I’m not saying I support house arrest for youths, far from it (nor can I see how it won’t violate the Convention). But there is a clear difference between Labour and the Tories on this, as is evident from this quote:

Our police should have powers to go straight to a magistrate and get an order against that troublemaker confining them to their homes for up to a month – except for during school hours. And if they break that curfew order they should expect to find themselves in the cells.

The difference is that Labour would say the following:

Our police should have powers against that troublemaker confining them to their homes for up to a month – except for during school hours.

If you need it spelling out, it means that the Tories still support the concept of having to apply to a neutral and informed decision -maker – i.e. they still support due process, natural justice.

On the subject of Jack Straw, the Freedom of Information Act does give ministers the right to veto an order to release information in this way. I don’t think that’s right – I think it severely undermines the principle on which the act is based, but technically he acted within the law.

The trouble is, Andrew, that the information tribunal exists to understand and consider that distinction while giving its ruling. For Jack Straw to assume that the processes this government have set up aren’t considering the full extent of their area of expertise is quite a strange stance to take I feel.

I don’t believe for a second that the Information Tribunal would have given the order it did if it felt there was any “damage” that could be involved. The only danger here is that people may see politicians for what they are…I’m not sure that anyone would call that a danger outside of the cabinet or those that wish to be in the cabinet.

If this is taken as true, then pretty much every interesting FOI request could be refused because the individual releasing it doesn’t want to look bad and can claim “serious damage” might be caused to themselves. The FOI was created for exactly the opposite of this purpose, so that people CAN’T hide the truth!

Congrats to ukliberty! You have actually manged to slip a Rizla between New labour and Tory authoritarianism.

Quite a lot of Tories share David Davis gut feeling. They are not happy with erosion of our traditional liberties. That is why they are interested in the Convention on Modern Liberty.. Many of that group of Tories will be thinking of possibly voting LibDem if the Tories have little chance in their constituency.

Lee,

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree with anything you said. In fact I said something very similar here.

I was just making the point that legally he was entitled to do what he did (Jennie seemed to suggest he acted unlawfully). I’m not defending in any way his decision to veto the ruling and certainly don’t believe he should have the right to do so.

Jennie claimed Straw’s decision “disregarded the rule of law”. I think she has a point.

I think there are other distinctions: Labour does not think an Englishman’s home is his castle; Labour supports mass surveillance; Labour supports the reduction in the burden of proof; Labour does not want to trouble the courts with criminal charges; Labour does not want to trouble Parliament with getting legislation on to the statute book; Labour supports getting rid of jury trial, Labour supports very widely drawn enabling legislation; …

I am not convinced at all that the Tories are better for civil liberties. But I am pretty sure they are going to get in and it would be nice to try to encourage them to at least improve on Labour. It sounds like a lot of these laws have a nice little ministerial reset button installed which makes them kinda useless for uncovering stuff that the government doesn’t want seen. We need a grand jury with subpoena powers or something!

I would suggest we assume this account of the cabinet meeting is accurate until we are given better evidence: http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/cabinet-minutes-to-reveal-pre%11war-blood-sacrifice-200901281540/

“The whole time Tony Blair just sat there with his eyes rolled back in his head, making this weird gurgling noise.”

Just when you think it is safe to become a Lib-dem…

Oops, sorry, that last comment was a different thread!

I am not convinced at all that the Tories are better for civil liberties.

Perhaps the best that can be said is that they are less worse…

I think it depends how quickly the civil service can get their claws into them once they get into power and how desperate they are to “solve problems” (of which the civil service will be more than happy to offer their brand of solutions).

That seems a fair point.

If I had a Risla right now, I wouldn’t waste it slipping it between New Labour and the Tories.

Indeed: the Convention on Modern Liberty does seem to be filling up with some odd people. The real crimes of New Labour are its disregard for international law, its desire to lock people up without trial and to allow the Police to hold people for prolonged periods without charge, its implication in rendition and torture and its attempts to by-pass democratic processes. I’m fascinated by the number of people who have appeared (in the press and on blogs), who touch on these crimes and then elide them with things like speed cameras and having to sort rubbish into different categories. I personally don’t think that these are in the same category as disregarding habeas corpus or being implicated in torture. We’re obviously talking about different things when we talk about liberty.

I’m also fascinated by the fact that there are obviously people trying to create a narrative that New Labour is authoritarian because it’s on the Left. This disregards the fact that it was sections of the Left who were first to sound the alarm about New Labour authoritarianism, that the Conservative Party seems actually to be in favour of ignoring international law and locking people up without trial, and that the driving force of New Labour authoritarianism is its attempts to appease the Murdoch press. So there’s little evidence that the Conservatives will be less authoritarian: they just likely to target on more vulnerable sections of society.

Guano – the key feature is the way policies like recycling are enforced, with the doling out of administrative punishments with large potential penalties if you choose to appeal to a court. That undermines the rule of law and gives various state agencies a license to appropriate. Same with some motoring offences.

Judge Dredd was a kind of hero, and at least had some redeeming qualities. Comparing him to Jack Straw is an insult – to Dredd!

Rayyan: the BLAIR1 strip appeared in 200AD from 1997-98. It was oddly prescient, but sadly unpopular. That panel shown above is more than ten years old.

Andrew: acting within the letter of a particular piece of legislation is not necessarily compatible with respect for the rule of law, which is a specific concept.

Everyone else: do carry on.

Guano, when did the tories support locking up people without trial?

Here we go again.

The Tory view of liberty is that you may do as you please until you break the law. If and when you break the law, you will be severely punished.

The Labour view of liberty is that individual freedom is less important than the advancement of the People and the pursuit of left-wing social policies. Hence a soft criminal justice system, a powerful executive and a love of surveillance.

We have been living under a culturally revolutionary left-wing government for 11 years. If you think Tories will be the same as this you are deluded.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-03-03&number=71

By the way, Jennie, how would you define “nannying”? I’ve never had a nanny so I’m not quite sure what people are getting at. It’s alos a bit confusing that a government can be described as Stalinist one minute and nannying the next.