By Caron Lindsay
| Thu 25th September 2025 - 8:07 pm
Keir Starmer is expected to announce a compulsory digital ID card for British citizens tomorrow. Thankfully, our Science and Technology spokesperson Victoria Collins has committed the party to opposing it. In a statement she said:
Liberal Democrats cannot support a mandatory digital ID where people are forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives.
People shouldn’t be turned into criminals just because they can’t have a digital ID, or choose not to.
This will be especially worrying to millions of older people, people living in poverty and disabled people – who are more likely to be digitally
Back in the 2000s, the Liberal Democrats led the fight against the Labour Government’s plans for compulsory ID cards and a vast, centralised database of personal information. The scheme was expensive, invasive, and fundamentally illiberal, and we were absolutely right to oppose it.
The values that guided us then still underpin our work today. We remain firmly committed to protecting privacy and civil liberties, and to limiting the power of the state. But the tools now available to both invade and protect privacy have evolved dramatically. In this new information age, it is only right that we take a fresh look at how best to defend these principles.
Smartphones are ubiquitous. Many of us now access banking, healthcare, and public services online. Meanwhile, private companies have created their own forms of digital identity, and government departments have trialled new systems, often without a clear, open debate about their scope or safeguards.
The world has changed profoundly, but our policy has remained largely unchanged for twenty years.
In an increasingly digital world, it is worth asking whether we should revisit our approach to ensure it continues to protect the freedoms we have always sought to uphold.
So what should we be thinking about?
It seems to me that any digital identity system needs to respect individual autonomy; needs to be voluntary, not compulsory; needs to protect people’s data, rather than collect more than is needed; and needs to be secure, transparent and designed with clear legal limits.
When Ming Campbell ran for the leadership, his best line was that Britain did not need a third conservative party. The situation now is so much worse; we have three hard authoritarian parties engaged in virility contests for who can be more horrible to and about very vulnerable people. I would like us to be much more emphatically full-fat liberal in the things we do and say, particularly in relation to migration.
I want to see our spokespeople saying that immigrants make us a stronger, better country, are net contributors to both the exchequer and our wider social life, and that in a liberal, plural society, and we are just about still a liberal society, the presence of another culture does not have to threaten yours.
I want them to bang the drum for human rights, both in law and spirit. I want them to say proudly and firmly that people have a right to seek asylum, and that this right comes from the same laws and conventions that protect everyone who was born here. I want them to say that to claim asylum you have to physically show up, and that is harder to do by conventional routes since the Tory government shut a lot of them down.
I want them to say that if we leave the ECHR, which I fear Starmer and Cooper are now privately toying with, everybody in this country will be less safe. I want them to cite Tony Benn – a good civil libertarian, whatever our other differences with him – saying that how a government treats refugees is instructive of how it would treat the rest of us if it could get away with it.
I want them to bang on about how swapping human rights for a British Bill of Rights means your statutory standing and privileges are based on your citizenship, which, however rarely it might happen, can be revoked. Ask Sajid Javid, he did it.
Last week, some 474 people were arrested at a London protest for expressing support for the newly-proscribed Palestine Action; per the Terrorism Act 2000, this can carry a sentence of up to fourteen years in jail. Footage circulating online makes for galling viewing: among those arrested on suspicion of terror offences were retired nurses, a blind gentleman in a wheelchair, and former Guantanamo Bay inmate Moazzam Begg.
What is happening? How did we get here? And most importantly, what is to be done?
The erosion of protest rights
The erosion of the right to protest has not come overnight. The previous Conservative government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Act gave police sweeping new powers to impose conditions on protests. Any disruption that causes “serious annoyance” is liable to be shut down; it introduced the statutory offence of public nuisance; and the sentence for blocking a highway was increased from a fine to 6 months in prison. This trajectory accelerated with the Public Order Act 2023, which introduced new offences such as “locking on”, and even criminalised being merely equipped to “lock on”. It also handed police the power to stop-and-search anyone at a protest without the need for suspicion of wrongdoing, criminalised ‘interference with key national infrastructure’ (any A or B road) and introduced the Serious Disruption Prevention Order, a civil order that prevents repeat offenders from exercising their right to protest altogether.
A glimmer of hope came in the form of a legal challenge to Suella Braverman’s attempt to unilaterally change the definition of what constitutes ‘serious disruption’. The High Court found this unlawful. But far from reversing course, the current government elected to take up Braverman’s case, though it ultimately lost in the Court of Appeal. It has pressed forward with the Crime and Policing Bill, which criminalises concealing ones’ identity at a protest, and creates an offence to climb on a specified war memorial or monument of national significance. And now, with the proscription of Palestine Action, it has deployed a national security tool directly against a non-violent protest movement.
What can be done?
It is time for the Liberal Democrats to reclaim the mantle of ‘the party of civil liberties’. Across the political spectrum, “tough on crime” rhetoric is in abundant supply. We will never win the race to the bottom on authoritarian posturing. Instead, we should offer a clear alternative rooted in the defence of this country’s proudest-held principles: individual freedoms, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Five things in particular should be pursued.
The first and most urgent reform is to campaign for repealing the sections of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Public Order Act 2023 surveyed above. We should also campaign to remove overzealous clauses of the Crime and Policing Bill (currently in Committee).
Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesperson Lisa Smart has written to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism legislation Jonathan Hall KC to ask him to review the legislation that led to the arrest of more than 500 people for expressing support for proscribed organisation Palestine Action.
To cover all her bases, she has also written to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to ask her to order an independent investigation by Jonathan Hall.
She said:
Acts of terrorism, antisemitic hate and violence, and violent disorder should all be punished to the fullest extent of the law and are totally unacceptable. It is right that the police already have the powers to make clear to organisations and individuals that we, as a society, will not stand for it and the consequences will be serious.
In the case of arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters not engaging in these actions, in a country that prides itself on democratic debate, these measures appear disproportionate. The Conservatives clamped down on the right to protest peacefully and this Labour government now risks doing the same.
We must protect the pillars of our democracy and where there is a chance they have been put at risk, we must look again. That is why I am urging the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to take up this review and if it is found the Government’s actions are indeed chilling freedom of speech then they must change course and address this in legislation.
Welcome to Britain, where you already have to scan your face to access much of the internet, facial recognition is rolled out on our streets, and soon your digital ID will be essential to access literally any public service. This great nation, once the flag-bearer of liberal ideals and rights, is sleepwalking into a digital dictatorship.
One of the features of the Coalition Government that I am proudest of is that we repealed New Labour’s ID card legislation. Now, with fancy new branding and a cover that it is to help tackle problems with illegal migration, Labour appears to be back to its roots, and planning to roll out digital ID in this Parliament.
This appears to be inspired by a paper from the Starmer loyalist think tank Labour Together. I took the time to read this paper, and its contents are even more terrifying than the headlines suggest. In sum, the proposal is to introduce ‘BritCard’, dubbed as a ‘mandatory national digital identity’. The paper proposes to integrate essentially all of our interactions with the state into one digital location, including healthcare and driving licenses. Even more terrifying is that it explicitly endorses such a card being stored in a private sector system like Apple Wallets.
Even if I were to park the principled objection for a second, the Government will mess this up. I’ve worked in the NHS for years, and I can’t believe that our diabolical computer systems have not yet collapsed entirely. Look at Government’s myriad failures – from track and trace to the Afghan data leak – and I don’t think anyone could tell me with honest certainty that they don’t think this system will be hacked, will leak or will simply stop working at some point.
To say that Birmingham City Council is facing a number of challenges at the moment would be an understatement. A combination of savage cuts to their central funding, a failed IT system, and the equal pay case which is still yet to be sorted, has left them bankrupt. The bin strikes have left rubbish piling up in the streets. One would imagine that the council has rather more important things to be focusing on than ensuring the complete eradication of street performers from the city centre.
Yet this is what us buskers currently face. Three years ago, we campaigned without success against their plans to ban all busking within specific areas of the city, due to what the council described as a ‘high volume’ of complaints (though a freedom of information request later revealed that, in one of the two affected areas, 77 of the 80 recorded complaints had come from the same person). One of our arguments at the time was that this partial ban would lead to displacement of any issues rather than a resolution, and sure enough, they have now claimed that they are receiving more complaints across the rest of the city centre. The proposed solution? To ban all busking from the entirety of the city centre.
The scope of the Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) that they have proposed defies belief. Despite being assured during the introduction of PSPOs that they ‘would not be used against buskers where they are not causing anti-social behaviour’, the proposals in their current form would make it an offence for anyone to busk in the city centre, regardless of whether they themselves were causing any problems. And these proposals are likely to pass unless individual councillors take notice of what they will be voting for.
In my capacity as a director of Keep Streets Live, and a regular busker in Birmingham and its surrounding areas, I contacted every single councillor to attempt to facilitate dialogue and discussion. I have heard back from one of them, who simply said she would ‘look into it’. The council have not spoken personally with any busker, instead relying on the Environmental Health Department, who came up with the proposals in the first place. Their remit is to reduce noise complaints; there is no incentive for this department to protect artists or to promote cultural offerings.
A political own goal if ever I’ve seen one. No, on this occasion I’m not speaking of Labour on welfare, the Tories on, well, pretty much everything, or Reform UK on its failing candidate vetting. I’m speaking of our leader Ed Davey’s sacking of Christine Jardine after she voted in line with our party’s values on a welfare amendment last week and, in doing so, nominally broke the party Whip which was (inexplicably) to abstain.
As a Lib Dem MP source said to me (in news I broke on my Substack the morning after) “this has been handled dreadfully.” The same MP answered in the affirmative when I asked them if there was significant disquiet about the issue in the Lib Dem Commons caucus. That matches cool anger among the party base; with Lib Dem Women writing to the Chief Whip Wendy Chamberlain with their concerns and more than one hundred party members signing an open letter in less than twenty-four hours calling not only for Christine Jardine to be re-appointed as our Scotland and Women and Equalities Spokesperson but also for her to be given a formal apology over the handling of the matter. I’m proud to be one of the signatories of that letter.
Christine Jardine says she only learnt of her demotion from the media, that is surely disgraceful. The fact she’d been warned this might happen is not the same as being informed that it had. Our Whips/leadership need to do better.
And, on a further point, how can Ed Davey go from saying at a recent conference that Christine was “the best equalities spokesperson the party’s ever had” to sacking her from the role for voting in line with our party’s values?! It makes no sense whatsoever.
I don’t mean this negatively in regards to her replacements (which by the way were not given a formal announcement but just had their positions changed on the party website), that being Susan Murray as the new Scotland Spokesperson and Lisa Smart on Women and Equalities, but Christine Jardine should be restored to her prior roles without delay. And the leadership should ask themselves some very serious questions about how this whole matter has been handled and ensure nothing like it happens again!
We need to be loud in speaking up for civil liberties!
Liberal Democrat parliamentarians should vote against the proscription of Palestine Action.
Yes, members of that group should take responsibility for illegal actions that they take. The law is already quite draconian – especially with the invocation of the Terrorism Act. However, the organisation should not, as a whole, be made illegal in a liberal society where protest is tolerated. Making Palestine Action supporters open to imprisonment is simply unconscionable in modern Britain (and Northern Ireland).
On Sunday morning, Alistair Carmichael gave his keynote speech to Conference. It was as funny, liberal and hard=hitting as you would think.
Governments and babies’ nappies need changing often, much for the same reason, he said.
Liberal Democrats will have no truck with the demonisation of desperate people. We will crush the people smuggling market by giving people safe and legal routes to get here, he promised.
He said that Liberal Democrats mustn’t just tell people what we’re against. We must say what we are for. We champion the rights of the individual to do what they like as long as it doesn’t harm others. We also understand that meaningful freedom means pooling freedoms to form communities and upwards to nation states.
We are a party of law and order, he said, because we can’t be free if we don’t feel safe to leave our homes as he attacked the Conservative record on community policing.
He highlighted how the Conservatives are upping use of facial recognition technology like that used in China and how that had never been authorised properly by Parliament. Any influence we have in the next Parliament will be used to put the money wasted on this into frontline policing.
He warned that we might be sleepwalking into a surveillance state. He tackled that line much favoured by those who want to lead us down an increasingly authoritarian path “If you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear.” We are all perfectly entitled to hide things. It’s called privacy.
He reminded us of some of Labour’s failings on civil liberties – their “authoritarian streak a mile wide” with DNA databases and 90 day detention. We will not support any of that agenda should they go into power.
Liberal Democrats are not about splitting the difference between the Tories and Labour. We trust the people, they want to control them. We demand a change in the way we are governed. We demand a stronger, greener, fairer and more United Kingdom.
We need to get out there and fight of that door by door and street by street as if the future of our nation depends on it – because it does.
By Caron Lindsay
| Sun 19th November 2023 - 11:55 am
Lib Dem London Mayoral Candidate Rob Blackie has been persistent in holding the Mayor to account over civil liberties issues.
He has identified through Freedom of Information requests that the Metropolitan Police has made little progress on crucial research into stop and search, three years on from promising to do so.
The answers show that the Mayor’s office has failed to get the Met to make any meaningful progress on the bodycam research project:
In June 2023 the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime stated to Rob Blackie:
MOPAC held debrief sessions with the Met in October 2022 to discuss the issues, but the Review was told only four of the initial 20 coders attended, some of whom had not done any coding…In January 2023, discussions took place between the Met and MOPAC around a potential solution to allow research to progress and the Met set up a specific group to progress the work. This was due to meet in February 2023 but little progress was made. The current status is that there is a meeting due to take place between MOPAC and MPS at the end of June to progress and decide the next steps of the project.
When Rob asked in July 2023 how the June meeting had made progress, MOPAC replied that:
There are no current outcomes or timelines we can provide on the progression of the project.
This all comes from the Action Plan published in November 2020 which was supposed to improve trust and confidence in the Metropolitan Police. It is disappointing, especially given the Casey Review’s conclusion earlier this year that the Met was institutionally racist, homophobic and misogynist.
You would think they would want to get a wiggle on to show that they were improving.
Back in the 1930s, there was a deep suspicion amongst courtiers of broadcasting royal events on the radio. They worried that the events would be demeaned by men listening to them in public houses with their hats on. Ninety years on, these courtiers would have been utterly disgusted at the prospect of women watching last Saturday’s coronation (as I did) on their phones on sunbeds in Spain, one pina colada to the good.
I hadn’t intended to watch any of it while I was away on my first ever girls’ holiday. Truth be told, I’d had trouble even mustering up indifference. However, one of our party had a friend participating and she wanted to see if she could spot him.
So I managed to marvel at some of the proceedings, including Penny Mordaunt’s impressive sword-holding while dressed as every Tory Boy’s Thatcherite fantasy.
However much I like the spectacle, I am far from convinced that a hereditary monarchy, even one with few powers, is the best way for our country to be governed. I am not too exercised by the question, though, as there are many more pressing things – including giving people the Parliament they ask for – that need to be done.
Since I was eligible to vote, I have voted for the Conservative Party. Local elections, by-elections, General Elections; I’ve always “voted blue, no matter who”. Part of the reason, I’m sure, is the influence of my grandparents who have always voted Conservative. The other reason is easier to identify; as someone always interested – and now working in – law, the fact that the Conservative Party has always been identified as the “party of law and order” naturally drew me to them.
I won’t lie. I have never delved too deeply into the individual policies of the party. I started voting Conservative and didn’t stop. I followed Conservative MPs on Twitter and Facebook, I read “right leaning” newspapers and, for a period of time, I joined the local party association and gave my support as a local activist. I was even asked, where I used to live, to consider standing for the council (albeit as a paper candidate).
By James Baker
| Tue 20th September 2022 - 10:25 am
We rely on private and secure messaging services to keep our personal information and correspondence safe. Privacy is essential in many situations. Whether we’re communicating with a loved one, seeking advice on a sensitive situation, or sharing pictures on the family WhatsApp group. For some people such as journalists, whistle-blowers, or the Ukrainians fighting Russia it can be a matter of life or death. The ability for people to communicate privately is a human right and a long-standing cornerstone at the foundation of Liberal Democracy and Western values.
Being able to message someone privately and securely keeps us safe, yet it is being put at risk by a bill that incorrectly claims to promote safety. It asks companies that provide services such as WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram, to monitor the content of messages. It also empowers OFCOM to compel providers of user-to-user messaging services to run accredited software to scan, detect and report instances of CSEA or terrorism.
The Online Safety Bill doesn’t explain how this might technically work, most likely it would involve something called ‘client-side scanning’. This is where software is installed on every device and scans your private messages before they are sent. The Open Rights Group has stated this amounts to installing a ‘spy in the pocket’ of every mobile phone user. Any messages the software ‘thinks’ contains prohibited material could be either blocked and/or reported automatically to authorities. This sort of software will certainly lead to false accusations as happened recently when Google reported a man to the Police.
The Conservative Government is on an illiberal rampage, bringing in multiple laws which threaten our civil liberties.
From suppressing voter turnout by requiring voters to show ID at polling stations, to criminalising the right to protest peacefully, to bringing the once independent electoral commission under government control, the UK – to borrow a phrase from SNP MP Mhairi Black – is “sleepwalking into fascism”.
The measures to tackle “serious disruption” in the Public Order Bill provide a blatant example. Not satisfied with tearing apart our democratic right to protest, the Home Secretary wants to impose banning orders on protesters, including electronic monitoring tags, travel restrictions, restricted internet access and curfews.
So this all begs the question; what can we do? What can we do to tackle these measures, and protect our basic democratic rights?
Luckily, we still have time before the Public Order Bill is set to become law, so the opportunity to protest peacefully is available to us. For those unable to attend physical protests, a plethora of options is available – contacting MPs, writing articles, getting involved with political parties and groups that fight to protect our rights.
I am a secondary school teacher in an inner-London school. We have a student body that is overwhelming non-white British.
In the context of the horrifying treatment of Child Q, our students were understandably asking many questions about whether we as teachers, could be trusted by them.
The sheer number of questions necessitated a discussion of the case occurred within a staff briefing, but it also left me devastated that a number of teachers in a different borough had destroyed my relationship with the students.
At this briefing, we were given an update on the facts of the case and how the school will react to this case. The discussion was productive, particularly around suspected drug possession. We were additionally informed that unless it was a dealing level found, the police would not be contacted. A crucial and needed policy. Essentially adopting a decriminalisation policy.
The mere existence of these questions says a lot about the breakdown in relationship between the public services of education and the police. If the school can’t trust the police, then why should the children. If the children have been let down by the teachers and the police, then why should they trust either.
By Caron Lindsay
| Sat 11th September 2021 - 3:01 pm
Twenty years ago, about this time, I arrived home. It was a particularly uneventful Tuesday. My then toddler and I had been to parent and toddler group and had walked home and were about to have a wee snuggle on the sofa watching the Tweenies. Later that evening, my friend Anne and I were going to head off for a power walk to kickstart our Autumn fitness project.
And then I turned on the telly. Instead of watching Milo, Fizz, Bella and Jake do their thing, I sat, transfixed, by the events unfolding in front of me. The toddler was more about the snuggles than the actual content on the tv so was soon asleep. I was free to take in the horror of the third plane hitting the Pentagon.
I remember being jolted by the contrast of the horror in New York and President George W Bush reading to a class of 7 year olds.
In her Scotsman column this week, Christine Jardine described something worrying that took place while she took part in a protest for Hong Kong democracy in Edinburgh:
A drone. Hovering a couple of feet above the heads of the group was a small grey machine, the single eye of its mounted camera recording the event and everyone there.
This was, it is important to stress, a Covid-compliant, socially distanced, perfectly legal outdoor gathering of a small number of people in Edinburgh’s High Street. Unremarkable even in these times, save for one thing. It was about the threat to democracy in Hong Kong
She asks if we take our civil liberties for granted:
As restrictions are gradually eased, it is heartening to see our public spaces once again being filled with shoppers, cafe-goers and those who just want to make the most of being able to socialise freely again. This should also prompt us to have a serious look at the value we place on our public spaces, for if we do not act soon, we could lose them without realising until it is too late.
A small but growing number of commentators and activists are drawing our attention to increased use of pseudo-public spaces – that is, those which to all intents and purposes appear to be public spaces but are in fact privately managed and owned. Vast swathes of Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham (as well as many more) are under private ownership, but this is no longer an issue confined to big cities. Devastated by years of austerity, councils have been selling off land at alarming rates to private corporations and as a busker, this is more obvious to me than most. With the number of busking pitches available on genuinely public land reducing, it is now very difficult to make a living without busking on publicly accessible private land. It is not just in the large metropolises – I have faced attempts to move me on in Didcot, Stourbridge, Redditch and countless others. They will never try to argue that I am causing any genuine problems – simply that ‘management don’t allow it’.
I will almost always stand my ground, pointing out that, not only does a specific section of public highways law allow for privately owned land to act as a de jure public highway in many instances, but also that with trespass being a civil offence, there needs to be some evidence of harm being caused in order to compel me to leave. Where there is no material harm, I see no reason to leave. Usually, the security guards hired by these private corporations give up and let me continue. They’ve even, on one occasion, returned to buy a CD from me. But if they dig in, problems can occur, which has led to me being arrested for ‘breach of the peace’ in 3 different locations. In all of these instances, the police have admitted that I was not actually breaching the peace, nor did they have any evidence that I was likely to. But for a breach of the peace arrest, none of this is actually required. All that is required is for the police officer to believe that a breach of the peace may occur. Note that it is not legally relevant who will be causing that breach. The last time this happened, officers in Birmingham accepted my argument that they were effectively arresting me because, if I didn’t leave, the security guards might initiate a physical altercation.
Two new proposed laws threaten to escalate this to a worrying extent. One is Priti Patel’s much-publicised policing bill, which has rightly been the subject of mass protests. For me, it is almost laughable to see her argue that existing powers regarding Public Order are not strong enough, given my experiences of being arrested under the very laws that apparently do not give the police enough power.
The Queen’s Speech includes plans to reform the Official Secrets Acts. The last of these was passed in 1989, before the dawn of the internet; the first in 1911 – most of the carrier pigeons that served in the First World War had not even been born.
The acts are antiquated and the Counter-State Threats Bill is intended to drag the way we tackle hostile activity from states and new types of actor kicking and screaming into the 21st century. There will be plenty in this bill to keep Liberal Democrats busy in the coming months, not least what Number 10 has briefed The Sun will be “sweeping powers to jail Russian and Chinese spies”.
But my concern is what appears to be a likely omission from the bill. The Queen’s Speech makes no reference to the introduction of a statutory public interest defence. This would create a safety net for people who believe that, for the greater good, they must disclose sensitive information covered by the acts.
Public servants should not, for example, fear jail is inevitable if they are exposing illegalities committed at the top of government. They need to know they can make a public interest defence, albeit one that would later be tested rigorously by a jury. Simply dumping a load of state secrets on the internet would plainly fail that test.
By putting the defence on a statutory footing, civil servants, journalists and others would not have to rely on the creativity of lawyers and juries ignoring the directions of the judge. Katharine Gun and Clive Ponting, the Iraq and Falklands War whistleblowers respectively, escaped jail because of those factors. Others might not be so lucky, while the likes of Sarah Tisdall (the Greenham Common case) did not even have the option of at least testing this defence.
Conference overwhelmingly backed the right to protest today in a passionate debate which showed the party at its best. It’s so important given that the Official Opposition’s first instinct was to abstain on this draconian legislation and had to be shamed into opposing it.
We called on the Government to drop the proposals set out in the Police, Sentencing and Courts Bill and reaffirmed our support for the Human Rights Act.
I’ve done a Twitter thread summarising the main points that were made in the debate:
Absolutely superb debate at #ldconf on defending the right to protest. Really showed what the @libdems are for, as @amcarmichaelMP & @libdemdaisy said, standing with people against the power of the state. Here are some of the main points:
— Caron Lindsay 🔶 🇺🇦🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺 (@caronmlindsay) March 21, 2021
@FGZstar talked about how he can now stand for Parliament as an out, proud bisexual man – something which would have been against the law had it not been for protestors
— Caron Lindsay 🔶 🇺🇦🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺 (@caronmlindsay) March 21, 2021
.@CharlottaCampan talked about policing of vigil outside London. Cressida Dick could have chosen to police Clapham vigil with women-only officers, as she had done the week before on International Women's Day. And also different approach to anti lockdown protestors
— Caron Lindsay 🔶 🇺🇦🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺 (@caronmlindsay) March 21, 2021
.@NSmudgeChapman talked about women protesting for the right to vote in 1910 being met with brutality. And women holding a vigil to a dead woman being met with brutality in 2021. If Police will behave like that when cameras are on, what do they do when they are off?
— Caron Lindsay 🔶 🇺🇦🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈🇪🇺 (@caronmlindsay) March 21, 2021
After the debate, Home Affairs spokesperson Alistair Carmichael said:
I’m feeling frustrated, to be honest, that Reclaim these Streets vigils over the country have been cancelled after Police made clear to organisers that they could be hit with heavy fines. The events have now mostly been moved online and I’ll be taking part at 6pm tonight, on my doorstep with a candle to remember Sarah Everard and the other women killed by men and to assert the right of women and girls to go about their business in safety – and, crucially, without the fear that it is clear we all experience.
Now I’m about as Covid-cautious as you could possibly get. I’ve barely been out in a year. But I’m also a liberal and my instinctive reaction is that our right to protest is a fundamental civil liberties. In these times, you need to be responsible and protest in a Covid secure way, but the right to stand up and be counted for a cause you believe in is vital.
In recent days, several Liberal Democrats have been talking more about civil liberties.
I’m glad to see that Munira Wilson, our MP for Twickenham and health spokesperson, has made some robust comments on the vigil bans:
Women and girls should be able to walk down our streets safely and without fear. I completely understand why people feel moved to attend vigils or protest about this. It is deeply disappointing that the Metropolitan Police have refused to help make it happen.
“No one wants to see crowds of people at a time when social distancing is so important to save lives. But Reclaim These Streets is committed to organising Covid-safe vigils and the High Court made it clear that such an event can be lawful.
“The Government has a duty to facilitate safe protests. The way the Government has curtailed protest rights and is trying to do so even after we emerge from the pandemic is deeply concerning. Liberal Democrats will always defend the right to protest.”
Liberal Democrats secure Government commitment to publish test and trace agreement with police
Government face first defeat in the Lords over Internal Market Bill
Liberal Democrats secure Government commitment to publish test and trace agreement with police
Today, Liberal Democrat Peer Paul Scriven has secured a commitment from Health Minister Lord Bethell to publish the agreement between the Government and police chiefs over the decision to share test and trace data.
This follows the Health Secretary’s refusal to make the Memorandum of Understanding public when Liberal Democrat Health and Care Spokesperson Munira Wilson asked him to just yesterday.
Following the exchange, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Scriven said:
An effective test, trace and isolate system to keep people safe will only work if the public have faith in it and this means the Government must be open and honest about how it uses people’s data.
It is absolutely crucial that the Government publishes its Memorandum of Understanding with police chiefs on sharing of Test and Trace data in full, otherwise they risk further undermining public trust in the system and discouraging people from getting tested.
I’m glad to have secured this commitment from the Minister, but he must now make sure the document is published for public scrutiny as soon as possible. The Liberal Democrats are clear that transparency over the use of personal data is essential to build public confidence in Test and Trace.
Liberal Democrats: London lockdown further evidence Govt have lost control
Liberal Democrats vote against “dangerous” Government crimes Bill
Liberal Democrats: London lockdown further evidence Govt have lost control
Responding to reports that London will face Tier 2 Covid restrictions from Saturday, Leader of the Liberal Democrats Ed Davey said:
The Government have completely lost control of coronavirus across vast swathes of the country, and the situation in London is looking very difficult.
In the north of England, and now in London, the sacrifices of millions of people have been squandered by this Government. Because of Boris Johnson’s failure to ensure our test, trace and isolate system worked, millions of people will have to make those sacrifices again.
We need to understand the science behind the tier system immediately, otherwise there will be fears that this fresh wave of restrictions will do very little to help stop the spread of the virus. We need a circuit-breaker introduced now, on the condition that government overhaul the failing test and trace system – otherwise restrictions will need to remain in place for the foreseeable future.
The government must do much more to protect jobs and livelihoods and keep people safe.
Some MPs never get to ask the Prime Minister a question at the most hotly contested parliamentary event of any week.
Munira Wilson has been an MP for just 9 months, and has had two opportunities in the path month to ask a question at PMQs.
This week she asked him to work cross-party to get a consensus on the laws and powers around Coronavirus, calling the current measures “draconian.”
"Will the Prime Minister finally commit to working cross-party to replace these draconian laws to ensure the we both protect our most vulnerable and safeguard our liberties?"@munirawilson on how the Coronavirus Act waters down the right to care for many across the UK. #PMQspic.twitter.com/fTnbxcMaCk
His response was as dismissive as you would expect:
We are making sure that everybody in our society gets all the protections they need. I am aware of the easements in the Care Act 2014 that the hon. Lady refers to. It was necessary to put them in temporarily, and we now need to make sure we give everybody the protection that they need. That is what this Government will do.
And here’s a reminder of Munira’s debut at PMQs last month when she took Boris Johnson to task over his government legislating to break international law.
In the weeks ahead, as the government seeks to loosen the lockdown while containing the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely to introduce measures that in ordinary times would constitute serious violations of our civil liberties. For example, the government is likely to introduce extensive COVID-19 testing, enforce quarantine for those who test positive and compulsory trace, everyone; they have come into contact with.
As Liberals, a fundamental test we apply to any state action that restricts civil liberties is the one set out by John Stuart Mill: a person should be free to behave as they choose as long as they do not infringe the freedoms of others. The COVID-19 pandemic is a situation where civil liberties can, in principle, legitimately be restricted because if a person spreads COVID-19, they clearly infringe the freedoms of others.
However, in practice, great care must be taken that our civil liberties are restricted to the smallest possible extent.
It is not yet clear exactly what the government intends to introduce. But there are some key issues that we should consider now, so we can scrutinise whatever measures the government proposes.
In the UK there exists a principle, harking back to the days of Sir Robert Peel. This long held tradition and principle is called policing by consent. This is essentially the idea that police legitimacy is based on the consent of those it polices. This vital bond, between citizen and state is one that should be held with the upmost regard. When our nation is in crisis, as it arguably is now, the rule of law becomes more, not less, important. This vital principle has almost passed unnoticed in recent weeks as the UK government has brought in strict legislation to help mitigate Covid-19.
By Mark Johnson
| Tue 11th February 2020 - 12:30 pm
Much has been made of the repurposing of the Liberal Democrats in the aftermath of December’s General Election. Enter the Orange Bookers, the social liberals and the FBPE Europhiles all of whom are beginning to set out the course they feel the party should embark on as it looks to the future.
Liberalism has a long and complex history. Sometimes that history has been bloody. This weekend there is a range of eventshappening in Manchester to mark the 200 year anniversary of one such episode in liberal history, the Peterloo massacre.This was when a large gathering of tens of thousands of people calling for political reform in St Peter’s Field in Manchester on 16th August 1819 was forcibly charged by soldiers on horseback. This resulted in 18 people being killed and hundreds being injured. The name of the massacre aimed to mock the British victory at Waterloo that had happened four years earlier.
Peterloo is an important reminder that we cannot take liberalism and democracy for granted. Our modern political rights and freedoms had to be fought for and even at times face authorities prepared to use lethal force in order to suppress democratic sentiments. 200 years on, liberal democracy is still a luxury that many countries and parts of the world do not have. From China to Syria, from Russia to Zimbabwe and from Saudi Arabia to North Korea, activists the world over are to this day struggling, fighting and even dying for the political rights and freedoms that we have in Britain in 2019.
Peterloo is important for liberals, but it is also important to socialists and progressives of all kinds. We liberals must be unafraid to defend our history. We must not abandon radical moments of British liberal history to socialists and extreme leftists. The political philosophy of the radical liberal thinker, Thomas Paine, helped to inspire the protesters at Peterloo. Peterloo was about liberty, freedom from oppression and people’s political rights. In short, it was about political reform. All of these things form the core tenets of liberalism.
In 1819, only 2% of the population could vote (mostly the landed gentry) and working people in cities like Manchester lived in industrial levels of poverty and squalor. Both of these issues would be remedied by Liberals over the century that followed. The Great Reform Act of the Whig Prime Minister, Earl Grey in 1832 swept away the Tory rotten boroughs. William Gladstone gave the vote to millions of agricultural workers in 1885 and under the government of David Lloyd George in 1918, universal male suffrage was achieved, as well as the first voting rights for women. In regard to the industrial poverty, Liberals helped to abolish the dreaded protectionist Corn Laws, advanced the rights of workers (including legalising trade unions and legitimising collective bargaining) and created the welfare state.
Regular readers may wonder where this feature disappeared to over the past week or so. The answer, North Macedonia and Georgia, and fascinating both countries were too. But there’s always a point where you have to come home…
Davey: MI5 revelations “a shocking breach of civil liberties”
Responding to today’s High Court hearing over MI5’s collection and storage of bulk data, Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson Ed Davey said:
These revelations represent a shocking breach of civil liberties by one of the agencies tasked with safeguarding them.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed giving MI5 powers to collect bulk communications data,
Dennis The government has achieved a lot of what it promised to do, and had been on track to achieve more policies stated in their manifesto. https://fullfact.org/gove...
Chloe I've little sympathy for Starmer.
But what he did deserve was to deliver that deeply personal resignation speech uninterrupted by that usual borish oaf S.Bray...
Slamdac The appears to be some British exceptionalism in these comments.
I accept that the EU can't force us to have a referendum, but we can't force them to accep...
Nonconformistradical "My fear is that Labour are just changing their captain and not their policy programme. What Burnham has said so far is very confusing and disappointing."
Se...
Mick Taylor Kier Starmer is a decent man, who was wholly out of his depth as PM. Everyone should read Ian Dunt's assessment on his substack
https://iandunt.substack.com/
...
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A journey along the Welsh Border in 1963
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Dennis 
Chloe 
Slamdac 
Nonconformistradical 
Mick Taylor 