Good grief, the Lib Dem position on people doing community service wearing high visibility clothing has changed from what it was three years ago. Really newsworthy this, I mean, it’s not like any of the other parties have changed their position on a minor matter of policy in the past three years has it?

For goodness’ sake Liberal Conspiracy, do grow up.

GWP @ 1

Come on George, I do actually respect you, but you cannot really defend Clegg’s position here. I understand that everyone in Government has to be seen to be unbendingly hard and I even give Clegg a bit of room to pander to the crowd, he is human after all, but cavorting for a baying mob? That is not serious government, is it? You didn’t join a political Party for that, did you?

Take care George.

@1. George W. Potter: “Good grief, the Lib Dem position on people doing community service wearing high visibility clothing has changed from what it was three years ago.”

No, GWP, that argument does not suffice. David Howarth was right three years ago and Nick Clegg should respect that fundamentally liberal position.

Community volunteers and council street cleaners perform basic labour wearing high visibility clothing. In theory, high visibility clothing is worn by them to prevent road traffic accidents or similar.

Citizens sentenced to community service should wear high visibility clothing for their own protection (I’m not convinced that it always works, but I am acknowledging current safety standards). But all human rights conventions say that the state should respect dignity when punishing citizens, and compelling those performing community service to wear labelled orange clothing is undignifying.

@2 and @3

That’s not the point though.

If this article was criticising Nick Clegg for advocating something illiberal and potentially illegal then I’d probably agree with it 100%.

But that isn’t the criticism the article is making, instead the article (and the headline) criticises the Lib Dems because the party leader has expressed an opinion different to one expressed by a party spokesman three years ago.

This article is just taking a potshot at the Lib Dems for a virtually non-existent “u-turn” yet completely glosses over what could have been a very good criticism of Nick Clegg giving support to an illiberal measure. In short, the article is just childish and completely misses the point in favour of pettiness.

@4. George W. Potter: “In short, the article is just childish and completely misses the point in favour of pettiness.”

Sunny’s post may be a bit snide and petty. So will other comments about Clegg’s words on blogs or in newspaper editorials.

In the first few days of riots, politicians were incorrectly accused of doing nothing. Some people perceived that Boris and Dave would have been great riot controllers; the reality is that if they had not been in Italy or the Rockies, Boris and Dave would have wished that they were on holiday.

After the riots, politicians feel that they have to say something, and what Nick Clegg said was stupid and illiberal.

Lib Dems are s-l-o-w to rise to anger but what we are hearing now about disproportionate sentences and rushed justice is the authentic voice of UK liberalism.

It isn’t a U-turn. Howarth was objecting to “fluorescent bibs”. Clearly not at all the same as the “orange jumpsuits” Clegg is talking about. :^)

Why not make ALL the Politicians and MP’s that screwed the expenses system for financial gain do the same ?

Problem is : One Law for the Rich, Politicians and MP’s and another law for the Commoners and Lower Classes.

Where is the one justice that fits all. Make all the Politicians and MP’s that fiddled their expenses wear Orange Cloths and do community work. Problem is that we would see nearly half of Parliament out on the Streets with Orange Cloths doing community work ! That would not do, would it ?

So one Lib Dem MP has a different viewpoint to another Lib Dem MP, on a rather minor issue? Sorry, I don’t see the “U-turn”. And as pointed out, even if this is a policy change, doing so over 3 years, as well as between Governments (David Howarth is no longer an MP!) doesn’t seem particularly shocking or newsworthy.

Whilst I can see arguments against the idea, it’s hardly “cavorting for a baying mob” – for starters, community service would be a darn sight more lenient than the punishments that are actually being handed out! I think it’s good for Clegg to support non-prison sentences, whilst pointing out that community service still isn’t the soft option that many Daily Mail reading types would think it is. If making convicted criminals wear a particular colour of clothing is the worst policy of a political party, I’d say that’s pretty good going…

@8. mark: ” And as pointed out, even if this is a policy change, doing so over 3 years, as well as between Governments (David Howarth is no longer an MP!)”

You are not a liberal. 

@8. mark: “If making convicted criminals wear a particular colour of clothing is the worst policy of a political party, I’d say that’s pretty good going.”

Apologies if I upset anybody when I first blew up with mark. I don’t think that there are many Lib Dems who might agree with mark, but I am just asking.

I would love to explode further but it would be pointless and without debate.

So-called u-turns are such a regular feature in politics that if they didn’t ever take place, ever, i’d be worried. The need to pander to certain elements of public opinion is what ususally brings these changes of direction about. So this isn’t something to be unduly concerned about in my view unless the u-turn radically departs from the core party values.
Whether it’s an orange jumpsuit or a fluorescent bib it seems like the intention is not only to punish, but TO BE SEEN to punish, in other words, to publicly humiliate the offender in order to appease public anger. And this is what goes against everything i thought the Liberal Democratic party stood for .

Following the recent massacre by Anders Breivik, the Norwegian prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg said ‘We need to respond with MORE humanity…’

By responding angrily to angry rioters, and trying to punish them by humiliating and hurting them back, only prepares the ground for a further cycle of pain and violence.

After this, i shall never trust Nick Clegg again, and it will take a hell ;of a lo;t of convincing to persuade me ever to vote Lib dem again.
.

@11. anna-rose phipps: “Whether it’s an orange jumpsuit or a fluorescent bib it seems like the intention is not only to punish, but TO BE SEEN to punish, in other words, to publicly humiliate the offender in order to appease public anger. And this is what goes against everything i thought the Liberal Democratic party stood for .”

Sadly Nick Clegg spoke stupid words. Other Lib Dems are talking sensibly.

@ 11:

“Whether it’s an orange jumpsuit or a fluorescent bib it seems like the intention is not only to punish, but TO BE SEEN to punish, in other words, to publicly humiliate the offender in order to appease public anger.”

It’s to act as a deterrent. If a potential criminal knows he’s going to be seen doing community service by everybody, he’s less likely to commit a crime than if no-one’s really going to know.

“By responding angrily to angry rioters, and trying to punish them by humiliating and hurting them back, only prepares the ground for a further cycle of pain and violence.”

Well, so what is the punishment going to be? I assume we all accept there has to be at least some punishment element along with the rehabilitation of rioters.

@XXX #13:

It’s to act as a deterrent. If a potential criminal knows he’s going to be seen doing community service by everybody, he’s less likely to commit a crime than if no-one’s really going to know.

Really? Seriously? You think that the thought of wearing a natty orange jumpsuit will deter from nicking a flat-panel from Argos someone who isn’t deterred by the thought of being nicked, spending a night in the cells, a day in court and then actually having his leisure time (if not his liberty) restricted for the foreseeable?

@5 – Maybe it is. But because it’s coming from the present LibDems, I’m afraid I’m not listening. If the rump want to dump the leadership, I’d vote for their new leaders in a heartbeat, but Clegg et al? No. Never-ever.

@ 15:

Fear of public embarassment is a powerful motivator, so I think there will be quite a few people who might think twice if this were the case. Even if most people are completely indifferent to the clothing they’ll have to wear, as long as it has an effect on some people, it will still be an effective deterrent.