Browse > Home / Archive: February 2010

| Subcribe via RSS



Roy Jenkins: You’re too liberal!

By Tom Papworth
February 15th, 2010 at 1:06 pm | 10 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Over the weekend I watch the first episode of the BBC’s series on the Great Offices of State, which focussed on The Home Office. At one point they had footage of Roy Jenkins visiting the wreckage of the Birmingham pub bombings. As he walked past the angry crowds, a voice (or it may have been two voices) shouted out “Bring back hanging!” “Your’re too liberal!”

At the time I just chuckled a bit. “You’re too liberal” isn’t a common critique in the UK, where (unlike the United States) liberalism is not conflated with socialism, and people tend to be practical rather than philosophical.

Indeed, for my mind, Roy Jenkins wasn’t liberal enough, in that it was his and our tragedy that he reached the zenith of his political career at around the time that the Liberal Paty was in its nadir.

Yet this morning I was suddenly struck by something that I had overlooked at the time. The woman who was accusing Jenkins of being too liberal was doing so in the context of the Birmingham bombings. Those same Birmingham bombings that led to the wrongful conviction of six people.

Too liberal? Thank heavens Roy Jenkins was liberal. Thank heavens he was Home Secretary after the abolishion of capital punishment, and so was not faced with the onerous duty of overseeing the execution of six men. Thank heavens that we didn’t determine, 17 years too late, that we – too – had killed the innocent.

In fact it wasn’t Jenkins who abolished capital punishment, but James Callaghan. Still, it seems like a very long time since we have been confronted with the prospect of a Home Secreaty who could in any way, shape or form be call liberal.

Tags: , ,
'

EU SWIFT Vote Ends Bank Data Sharing

By Sara Scarlett
February 13th, 2010 at 3:30 pm | 3 Comments | Posted in EU Politics

This is quite possibly one of the best things I’ve heard come out of the EU in some time and yet has been woefully under-reported:

The European parliament rejected an agreement on sharing banking data with the US yesterday, delivering a potential setback to long-running US efforts to track down terrorist financing.

Citing concerns about European citizens’ privacy, the parliament voted to scrap a deal that would have given the US continued access to data compiled by Swift, a co-operative that handles interbank money transfers.

The move means that for the first time since the September 2001 attacks, the US will not have access to large parts of the Swift database, which includes information from more than 8,000 financial institutions globally.

Crucially in this vote it was the Liberals (ALDE) who helped sway the vote in favour of our right to privacy. We should be very proud of the role LibDem MEPs played in ensuring this result. The end result was 378 MEPs voting to block the data sharing and 196 voting in favour of it’s continuation with 31 abstentions.

One has to wonder at the sheer nerve of the US:

The US had lobbied hard to keep the data flowing, with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, and Tim Geithner, the Treasury secretary, both contacting Jerzy Buzek, the parliament’s president, in an attempt to sway the vote.

The US Treasury had previously obtained the data through repeated subpoenas sited on US soil, but a decision by Swift to move key computer servers to Europe from last month means Washington must now persuade the EU to hand over the data voluntarily.

EU governments agreed, on an interim basis, to continue co-operation last November. Though some had reservations, most were swayed by US arguments that the Swift data led to valuable intelligence that could prevent terrorism in Europe.

No matter how the US try to spin this, it is a victory for the little people against the state. The US demands were grotesquely disproportionate to the threat posed by terrorism. Dutch Liberal rapporteur Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert explained:

“If the US administration proposed something equivalent to the Congress – transferring in bulk all banking data on American citizens to a foreign power – we know what they would say”. In other words, the agreement provides for no reciprocity for the EU.

Does the tobacco fight back start here?

By Angela Harbutt
February 12th, 2010 at 11:19 am | 17 Comments | Posted in Personal Freedom

ban-on-vending-machinesAt last, a tobacco manufacturer sticks its head over the parapet and says to government enough is enough. Imperial Tobacco has issued a statement stating that its subsidiary will challenge the government plans to ban vending machines.

And why not?  There are – as stated on this site before – many ways that the children can be prevented from purchasing cigarettes, mostly obviously by ensuring that “tokens” must be issued over the counter to use the machines. Anyone under age will not be sold a token and so be unable to use the machines. (There are other systems, equally effective I should add) Simple! This would eradicate the problem of underage purchases in one fell swoop, whilst not limiting the rights of business to sell, and consumers to buy, this perfectly legal product. Everyone happy.

Unless of course this is NOT about under age usage – but an evangelical mission by the Health Secretary to “eradicate” smokers from the face of the earth?

Ok, it may be a bit strong to say “the tobacco fight back starts here”. I am sure that tobacco companies have done much behind the scenes to stand their ground in recent years. But ordinary folks like me dont always get to see they are doing. So well done Imperial Tobacco.

The press release from Imperial Tobacco reads…. 

“Imperial Tobacco Group PLC announces today that its subsidiary cigarette vending machine company Sinclair Collis is seeking a judicial review of the relevant sections of the Health Act 2009 which seek to ban sales of tobacco from vending machines from October 2011.

Gareth Davis, Chief Executive, said: “Legal action is always a last resort but the Government’s decision to ban cigarette vending machines is so disproportionate and unnecessary that it must be challenged.

“We do not want children to smoke and supported the Government’s proposal to stop underage access through the introduction of electronic ID cards, token mechanisms and remote control technology.

“These are effective solutions which have been implemented in a number of other countries and it is a matter of great regret that the UK Government ultimately chose to disregard all of these options in favour of a ban that will result in significant job losses in the vending industry.”

Tags: , , ,

Robin Hood: A Libertarian Hero Defamed (!)

By Sara Scarlett
February 12th, 2010 at 1:30 am | 25 Comments | Posted in Economics, Policy, Satire

Amidst all this discussion of a “Robin Hood Tax” it occurred to me that collectively we seem to have seemed to have forgotten the story of Robin Hood.

Robin Hood famously “stole from the rich and gave to the poor”. But before socialists claim him I’d just like to point out one little detail. The poor were poor because of hugely punitive taxes. They were imposed by Prince John to fund the statesman’s extravagant lifestyle. A factor in turn augmented by an already heightened level of taxation due to his brother’s (King Richard’s) costly middle eastern conflict (the Crusades). You could say the fable holds some parallels with modern day Britain…

Far from being a socialist, Robin Hood took money off the wealthy elite and gave it back to those who had generated it in the first place, redressing problematic redistribution. Sounds like a libertarian to me.

Naming a tax after a man who is, by all means, a libertarian hero must surely be defamation!

What’s wrong with a Bill of Rights?

By Tom Papworth
February 10th, 2010 at 12:59 pm | 4 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Rights_of_ManPower 2010, a campaign to reform the UK constitution, is inviting people to vote on five reforms to which they will ask parliamentary candidates to sign up before the coming General Election. There are some excellent ideas, some not so good and some deeply flawed.

Among them is a suggestion that on face value should be welcomed. Over at the Adam Smith Institute’s blog I examine the call for a UK Bill of Rights. As I note, “a Bill of Rights that set out the freedoms that people should enjoy as citizens (not subjects!) of the United Kingdom – bringing together both ancient liberties and new ones – would be a good thing… However, as is so common when talking about ‘Rights’, the authors of this proposal go on to conflate two very different issues, and in doing so they undermine their case…”

To find out where they have gone wrong, read the full article.

[Please also leave any comments there rather than below: why have two conversations when we can have one?]