It is has surprised me that David Cameron’s Conservative Party, even though it has been pretty hopeless at resisting or promising to overturn whole assaults on UK civil liberties, has not embraced the idea of a mass repeal of such odious laws more enthusiastically. A commenter called KevinB has raised this point just now.
Consider the benefits: it would appeal to liberal-leaning folk who might otherwise not give the Tories a second glance and weaken the challenge from the LibDems; it would go down well with younger people normally less inclined to vote; it would be the right thing to do anyway. So why do they not make a manifesto commitment saying that in the first session of the next Parliament, a Great Repeal Act will be enacted that sweeps away hundreds of encroachments on UK civil liberties, such as the Civil Contingencies Act and the National ID database?
Of course, some of this might require the government to pull out of certain EU laws, but remember that the vast bulk of the laws imposed by New Labour have been domestically generated and cannot be blamed on the EU, important though that dimension is.
Now at this blog we are not exactly very nice to the Tories, to say the least. But it strikes me that a Great Repeal Act, or Restoration of Liberties Act, would be a nice, catchy idea that even the most authortarian cynic in the Tory ranks might feel would be worthwhile.
Tories repealing EU laws and regulations?
Hell freezes over!
It’s because the conservatives aren’t liberals and never have been. Despite the Thatcher era’s limited economic liberalism, there was no social liberalism. Thatcher gave us the police-as-state-army, new repressive censorship laws, and so on.
Conservatives belief in state social intervention. They just have slightly different targets sometimes compared to Labour, and are slightly less intense about it. They’re more interested in sticks than carrots. But don’t be fooled, they are social engineers.
The Tory core vote won’t be attracted to liberty; indeed they would fear it intensely and see it as dangerous liberalism. Their view of humanity is the same as that of the left; they fear other people and fear giving them freedom. If Cameron started really banging on about civil liberties, he’d be considered some kind of dangerous nutball.
Rest assured, nothing will change under Cameron. He won’t repeal a damned thing.
They haven’t embraced the idea because they have no intention of doing it.
Cameron will repeal nothing. I predict that he will find some reason why the ID card project has to continue, too.
They’re all as bad as each other.
Yes indeed. The Tories are not the solution to anything, they are the problem. The LibDems are better on non-economic civil liberties but economically they are more repressively minded that both Labour or Tories.
Cameron has been bending over backwards to make it clear he represents a continuation of the ever enlarging regulatory state. He and his party are utterly worthless.
Just ti clear things up, Kevyn Bodman mooted The Great Repeal Act, not me.
Which is not to say it’s not a great idea.
Of course, even if the Tories dared to even tangentially suggest such a thing, the air would be thick with Government spokespersons and their media allies wailing about rampant crime and disorder in the streets.
Which would be nonsense of course, since with fewer laws there would be fewer criminals.
I believe population density leads people to believe that other people must be controlled. That’s why the US coasts/urban areas are so nanny-liberal.
Perhaps it’s true also for the UK because it’s a crowded little island.
I enjoy being a flyover zone gal.
“The Great Repeal Act”. What a good idea. However like the other commentors I cannot see Cameron doing it, ever. I really do not see any way out of the mess that is now our lot, the police ignore criminals but chase every body else, if needed they are just not there. Their role must be reviewed and quickly.
Why are the liberal Democrats not called the Illiberal democrats if they are not liberals either? Maybe they should be called the Lino party, as in liberal in name only.
Agreed. Repeal as many laws as possible and wriggle out of as many treaties as possible (including the one that says we have to make drugs illegal), and, apart from basic criminal law and the Companies Act, have a sunset clause on every law that it has to be re-enacted every ten years or so.
MPs will then be so busy arguing over whether to keep old laws that they’ll have no time for making up new ones.
What’s not to like?
I don’t know why they aren’t making it an issue. It’s not like any political party never makes election promises it doesn’t keep.
Tories: not even any good at lying.
As a step in that (right) direction, there could at least be a “sunset” enactment. That is that all previous enactments (and the rules and regulations thereunder) shall expire and be null and void unless expressly re-enacted (together with specific re-confirmation of the regs) within a specific time period (say 3 years max).
That should be done on a “rolling” basis All enactments from 1939 – 1946 shall expire in 2011; 1947-50 in 20013; 1951-52 in 20015; 1953-55 in 20016 etc.
An advantage of moving timetables closer in would be to keep MPs (and the unelected who write the stuff) quite busy and away from from all but the most necessary of new enactments. They probably produce a lot of “new” stuff due to a Parkinson’s Law:
Legislation proliferates by the time and staff available for its creation.
Not sure quite why the pop at the Lib Dems in this context. After all, they announced their Freedom Bill concept a couple of months ago, it having been part of both leadership candidates’ manifestos sixteen months ago.
As to economic liberalism, some criticism is warranted and they get it from inside as well as out (to the ever increasing annoyance of the “social liberal” statists within the party). Nonetheless, until Clegg joined the consensus that overall tax cuts are not something we can in the current circumstances aim for straight away, party policy is to reduce the overall burden of taxation, as voted on by part conference last year.
There is a lot further to go, and those of us dedicated to such things need to watch and challenge our spokespeople constantly when they appear to take the “something must be done” line. I like to think we are constantly converting a few people to an understanding of real liberalism, but the statist mentality is entrenched deep in all three parties. I keep trying to pitch to them that being radically liberal across the piece would in fact put clear water between us at the other parties sufficient to be seen to be offering a different ideology.
So why do they not make a manifesto commitment saying that in the first session of the next Parliament, a Great Repeal Act will be enacted?
I dunno, maybe because they don’t care about civil liberties?
You all seemed to have missed the Liberal Democrats Freedom Bill 2009, championed by Chris Huhne, which is similar to Nick Clegg’s Great Reform Act campaign from 2006.
http://freedom.libdems.org.uk/the-freedom-bill/full-text-of-the-freedom-bill/
Surely such fundamental repeals are important enough to deserve cross party consensus, and not be used for party political policy triangulation ?
Trouble is they also support just about every economic regulation that pops up, so the notion they are genuinely liberal is simply not viable. They are enthusiastic supporters of a regulatory welfare state regardless of their inconsistent support for several excellent genuine civil liberties issues.
If the Tories are The Stupid Party and Labour are The Evil Party, the LibDems are The Incoherent Party… they are very inconsistent friends of liberty indeed.
“Tories: not even any good at lying.”
Now there’s a campaign slogan for you!
FYI the 20 or so main points of the Freedom Bill, a mass repeal and sunsetting of laws forms part of the agenda for the first Libertarian Party government.
There’s a real thorny political problem with repealing laws that were originally sold to the public as security measures. Even though you pick up support in the short term, Inevitably something bad happens, like the train bombings, and it leaves you open to charges of being “soft on crime” or “soft on terrorism”. Even if the laws you repealed wouldn’t have made any difference, somehow the public doesn’t seem to care.
That’s why the Tories will leave everything in place, and that’s why Obama won’t make any significant changes to Bush’s security regime. It’s very difficult for any party save the one that originally put these measures in place to repeal them.
I read the Freedom Bill, and as an American Libertarian, they look pretty good to me.
I didn’t understand the thing about ‘criminalizing trespass’, though. Anybody familiar with British Jurisprudence want to explain that?
In America, or the parts of America I’ve looked at, trespass is criminal:
1) If the owner has posted “No Trespassing” / “Private Property” signs.
— or
2) If the defendant has been previously advised that he is unwelcome on the property by the owner or agent thereof.
What about there? Is trespass normally civil? Or is my cursory understanding of English English tripping me up entirely?
Rich Paul,
Yes; trespass here is an almost inconsequential civil wrong except in narrowly defined circumstances: (1) the traspassers are playing house music, a response to a moral panic about raves in the 90s, or (2) the place trespassed upon is one of a list of government sites, a response to amoral terror-panic in the 00s.
By those self-defined on the left in this country, which includes most of the LibDems, trespass is seen as a good thing, being a way of depriving land-owners of some of the enjoyment of their property. This was partially instantiated by the present administration in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which created a “right to roam” in open countryside regardless of ownership, which the vile Ramblers Association is pressing to have extended in scope. I note that repeal of that act is not on the list in the LibDem Freedom Bill.
Nor is a general repeal of the Extradition Act 2003. All they are proposing is a deletion of the US from its schedules. The US may have given rise to some of the worst recent examples of peremptory extraterritorial injustice, but I don’t quite see why I should be extradited to Austria or Zimbabwe without a prima facie case to answer, either. It is a start. But it is nowhere near enough.
Even though I quite like the present LibDem leadership, they are just grandstanding, I fear. The Bill doesn’t force their supporters to think about any difficult policy issues about the boundaries of Liberalism. It carefully skirts round any possibility of conflict with EU instutions and all the dotted herd of populist holy cows. This strikes me as a bit wimpish, and probably a strategic mistake. Since they have no hope of implementing it, the Bill doesn’t have to be a compromise with the pragmatic demands of government administration. It could be much more rigorous, and stake out a negotiating position to push the Tories in the next parliament. The actual effect is of trying to sweep up all the fashionable liberal-left discontents with New Labour into one place, in the hope of poaching a few more right-on urban professional voters.
Paradoxically the reason the Tories aren’t playing the Great Repeals Bill game may be precisely because they will be in a position to do some controversial things, and therefore need not flag them in advance. They have made some very specific bounded promises which they can be held to, but they have not set themselves up to be traduced by HMG as threatening ‘security’, which is its one trick in this area.
This was partially instantiated by the present administration in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which created a “right to roam” in open countryside regardless of ownership, which the vile Ramblers Association is pressing to have extended in scope.
That’s… madness.
Just a reminder here that the RA was set up by the Young Communist League via its British Workers Sports Federation.
Why not start with something much easier to sell.
For every new law or regulation introduced 2 old ones must be struck from the books.
Make the bastards consider if their little “pet law’ is worth removing 2 of everyone elses..
Oh and a complete and utter ban on anyone from the legal fraternity ever holding a parlimentary position. Ever.
I do not look to parliament as a means of acquiring freedom from predation for the same reason I would not look to a filthy public toilet as a means of acquiring drinking water.
The very idea of ‘A Great Repeal Act’ is utterly contemptible as an especially ugly misapprehension of what Parliament actually is – and the even uglier thing it is becoming.
Newsflash – this isn’t the 19th Century anymore, and neither liberty nor top hats are coming back into fashion anytime soon.
Mike, perhaps top hats are a place to start. You should all start wearing them, both as a fashion statement and as a subtle reminder of how things were and (possibly) could be again. Hey, you might start a trend!
Perhaps a more serious attitude is the place to start. Direct moral confrontation is a serious alternative. Appealing to a parliamentary party is foolish, as is wearing top hats.
The essential thing to moral confrontation is to control the meaning of your actions – superficial gimicks (top hats, Conservative Party membership etc) can be taken a thousand different ways by a thousand different people and are therefore worthless.
I write a letter every week to the editor of the Taipei Times appealing for a complete change in editorial policy, I hold free seminars at a local university (where I teach that state funding for higher education ought to be abolished), and I try to keep up some action online. In each of those things that I do, I control the meaning of my action and none of it is random or self-contradictory.
Was someone here calling Chris Huhne a friend of liberty? That Chris Huhne. The Chris Huhne who is not in favour of free speech and takes Islamic cock (and bull) up the tradesman’s enterance.
And Clegg is just a useless, dismal, wanker.
Sympolism isn’t necessarily foolish. In fact, it can be quite effective at a visceral, even subconscious, level.
Just as long as you mean symbolism and not simpolism. That is necessarily foolish. Much madder than the ideology of the Ramblers Association.
🙂
I read elsewhere that taking pictures of policemen is illegal in the UK. Pls tell me that this is not correct. I can understand taking pictures of police stations being disallowed, but pictures of policemen doing wrong is illegal?
I read elsewhere that taking pictures of policemen is illegal in the UK. Pls tell me that this is not correct. I can understand taking pictures of police stations being disallowed, but pictures of policemen doing wrong is illegal?
Not entirely correct. The position is somewhat worse. Some police, and security guards, have for some time unlawfully assumed the power to seize cameras and delete images if they decide they don’t like you photographing something.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2009-04-01a.262.0
Rather than being punished for these abuses, they have been reinforced and encouraged by recent legislation. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 creates (s76) a new ‘terrorist’ offence of eliciting or attempting to elicit information about an individual who is or has been— (i) a member of Her Majesty’s forces, (ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or (iii) a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishing or communicating any such information.
This is about as broadly drawn as it could be (the Home Office habit) so that asking an officer’s name, photographing him or her, or taking down his or her number, might – at the option of the authorities – be deemed terrorism. An officer might in theory search you under terrorism legislation even if he has an unreasonable suspicion you might do any of these things.
Compare the offence that we have lived with for several years now, under the Terrorism Act 2000, which this slightly broadens:
(Above short description thanks to http://www.terrorismlaw.info)
We have moved to a position where everything one does can be deemed prima facie a crime, and the police’s mission (if they choose to accept it) is to pick out those to pick on, who must then prove their innocence. Everything is down to police discretion.
It cuts both ways. The discretion not to prosecute is also abused.
Officialdom has got away with oppressive treatment of photographers (and sketchers) because because there are no sanctions against it. Even if somone succeeds in a complaint to the IPCC for wrongful arrest then disciplinary action is unlikely to result.
And the latest case in point… If you or I were fiercely to shove a passing stranger, causing him to fall over, in front of dozens of police officers, and fully in public view, then we’d very likely find ourselves in custody immediately. If he happened to die within hours, then in all likelihood the investigation of possible homicide charges would start before the longwinded arrest formalities had been completed.
Or, in short, we still have outward form of law, but the content is converging on official absolutism.
On the history of British Conservatives
A good work is the two volume British Poltitical Tradition by W.H. Greenleaf.
In the section the “Libertarian Strand” he is fair about the Conservtives over the centuries who have pro freedom.
And, no, not just in favour of lower government spending and taxes.
Such things as the Personal Rights Association were full of Conservatives.
These days there are many Conservative party members who are generally pro freedom.
However, Mr Cameron and the rest of the leadership are a closed book to me – I have no idea what they believe in.
As you know Guy the first major work pointing at what you (correctly) refer to as keeping the outward form of law whislt heading towards official absuolutism was Chief Justice Hewlitt’s “The New Despotism” (1929).
Although Herbert Spenser’s “Man Versus the State” (1884?) warned that this was the way things might be going.