Charles Kennedy on Civil Liberties

[muriel_volestrangler]

Well, this looks good to me, but at times I think that the only way for the Lib Dems to get into government would be to sell their souls completely, and join in the authoritarian race with Labour and the Tories. Doers it matter what smaller parties say, because they'll never hold power?

The United Kingdom has no written constitution. We have no Bill of Rights.
We should. It is long standing Liberal Democrat policy to enshrine the rights of people and the responsibilities of Government in a written constitution against which all new legislation should be measured. But, securing civil liberties requires continuous scrutiny. Making sure Ministers, civil servants and the laws they produce are subject to robust democratic checks and balances is key to ensuring Britain's civil liberties.So we propose the following measures to protect civil liberties and boost the power of parliament to hold the Prime Minister properly to account.

First, we would abolish the Royal Prerogative. Such a system is out of date in a modern democracy. Minister's must be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny when exercising powers such as the declaration of war, the signing of treaties, and the pardoning of prisoners. We would then ensure all Bills are accompanied by a Privacy Impact Statement that measures proposals against the effects on the right of the individual to privacy.We would introduce a proper Civil Service Act - long overdue.We would strengthen Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation, always publishing Bills in draft first and allowing proper time for scrutiny as bills pass through parliament. No Bill should be considered in Parliament until the Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported its concerns. And we would amend the Freedom of Information Act to make it easier for the public to see the legal advice given to Ministers.

So to summarise, I suggest that there is an important division emerging here in British politics - which supersedes the old language of left or right. It is a division between 'liberal' and 'illiberal'. Between those, on the one hand, whose instinct in dealing with complex problems is authoritarian. And those, on the other hand, who seek an effective balance between our rights, responsibilities and security.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/index.cfm/page.main/section.parliamentary/article.8177

[autorank]

1. British Liberal Democratic Party, our natural allies. Dump Labour!

[non sociopath skin]

2. If you expect the LibDems to deliver what it says on your strapline, Auto

... think again. I have worked with these people first hand when I was in local government and I am here to tell you that they are well to the right of Bliar on most issues. They are past masters of being all things to all persons but their instincts are miles away from yours or mine.

The Skin

[autorank]

5. non sociopath skin, Thanks for responding. I knew my Blair

bashing would attract a Labourite, albeit disillusioned one.

OK, so help me here. Why is Blair still leading Labour? Why on earth don't they throw his ass out? It's bad enough that he's screwed GB with the Iraq War and compromised your nations ongoing security (just as * has ours). Now it looks like they might take a real pasting at the polls. Blair needs to go...all is forgiven (not that my forgiveness matters...haha) if Blair goes. You folks need to know that if he'd been tossed prior to our election, * would have lost. Therefore, * is your fault.

Just kidding, unless your not offended, in which case I'm serious!

Nice talking to you!

[Mr Creosote]

3. There is nothing here with which I disagree

despite the superfluous apostrophe the Royal Prerogative is one thing that should clearly go. About a year or so ago, one of the select committees called Benn and Hague in to give evidence on this subject. They were broadly in agreement, and I think broadly in agreement with what Kennedy is saying - but the whole thing was the best political debate I think I have seen in many years.
Kennedy is also right about the new division - and since I stand on the liberal side I'll be voting for his party.

[D-Notice]

4. It mentions "tough liberalism"

Anyone know what this means?

[Mr Creosote]

6. Well in the conext here

which was "tough liberalism on crime" it means - well obviously, it means, er, fuck all.

[non sociopath skin]

7. Inasmuch as it means anything ....

... it sounds like it might be related to the Blunklarkite way of doing things. You know - life sentences for being foreign, arresting houses, thumbscrews, treadmills - that sort of thing. :spank:

The Skin

[D-Notice]

8. So...

Pandering to the tabloids as usual..

So much for having a choice

[PROGRESSIVE1]

9. Are the tabloids right wing?

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Most of them, yes

The Mirror is moderately left wing; the Daily Star is so downmarket it can hardly be said to have any politics (it's all celebrity trash); the Sun (owned by Murdoch), the Daily Express (owned, like the Star, by an ex-porn baron, who has supported Blair to be allowed to own a national newspaper, despite his background), and the Daily Mail (owned by a right wing family who infamously praised Hitler before WW2) are all right wing.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. He shouldn't fear the Mirror then.