Worth Reading 180: Turn around, treble treble

When Labour lost its soul, and the next election – Simon Wren-Lewis on Labour’s mistakes in abstaining on the welfare reform bill.
I gave up Ayn Rand for Bernie Sanders – An interesting perspective from the US on how the concerns that drive some towards the libertarianism of the right can be redirected towards the left.
10 Things I Wish I’d Known About Gaslighting – “Gaslighting is the attempt of one person to overwrite another person’s reality. There’s a good chance that you now know more about gaslighting than most therapists.”
How Democracy Works – Andrew Rilstone examines how his conception of it diverges from Harriet Harman’s.
A Terrorism Case In Britain Ends In Acquittal, But No One Can Say Why – Lots of questions arising from this, including ‘really?’, ‘am I breaking the law by posting this link?’ and ‘is this linked to the secret courts legislation, or some other bit of state security restrictions?’

, , , , , ,

Worth Reading 99: If you liked it, then you should have stuck a flake in it

There’s either been not enough or too many things being written on the internet recently, but here’s some of the more recent ones I’d recommend taking a look at.

The Shame of Selling Yourself – Stuart Millard on the hard tasks faced by a self-promoting self-published author.
Beware the New Fascism. You might not even recognise it. – A warning from Jason O’Mahony
David Howarth responds on secret courts – Probably needs a better title (like ‘David Howarth calmly and methodically demolishes the government’s arguments on secret courts’ for instance) but a reminder of what we lost when he chose to leave Parliament. Yes, I know we got Julian Huppert instead, but why can’t we have both of them?
The press is throwing a toddler’s tantrum over Leveson – Alex Andreou on how the press is living up to its bad reputation as it campaigns against Leveson proposals
The Rape of James Bond – Author Sophia McDougall on the use of rape in fiction and whether that use is realistic (obviously, trigger warnings for rape and sexual assault)

, , , , , , ,

David Steel should have been the warning. His conversion from young liberal firebrand to eager defender of the status quo in the House of Lords ought to have shown us that it’s very easy to go into power with grand intentions of reforming it, and then end up defending all the things you used to complain about. You can call it going native, being captured by the establishment or whatever you want, but there’s no denying that it happens. The rebel gets co-opted by the system, and then works to defend it isn’t much of an original plot, anyway.

That’s a long-winded way of saying that I shouldn’t be surprised that a huge chunk of the parliamentary Liberal Democrat party appears to have been captured by the establishment and now happily repeats their propaganda. I’m waiting for the week when we get the message from someone high up that we have to support ID cards now, because if we don’t the terrorist paedophiles will have won and anyway, we shouldn’t complain, because they’re entirely in line with liberal principles. If you squint a bit. OK, a lot, and don’t notice that the book of liberal principles you thought you were reading from has been replaced with the Big Book of Security Theatre Justifications.

I shouldn’t be surprised by this, as we all know that power seduces and corrupts, but it still hurts to watch. I used to have a very rough analogy/theory of British party politics which held that Tories were bullies who were happy to keep the system they same so they could carry on bullying; Labour were people who had been bullied, who now wanted to turn the system upside down so they could bully their old bullies; and Liberal Democrats wanted to create a system where no was doing any bullying. Unfortunately, it seems that the party’s current leadership see their role as being the kid who’s so pleased to not be bullied for once that they’ll hold the bully’s coat for them while someone else gets abused. To borrow from Orwell “Who wields power is not important, providing that the hierarchical structure always remains the same.” The party in government has become (to borrow a phrase from Michael Franti) a shining example of the system it set out to destroy.

In the midst of writing this, I’ve just read Mark Steel’s account of the current problems in the SWP which has this great line “cults aren’t circles of people who took too much acid and dance naked in the woods, they’re people who took one small decision to forego independence of thought for the defence of their group, and once they started couldn’t stop.” Going back to my post from earlier in the week, it does feel sometimes – especially in the comments and the forum at LDV – that there are some people who want the party to behave in that cult-like way, to cheer on every capitulation and herald it as a victory and above all, to stop being so damned liberal about things.

I wrote last year, that it’s time to end the coalition and I stand by that. Indeed, I suspect if I was to repost that now, I’d not only have plenty more reasons for doing it, but would get even more positive reaction. However, on top of the fact that it’s been bad for the country and bad for the economy, a more selfish reason is that I want us to begin rebuilding the party, learning the lessons from government to make the party less susceptible to the system if there’s a next time.

I’ll be honest and say that there are times over the last year or so when I’ve considered quitting the party, but I’ve always stayed because no matter what problems the party has at the moment, and even though we’re being led down a dangerous track by the current leadership, I think the party remains the only one in Britain that can make the case for liberalism and the liberal values that other parties just don’t place as too high a priority. Even if the leadership has let us down on those values, the reaction of the membership recently has shown me that they are still important to the bulk of the party.

That’s not to say that taking back the party and moving it forward would be an easy process, or a quick one, but it’s something I think is possible and worthwhile. I can understand why people have left the party – especially those who’ve quite over secret courts in the last week – but I think the aim should be to create a party that they, and others like them, would be willing to come back and rejoin, to take up the fight again. Because if we don’t fight for liberalism, who will?

, ,

Worth Reading 87: Gettysburg

An open letter to the British judicial system – From a cyclist, pointing out the ridiculously small sentences handed out to motorists who’ve killed or injured cyclists.
My reply to Nick Clegg’s civil liberties email today – Jo Shaw writes at Liberal Democrats against Secret Courts, asking Nick Clegg to live up to what he says and block the Government’s plans. (And if you’re a Lib Dem who hasn’t signed the petition against secret courts yet, why not?)
Nick Clegg needs to get crunchy again – Jonathan Calder has one of the best takes I’ve seen on Clegg’s recent ‘centre ground’ speech.
The gathering storm – Alex Marsh with a warning about future rises in homelessness.
UKIP are true libertarians – I’m still planning a post on libertarians and the Liberal Democrats at some point, but in the meantime, this is a good piece from Ed Rooksby in the Guardian, pointing out how UKIP are a great example of where the inherent selfishness of right-libertarianism takes you.

, , , , , , , ,

Liberal Democrats against secret courts

Time was when you knew exactly what the parties’ positions on secret courts would be – Labour would look to expand it as far as possible while rebranding them as ‘community courts’, the Tories would insist that private companies could manage secrecy better than the Government ever could and Liberal Democrats would be against it.

As the vote at Conference a couple of weeks ago showed, the vast majority of Liberal Democrats remain opposed to any proposals for secret courts, but there are some within Parliament who’ve let themselves go native and listen to the securocratss demands for more power.

To continue the campaign against secret courts on from Conference, a petition has been organised to keep up the pressure on Parliamentarians to vote down the relevant sections of the Justice and Security Bill.

In line with the clear and overwhelming decision of conference, we the undersigned members of the Liberal Democrats reaffirm our opposition to secret courts and our commitment to the rule of law, open justice, the holding of government to account, the right to a fair trial and the protection of civil liberties. We therefore call upon our ministers and parliamentarians to:

  • withdraw or vote down Part II of the Justice and Security Bill and
  • put the current “Public Interest Immunity Certificate” scheme on a statutory footing.
  • You can sign the petition here.