Cameron on Civil Liberties

One of the most shaming aspects of Labour's record in office is its vicious decade-long assault on our freedom. In response, David Cameron will today make a speech outlining the Conservative Party’s thinking on the issue. Details are sketchy, but some of it, at least, we are already familiar with. The centrepiece is the proposed Bill of Rights. Opinion is divided on the issue of whether or not a Bill of Rights is the appropriate mechanism. My view is that we need an instrument that embeds our freedoms in a wider constitutional framework. Whatever the precise mechanism, it is clear that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty alone is no longer up to the job. The old constitutional settlement has simply become too unstable. Elements in the mix have become dangerously unbalanced, with far too much power concentrated in the executive. The most supine parliament in living memory has proved incapable of holding the executive to account, resulting in a raft of poorly drafted, ill-conceived legislation.

In part, the problem has been a succession of truly awful Home Secretaries. Lacking all historical awareness and understanding, oblivious to the delicate balance of freedoms and responsibilities that hold our system together, they have indulged the worst instincts of the Home Office. Between them, they have showed complete disregard for constitutional niceties, and in what amounted to a constitutional outrage allowed calculations of narrow party advantage to ride roughshod over longstanding constitutional and parliamentary protocols. None of this would have been possible, however, had these protocols been more clearly specified, the workings of our constitution been fully elaborated, and the limits to executive power more clearly spelled out. And so the conservatives need to give real thought to a wider package of constitutional reform.

Alongside proposals for a Bill of Rights, of course, there is also the commitment to abandon the costly and unnecessary ID card scheme, itself an important symbolic move, emblematic as it is of Labour’s wrongheaded approach to issues of security, but beyond this and vague noises about the repeal of some of the worst excesses of Labour’s anti-terror legislation, Tory proposals remain underspecified. Indeed, it is the Liberal Democrats who have made much of the running on civil liberties. Chris Huhne’s Freedom Bill remains the most conspicuous statement of intent by any of the main parties on the issue.

In view of Huhne’s contemptible support for the ban on Geert Wilders, however, there remain very real questions about the depth of the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to some aspects of the civil liberties agenda, in particular to the principle of free speech. Given the very real erosion of this fundamental right, there is no longer room for equivocation or ambivalence on this issue. I would like to see much more robust protection for free speech included in the bill, in particular real consideration given to repeal of the legislation outlawing incitement to religious hatred. That said, Huhne’s set of proposals is very nearly there. An excellent start, and the closest any of the parties has yet come to elaborating a set of proposals that genuinely reflect the concerns of civil liberties advocates.

This has left Chris Grayling struggling to catch up. Given the centrality of the Home Office to much of what Cameron will want to achieve in his first term, this situation cannot continue. There is a clear conservative case for constitutional renewal and reform. It is different from the one being made in the liberal press and it needs to be laid before the British people with vigour and energy. The Conservatives have a tireless advocate for civil liberties in David Davis, it is a pity Cameron cannot find his way to restoring Davis to the front bench.

Personality aside, it is crucial that the argument for civil liberties is not lost sight of in the lead up to the election. Issues around the economy and public spending have a tendency to crowd out arguments around civil liberties, especially in a downturn, relegating them to mere marginalia. Today's speech is a clear statement of intent from David Cameron that the Tories remain committed to rolling back Labour's ugly assault on our freedom. The defining feature of the New Labour landscape is a culture of petty cruelty and vindictiveness. A decade of it has left the public sphere horribly coarsened and disfigured. Cameron's speech today will go some way towards unwinding Labour's assault on our values and restoring some integrity to our constitutional settlement. It is also a reminder that there is more than one dividing line in this upcoming election. Quite apart from the distinction between a Conservative Party prepared to tell you the hard truth about public spending and a Labour Party determined to cover it up, the other big contrast is between a Labour Party pursuing an ugly authoritarian agenda and a Conservative Party committed to freedom. For me, Labour is simply on the wrong side of the argument on all of the big issues. Cameron's speech today is another emphatic demonstration of that.

*UPDATE: ConservativeHome has key passages from the speech here
**UPDATE: Full text here

The Proper Role of The Speaker

It says something about modern politics when one is forced to defend liberalism against liberals. I blogged yesterday about how refreshing it was to hear a mainstream party leader make the case for old fashioned English liberalism. Well, it seems elements of Nick Clegg’s party are not quite on the same page. On the very same day, we find Liberal Democrat activist Kasch Wilder writing on Liberal Democrat Voice that “it is important, now more than ever, for Parliament to send a strong message that the diversity of our culture is the backbone of our society”. He makes this rather extraordinary claim during the course of an argument for the election of Labour MP Parmjit Dhanda as Speaker and it is evidence of some really rather muddled thinking. Issues around identity and the BNP are entirely separate from the much narrower issue of parliamentary reform. And yet somehow both he and Mr. Dhanda manage to conflate the two.

Reading Mr. Dhanda’s blog, it is clear that he simply hasn’t thought beyond New Labour’s failed identity politics and only really turns to the issue of accountability as an afterthought. In the main, he seems concerned with the absurd idea of uprooting Parliament and embarking on a tour of the regions. Alongside this, his proposals are for more of the failed identity politics that resulted in the election of two BNP MEPs. He bases his appeal around the conviction that “we need to change our personnel to reflect modern Britain”. So far, so much standard New Left fare, but we soon encounter something much more alarming. Later in the same paragraph we find the following:

“Parliament will not be representative of its racial, gender or class mix at any time in the next 100 years. The Speaker must actively encourage political parties to make changes, through law, to catalyse these changes over one or two terms, not 100 years.”

Quite astonishing. This is a form of radical identity politics that polarises opinion not just in the House, but across the country. It will politicise the Office of Speaker to an unprecedented and wholly unacceptable degree. This alone should disqualify him. It is clear that he has absolutely no conception of the proper role and function of the Speaker of the House. Quite apart from the obvious constitutional impropriety of pursuing such a radical agenda from the Chair, what Messrs Dhanda and Wilder do not seem to understand is that it is precisely this commitment to diversity above almost every other social policy goal that is at the root of so much of the current crisis. Strong societies are those centred around a set of shared values. Societies that cannot achieve agreement on basic values slide into conflict and worse, and so it is not diversity - ethnic, confessional, or ideological – that is the backbone of our society, but rather its opposite; a stable and enduring consensus around basic values.

Those values are best expressed in the centuries old tradition of English liberty: a robust liberalism, a jealous regard for freedom, a healthy scepticism, and a deep and abiding suspicion of the state. So the most important message our Parliament could send out now is that the backbone of our society is liberty, not diversity. Through all the waves of immigration, the dominant culture has remained robustly liberal. Immigrants have contributed many great things, much energy and entrepreneurship, but the one thing they have not improved upon is our basic cultural settlement, the basic framework of rights and freedoms, the basic set of principles at the centre of our tradition of liberty. Not a single, solitary contribution has improved upon that basic framework. And as if to underline the point, sections of the new immigrant populations are now actively seeking to undermine it. And they are helped in that agenda by just this kind of wrongheaded, ill-considered argument. The basic point that Mr. Dhanda has still not grasped is that It is precisely while he was busy playing identity politics that his constituents turned their backs on him and voted for the BNP. I would invite both Mr. Dhanda and Mr. Wilder to reflect on that. The last thing we need is some ghastly new symbolism. This is not a cosmetic exercise. We need a champion of liberty; a Speaker determined to hold the executive to account; a Speaker committed to the basic values that underpin our constitutional settlement - not another poster boy for New Labour’s diversity agenda.