Welcome to the second in a series of posts going through the full coalition agreement section by section. You can read the full coalition document here.
The section on civil liberties is, with one exception, a straight forward listing of many policies the Liberal Democrats have long argued for. Whether by principle or pragmatism, David Cameron has taken the chance of a hung Parliament to firmly put the Conservatives on the liberal side of the liberal versus authoritarian divide. There certainly are some in his party who would rather be on the other side, but they have been sidelined by this deal and by the choice of ministers.
One interesting political aspect of the deal will be its effect on Labour and the Labour leadership contest. Much of the civil liberties section involves undoing legislation which was voted for by various leadership contenders. How will they react on those votes which come up during the contest? Will they want to take Labour to the authoritarian fringes by voting against the coalition government or will they take the chance to repudiate their past and oppose the policies they used to support?
For the coalition members the one flash point may be in the final point: “We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on our obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties.” Within those words lie big differences of principle and instinct between Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. It’s one to watch.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Disneyfication of Haley Mills
Survation now put Andy Burnham 10 points ahead in Makerfield
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Ruth Bright
BigTallTim
Daniel Walker
Richard Good
Matt (Bristol)
13 Comments
This is not a hung parliament, for that is when one party governs as a minority at permanent risk of being turned out of office by a confidence vote going against it. It was, notionally, hung only for the few days between the election and Brown’s resignation. At that point there was a clear government mandate, supported by a (supposedly) binding coalition agreement.
In the context in which Mark just used the term “hung parliament”, it is a perfectly valid. He did not say that we were under a hung parliament now, he said “David Cameron has taken the chance (as in opportunity) of a hung parliament to….”, using the past tense there.
The flash point can also be a big win. The way I read it is that any resulting Bill should embed those Rights further into our constitution and, if anything, build and extend on them.
The Tory moaning about the ECHR has never made any sense to me. None of them seem to be willing to point out which one of those rights they want to rescind (freedom of religion? the right to a fair trial?). It will be interesting to see if they can form a coherent objection now that it’s really on the table.
As time goes on, the biggest divide in politics seems increasingly to be in the approach to civil liberties.
It will be interesting to see how well the Tories hold the line on this. Labour have a point when they point out that it is much easier to fly the flag for civil liberties in opposition. Once in power, the temptation to “err on the side of caution” will be intense, constantly pulling policy in an authoritarian direction.
To be fair, this is also true of the LDs but presumably our commitment to this cause is more entrenched than theirs, being more fundamental to the principles of the party.
I think Labour will hold their line, arguing the first civil liberty is the right to live free from the threat of terrorism, as they have consistently done. That probably isnt a bad strategy for them given that this is a reasonably popular argument – I have heard that logic repeated many times by many different people.
Arguing for the human rights of prisoners, for example, will always strike many people as peverse, and the Tories are never going to be comfortable on that ground.
It actually says “incorporates and builds on all our obligations” (emphasis added), which I think is quite a significant difference. It means the ECHR is confirmed as the minimum level of protection for human rights in this country – in other words, we’ve essentially already won, and just need to hold the Conservatives to what they’ve already agreed.
It’s a great pity that the coalition has not abandoned the e-borders scheme. You can’t call a country free when you have to ask government permission in advance to leave it.
@Andrew Suffield
Absolutely agree.
@Andrew Suffield
“The Tory moaning about the ECHR has never made any sense to me. None of them seem to be willing to point out which one of those rights they want to rescind (freedom of religion? the right to a fair trial?). It will be interesting to see if they can form a coherent objection now that it’s really on the table.”
I absolutely agreed with that. I think it’s just all part and parcel of their anti-European gibberish; nothing rational at all, except for a principled few who genuinely believe in the absolute sovereignty of parliament.
Having looked at the LD/Con/Coal document, I don’t really see what the fuss is about. In truth there wasn’t much more than a fag paper of difference anyway between both parties anyway.
As for the NR/BOR argument, well both parties wanted to strengthen what was there – just the methodology is different. Not that it makes a jot of difference anyway, Labour introduced the HR act and then spent the rest of the time finding ways to work around it. At the moment, both solutions seem to work on the basis that the guardians will be parliament – but of course Parliament may also have the best incentive to trash it at a later date.
What is needed is something that prevents politicians messing about with whatever is produced (e.g. referendum required for changes), plus some form of constitutional court that would “outrank” them when they start trying it on.
I do not see a british bill of rights as being automatically a bad thing. Of course some tories will see this as an oportunity to water down some of the guarantees offered by the current human rights act, and I hope the Lib Dem influence will help to minimise that. There is also the oportunity to stengthen or extend rights in some areas and I do feel that some areas of the Human rights act could benifit from clarification.
What about the right of the civil liberty of the British people, not to have their country stolen from them. The Lisbon Treaty abolishes the United Kingdom as a sovereign state and the makes it’s territory a part of another sovereign state called the Europe Union. No legislation was passed by the British Parliament to abolish the United Kingdom and no legislation was passed by the British Parliament to make the territory of the United Kingdom a part of a European Union sovereign state. The Lisbon Treaty is completely unconstitutional in Britain, since it is a piece of stealth legislation enacted without legal process.
UKIP Nigel Farage MEP – The truth touches quite a few nerves – NOVEMBER 2009
No…. no. That’s just nonsense. Mad Farage ranting that bears no resemblance to the reality. It’s just a treaty, and Parliament is still free to ignore it at whim (although the EU may treat this as a decision to quit the EU).
Now for those countries which have joined the Euro, there is some legitimacy to saying that they have surrendered partial sovereignty, because their own national government no longer has control over their currency. But the UK is not a Euro member.