modern liberty? No thanks.
Does any Lib Dem particularly talk about “modern liberty”? I’ve not noticed the phrase crop up independently of the Convention. If what you mean is Lib Dems are making a mistake in being involved with the Convention then that’s a different argument.
I think the message for the Lib Dems is to set their own agenda.
Charlotte: the only way to achieve what you want is to persuade a mass movement to agree with it. You’re smart enough to know that you’re not going to build a mass movement by making your case in this way.
I think it’s time someone said this: whilst we all, for the most part, think you’re a great blogger, a lot of people who have really enjoyed reading your output for the last couple of years are a bit put off by the a) forcefulness of your new-found(ish) libertarianism and b) your combative attitude in putting this across. It’s just as off-putting as the snarky jokes of the ‘realists’ who think that this whole ‘liberalism’ thing is being rather over-done.
On point A, I can see why you feel the way that you do. When I first really sat down and thought “so, what is being a liberal about other than being fairly nice to people?”, I started reading back through liberal philosophy and encountered a lot of far more radical stuff than I was aware of to begin with. I absorbed as much as I could, from Nozick to Rawls, Mill to Hayek and everything inbetween. And I can totally see the attraction of the doctrinaire libertarian position. On most points, I actually think that you’re right to point out that people do not value their liberty enough, and that the party could do more to promote genuine liberalism. However, the party is never going to be a vehicle for anarchist libertarianism. It’s just not going to happen. And it’s not fair to blame everyone else for preventing it.
To many people, liberty isn’t important for its own sake. These people are wrong and potentially foolish to think so, but no amount of robust argument is going to make them think otherwise. A political coalition needs more than a desire to restore liberty as its raison d’etre. I know it might seem as though if only people could understand the importance, they’d all be clamouring for liberty too, but you’re not the first person to feel that way, and none of the others have had any great success in getting others to share in the revelation.
Secondly, nobody likes to be told that they’re wrong. They really don’t like being told that they’re so hopelessly wrong that only a complete acceptance of your agenda could possibly help them. What I first really liked about your blog was the fact that you often talked about practical measures to succeed in getting liberal politics into the mainstream, with lots of ideas and potential projects that others could contribute to. With this, there’s nothing that anyone else can do except either agree or disagree. And even if they agree, the most that will come of it is that they will join the ranks of the blog-commenting libertarians. I mean them no disrespect, but they’re a sizable group that has yet to effect any real change in the world, and recruiting new members to it is not the way to get things done.
Finally, on the point of substance: I think that there is a modern liberty that is distinct from past liberties. To believe that we’ll never have any more liberty than we had in 1906 (or whatever) is actually a lack of ambition on your part. There are certainly new rights around the issue of personal data, privacy and data protection that are not part of the classical liberal heritage, but are equally important. You might be right, however, to say that our primary concern should be with the liberties we’re losing rather than the ones we hope to gain.
“The freedom bill was all well and good – even if it doesn’t go anything like far enough”
The Freedom Bill was all about repeal existing legislation rather than protecting/enshrining liberties. That doesn’t make it a bad thing but it is a limitation.
Thanks for that Rob. As far as my blogging goes I tend to agree – I don’t believe I’ve achieved much of anything. In terms of trying to appeal beyond the usual crowd of lib dems I’ve had some modest success, but at the cost of… well, the support of lib dems. It’s one of the main reasons I’ve killed the old blog and am thinking about what to do next and get out of this rut that I’m in.
The truth is that what sort of ideology I might subscribe to has little to do with what sort of policy I believe is possible or desirable in the real world. I don’t talk about practical policy very often, if at all, and the result seems to be people assuming I want to nuke the state instantly and woe betide anyone who disagrees.. which isn’t actually the case at all.
On the issue of this Op-Ed piece though, I’m a bit confused about what it is that people *think* I’m saying here, versus what I think I’m saying. That’s a bit worrying.
Hywel, reducing detention without charge to ‘just’ 14 days is a ‘not going far enough’ sort of thing. Nothing about removing the restriction on photographing policeman.
I guess the Freedom Bill needs to be a constant work in progress.
I *support* the Freedom Bill. I just want more. Kinda greedy like that.
Charlotte, as you know many of us are feeling frustrated and I *still* hope to have a mouthpiece available for the likes of us to rant on in peace so to speak very soon.
I myself had an interesting evening yesterday (warning – long post even for me!) that sparked off a lot of questions, and I would really encourage people interested in this whole debate to read or re-read “Why I am Not a Conservative” by Hayek because it really for me clearly defined the difference between liberalism and any statism (you just have to assume that Hayek was not a socialist of course – but his essay would apply to any state authority oriented party).
And, I have to say, that the Lib Dems at the moment are on the statist side of Hayek’s divide – and I don’t mean that necessarily in any pejorative way, just in teh wya our narrative works, our policy making works and so on. Liberty is about making a leap into the unknown, the unplannable – we are still a aparty that wants to “plan” the outcomes of our policies quite tightly.
Maybe that’s what the electorate wants. Personally, if the alternative – unplanned liberty – is sold in the right way, I think it would be attractive.
Couldn’t agree more. I can see why they chose the word Modern, but it certainly wouldn’t have been my choice…
Oh fantastic link – the first paragraph sums up my dilemma perfectly:
Sorry that should have been, “the hayek” link. The post on your blog is spot on too 🙂
Btw, returning to something Rob said.. I’m not an anarchist. For the record.
If it is any consolation, I doubt very much that the rhetoric of “modern” liberty will be around for very much longer.
Looking beyond the words, there is something timeless, universal and utterly human about liberty which we should never lose sight of.
So I hope there’s always space in the party for the likes of Charlotte and Jock, even though I will never feel obliged to agree 100% with the words each use (for reasons of precision or succinctness).
We need a growing balance of fluffy and spiky – of both consensus-seekers and polemicists – to make up that vibrant mix, precisely in order to instigate our own redefinition as we meet the new challenges we face and ensure that progress is towards a more liberal state rather than a less liberal one.
Yes, we will take anything we can get, but we will always want more.
‘modern’ is the new ‘classic’, eh?
“I guess the Freedom Bill needs to be a constant work in progress.”
Yes – and whatever you end up with someone will say whatabout….? In my case why repeal the ID cards database but not the centralised electoral register. Which had talk last week about linking it up to other government databases for data-matching purposes.
wearing a polemicist hat is sort of sexy but at the same time rather terrifying and often quite lonely.
Getting the balance right between sounding confident and certain and sounding like an amphetamine fuelled lunatic is surprisingly hard.
Why? Because accepting there’s any such thing as “modern liberty” is sending a strong subconscious message, one that reads, “real liberty is old fashioned. The question for this generation is how to balance liberty and security in the modern world.”
Sound familiar? It should. It’s the Government’s line every single time they clamp down, lock out, shut down, ban, restrict and control.
WTF? You’d have a point if there was a massive focus on the word ‘modern’, but there wasn’t and isn’t. The only thing modern is that our rights have to be understood and discussed in the context of the technology driven database state (as James Graham points out).
This is just typical conspiracy theory guff. In fact, you rather sound like those old-school lefties who think this is a big libertarian conspiracy. Sheesh.
So I suggest we start looking at the root cause of this constant roll towards degraded civil liberties: It’s politicians, basically, isn’t it? And we shouldn’t get defensive about this just because we happen to be a collective that includes a good number of politicians.
This is also rubbish. You say this because you’re anti-politics and anti-politicians, like a good libertarian, but the unfortunate fact is that a lot of people happily give their details away to massive database companies (like Tesco, but also the NHS) and are for CCTV cameras. A majority also support 28 days detention.
So the problem isn’t politicians, the problem would be public opinion. But you don’t really want to tackle that do you?
There’s a huge difference between giving your details away to Tesco and having them taken from you by the state, and that is the small issue of compulsion.
You can blame it on public opinion but at the end of the day ‘the public’ would quite like us to bring back hanging. Does the public’s opinion on that mean it would make it okay for politicians to pander to it for quick electoral gain?
The public don’t care, and that’s fair enough. It doesn’t mean that it’s something that doesn’t matter. That’s the populist, political interpretation for those focused on winning elections.
Just because something’s popular doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do, or unpopular that it’s the wrong thing to do. It’s the fatal flaw in populism, and it’s the fatal flaw in our political system, where politicians are forced to dwell on what will get them elected, not what is the proper, right and decent thing to do.
I’m anti-politican because politicians seem to have an impossible conflict of interest. Sandboxing them is in everyone’s interest.
Sunny: a lot of people happily give their details away
Charlotte: The public don’t care…doesn’t mean that it’s something that doesn’t matter
I contend Sunny’s generalisation in his use of the word ‘happily’. It’s hardly a free choice with fully informed consent – it’s more like consent or be damned!
So Charlotte is closer to the truth than Sunny, because if any members of the public don’t care, then perhaps it is because we don’t know and don’t have enough influence to change the outcome swiftly enough.
Like Sunny, I’m still a little puzzled as to where this massive focus on the M-word is – because if there was one, I’d think it a legitimate, if slightly abstract, thing to worry about. But, er, there isn’t.
You can blame it on public opinion but at the end of the day ‘the public’ would quite like us to bring back hanging. Does the public’s opinion on that mean it would make it okay for politicians to pander to it for quick electoral gain?
I thought you were a libertarian who believed that the govt should get out of people’s lives because they can make rational decisions themselves? surely that would imply the public knows best, and hence theres’ nothing wrong with a more populist democracy?
Of course politicians are going to do things for electoral gain! That’s the whole bloody point isn’t it? That isn’t even an argument. You can argue from a moral or ‘does it work’ point of view, but you can’t blame policians for wanting electoral gain.
I’m anti-politican because politicians seem to have an impossible conflict of interest. Sandboxing them is in everyone’s interest.
I’m sorry but you’re actually fundamentally confused.
Someone still has to make big decisions on whether we should go to war on an issue, whether we should have a welfare state or not and whether we bring back hanging.
All those decisions also impact people’s lives… so the assumption that only personal civil liberties matter is rubbish. You don’t really have a system or solution or much to say about how politicians should resolve the difficult questions: should they give in to populism or have some sort of a value system to develop answers?
My original point was this: I don’t have a problem with populism, because I think its important to find ways to shift public opinion. People can make rational decisions for the greater good – the difference is that I have faith. Whereas you don’t, and because you trust neither the public nor politicians, you want to restrict the rights of the latter – but increasing a sense of stalemate for both.
For providing health services, the state does also need information. The difference is also that I can use FOI and have other tools to ensure the govt is a lot more responsible and accountable than corporations (which are hindered by laws… set by govts).
My other point, that you haven’t answered, is what do you if the public do want more CCTV or pre-charge detention??
Sunny, there’s a massive difference between having faith and blind faith. Then again there’s a fine line between scepticism and cynicism.
I’m seeing the “modern” in “modern liberty” as “liberty reasserted in our context”.
Databases – even national databases with records of all the population that can be dug up later – are nothing new, just easier, more comprehensive and more accessible (when they can be made to work having driven the freelance IT people who have to fix it away :-).
So I don’t see the need for “modern”, but I’m not having a fight about it. I saw it as a tool to sell the conference as something new, which seemed to work.
On how to make a populist argument, is a comparison with Sus laws and how much further we have gone one place to start?
I think I’m hearing the problem of the controlling state moving higher up the agenda, but one of the reactions I’ve heard is resignation (“what can little people do”).
Jock, are you still interested in an IRC discussion? Did you see my email address which I supplied before?