BBC News – Full Text: Conservative-Lib Dem deal


Sean Gabb

This all looks very promising.

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

  • A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
  • The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
  • Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
  • The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
  • Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
  • The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
  • The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
  • The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
  • Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
  • Further regulation of CCTV.
  • Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
  • A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
  • BBC News – Full Text: Conservative-Lib Dem deal

    About these ads

    19 responses to “BBC News – Full Text: Conservative-Lib Dem deal

    1. chris southern

      Far better than I thought it would be, I am still cynical though as loop holes could be left but it’s a good start at least.

    2. Paul Robinson

      “The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.”

      Do I detect wriggle room here? The defence of trial by jury? How about reversing the law which allowed last months trial (armed robbery, I think it was) without a jury? What about restoring the double-jeopardy rule? Restoring an accused persons right to silence?

      As you state, quite promising taken as a whole, but I’d like to think they’ll go quite a bit further. David Davis as Home Secretary might have been a good idea.

    3. Paul Robinson

      I suppose it’d have to be the Tory David Davis – our own might be a little too strong for the powers-that-be to stomach!

    4. As somebody who is very cynical and expects nothing but the bad, I am prepared to be slightly hopeful that we may get something good.

      It may be post-Bigot Party** euphoria, but right now I am willing to give this coalition a chance.

    5. Henry Kaye

      Did I see in the full text that any future EU treaties that affect further transfers of soveriegnty or competences would be subject to a referendum? Am I seeing things?

    6. I’m not really interested in being a libertarian “home secretary”. I don’t in fact really thing that the posts exists – the only ones really substantive are the Prime Minister (I don’t want that) and the “Foreigners and War Minister”, which I think is the only thing I could honestly be.

      Upon the libertarian government closure of nearly all the “Universities” and “colleges”, and the turfing out of the “professors” and “lecturers” and “tutors” to the street, with their pornfiles and pen-drives of “tree-rings” with them in binliners, so that they might queue up to (learn how to) bricklay or machine-plant oilseed rape seedlings for fuel, the price of Labour might reasonably be driven down to the point that we could afford a few proper Nuclear Sumbarines again.

      I could then execute my foreigners’-policy properly and in orderly fashion, being Foreign Minister as I shall be. Any foreigners will be allowed in, provided that they want to be British. But there will be a short written test, of about 9 hours, including questions such as this:-

      “Historians have often disagreed about the relative merits of the Charter of Liberties and Magna Carta. In view of the time-difference and the changing political and economic conditions of the main peolitical classes active at each time (you must specify and describe them) what is your considered view about the relative merits of each Charter, and to what extent did each of them serve to emancipate or otherwise regulate the taxation-status of any political class at each time? Illustrate your essay with relevant examples, citing the appropriate sources from memory.

      (TIME ALLOWED: FOUR HOURS.)

    7. “The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech”

      Ugghh. Weasel words, I think. Libel laws are already loaded in favour of the scummy mainstream media and everytime they get exposed as liars they push to relax the libel laws a bit further so they can get away with more and more lying. Libel used to be a criminal offence, nowadays it is simply a cost-benefit accounting decision by a global conglomerate. This looks like code for a further relaxation of the libel laws so that the media can frame and smear whomever they want. Better to have legal aid for libel so the individual can protect themselves from predation by global media liars or simply recriminalise it in extreme cases.

      Trial by Jury is also a dud. 12 good men and true are almost impossible to find nowadays, 12 morons from the multi-cultural mob on the other hand….

    8. Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school *without parental permission. *

      – just covert pressure or backdoor measures to make sure you get their permission, or perhaps having to “opt out” that was always a good dodge.

      Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

      – but not their repeal.

      Further regulation of CCTV.

      – Regulation by whom and why not start dismantling them?

      Ending of storage of internet and email records *without good reason*.

      – who decides what’s a good reason?

      A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

      – repeal?

      The MO of the British state has always remained the same, two steps forward, one step back. Push things until the pips squeak, then allow enough pressure off so that system doesn’t blow, but don’t ever ever actually move towards increasing human freedom. Burke’s gradualism as applied to 1984.

      I was looking at the 1977 Soviet Constitution the other day, you had a hell of a lot of rights under that, more rights than you could possibly use, the problem wasn’t the rights but the “safeguards” or “monitoring agencies” or bureacracy. On paper a multitude of rights in practice almost none. You shouldn’t have to spend a lifetime slogging through a crooked state bureacracy to get redress, you should just be free of the state’s invasive attentions in the first place.

      Sorry if I offend Tories here, but to me this looks like such a crock…

    9. Spencer Whitlock

      Oh, it’s still a good sign by any standard!

    10. I think we need to see how this stuff works out. Anyone who wanted a slash and burn approach to state power and withdrawal from the EU, etc, was bound to be disappointed by this election. Very little of our agenda was on offer. However, the above seems to be a good start. It’s certainly an improvement on anything that Labour had in mind for us.

      For tribal reasons – I’m a Conservative with strong leanings to the old Liberal Party – I can’t shake off the warm feeling I got when I realised Labour was really out, and we had a Con-Lib coalition in place of it. I keep having to remind myself that the new Ministers are not “our” people. But we may all need to drop the hysterical denunciation mode that was appropriate with Labour. We may not get a bonfire of bad laws from this lot. But the wild ride of the lunatics is probably over.

    11. Paul Robinson

      “But the wild ride of the lunatics is probably over.”

      Let us fervently hope so. At the moment, like most of us here, I’m almost giddy with relief that NuLab have finally gone.

      I rather suspect, however, that Norman Tebbit is correct and that the issue of Europe will, sooner or later, blow the coalition apart. For the time being Labour HAVE GONE, and we should just rejoice in that news – where have I hear that phrase before?

    12. Christopher Houseman

      I notice the commitments to spend more on the NHS “in real terms”, and the goal of spending 0.7% of Gross National Income on overseas aid.

      Perhaps a few reminders of the boondoggles of the past in each area is in order. Government to government aid is especially prone to corruption and inefficiency, and was well described by Lord Bauer as a compulsory transfer of wealth from first world have-nots to third world haves. See the “Marshall Plan” per decade received by Africa since 1945 for further details.

      As for the NHS, I’m not sure I want to see even more money blown on management consultants’ BMWs in hospital car parks – or on the badly specified, overpriced, wasteful and intrusive NHS IT programme. See http://www.TheBigOptOut.org for details of how to opt out of several NHS IT initiatives, not just the misleadingly titled Summary Care Record.

    13. “But the wild ride of the lunatics is probably over.”

      The noxious condominium of Marxist Media and Marxist government is gone: the Hellish combination of monstrous Frauds and monstrous coercion; but the Marxist (multicultural- PC etc) media remains, and it is the media that shapes and regiments public opinion which in turn creates electoral pressure.

      One thing’s for sure, the country will *feel* freer, for a while at least, even if I don’t believe it will be freer in fact. And perhaps the relentless (and manufactured) cultural self-flagellation might recede into the background. Which would be nice. So, as I am not a tribal Tory, I will apologise for my bad manners in spoiling this moment. I am not an ideologue, in any case.

    14. Tony Hollick

      Marxist??? Multiculturalism and PC etc.??? That isn’t Marxism. Unless you use the word “Marxist” as a smear on things you don’t like.

      Still, it’s nice to see someone using “condominium” as a substitute for “Joint rule”.

      Tony

    15. Tony Hollick

      Given the permeating Statism which is rightly complained of, allow me to express surprise that the following proposals ever got selected and promoted to such prominence. I was amazed. Mountaineers use the term “toe-holds” and this list has plenty of those for abolitionists to appeal to.

      “10. Civil liberties

      The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

      This will include:
      # A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
      # The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
      # Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
      # The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
      # Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
      # The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
      # The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
      # The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
      # Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
      # Further regulation of CCTV.
      # Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
      # A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.”

      Tony

    16. Enemy class, Sean. Enemy class

    17. “Marxist??? Multiculturalism and PC etc.??? That isn’t Marxism. ”

      Yes it is, it’s cultural Marxism. Google Frankfurt School Marxism. Marxism didn’t disappear at the end of the Cold War yaknow.

      It’s Old Labour that wasn’t Marxist, Old Labour was Christian Socialism, something very different, nationalistic and culturally and spiritually rooted in national tradition (whether you liked it or not). It was rooted to non-conformism and low church revivalism. So, Old Labour may have taxed you highly but it would never have tampered with your cultural freedom. New Labour, on the other hand, is a variant on radical individualistic materialism which often leads to Marxism; although libertarians dispute that. I’ve said before to Dr. Gabb that I view the weakness of libertarianism is its materialism which will inevitably lead to Marxism (it’s why old school liberalism died off in the first place). The only true foundation for understanding freedom is the human soul and once you realise *that* you realise that Old Labour was not so bad (since it catered to the flesh and never tampered with the soul) whereas New Labour is evil for the obverse reason.

    18. Tony Hollick

      Marxism — to have any connection to Marx’s own ideas — is historicist in character. Neo-Marxisms (note the plural) lose the fundamental dynamic of dialectical materialism. While there will always be links between psychology and ideology, there will always be a drive to subordinate individual thinking. It’s hardly avoidable. There’s a lot of good stuff in Frankfurt School writings, even though the whole package is inedible.

      Tony

    19. Yes, it’s the Enemy Class. Perhaps because it’s the more liberal wing of the Enemy Class, the corrective revolution has been delayed. But I’m old enough now to hope for some reaction from what has happened.