Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Five liberal freedoms

Menzies Campbell

Published 03 March 2009

In the wake of Labour's long march rightwards since 1997 liberalism has never been more needed, argues Ming Campbell, who makes the case for five liberal freedoms

ID cards: the epitome of illiberal government?

The late Russell Johnston addressing a thinly attended annual conference in the 1970s of the Scottish Liberal Party of which he was then the Leader told a relieved audience “To be a Liberal and to know it is enough”. In the party’s famine of the time – only three Scottish MPs and opinion polls struggling to reach eight percent it was about as comforting as he could afford to be. Survival was everything.

Fast forward to 2009 – sixty three MPs at Westminster, a young charismatic leader, Cable the king of the airwaves, and twenty two per cent in two recent opinion polls. “To be Liberal and to know it…” simply is not enough.

With increased resources, MPs from Shetland to the Scilly Isles, and control of great cities like Liverpool and Newcastle there is opportunity. Along with opportunity usually goes obligation, but in the present febrile political circumstances the distinction maybe academic.

What is clear is that liberalism has never been more needed. The long steady march to the right which began for the Labour Party in 1997 under Tony Blair who found no contradiction between “Because it’s the right thing to do” and “If it works we’ll do it” may have been slowed under Gordon Brown. But the milestones of that journey are there for all to see. Forty two days detention without trial has been shelved but not abandoned. Identity cards are still on the agenda. Intrusive surveillance and unfettered access to personal data are now available to the least significant public authority.

A liberal government would never have embarked upon them and a new prime minister claiming liberal credentials would have abandoned them. Privately Labour backbenchers repent of their earlier support but dare not force the government to depart from legislation which undermines jury trial and restricts the freedom of the coroner.

Ministers extol human rights as these same rights are systematically dismantled by these same ministers. It is only one paradox but a powerful one that the protection of the citizen depends upon the illiberally constituted House of Lords.

This is a government which in its time has allowed office cleaners to pay a higher rate of tax than the people whose offices they clean; colluded with the Tories to try to exempt MPs from freedom of information; and halted a criminal investigation into allegations of corruption in arms sales to placate commercial interests. This is not a liberal government.

And what of the blue corner? What do you want? “Compassionate Conservatives”, “Liberal Conservatives” or “Progressive Conservatives”? You can have them all. This is an opposition party that voted for Iraq but now wants an inquiry in to it, an opposition party which whatever temporary epithet you apply to it is still a conservative party. It may have got rid of its toxic waste but in its heart you know it is a party of the right.

So how can liberalism triumph? First, you cannot be a part time liberal. Take faith, for example, a truly liberal society guarantees the freedom of all religions but accepts the tyranny of none. Our citizens must be free to live without threat or fear, free to say the things, write the words, and live the lives they choose. Will that offend some people? Of course, it will but that is a price worth paying.

Second, we must roll back the administration of an over mighty state by deleting many of the more than three thousand new crimes created since nineteen ninety seven; by a presumption against restrictions on freedom; and by effecting a new constitutional settlement which guarantees the rights of our citizens in a Bill of Rights to complement the European Convention.

But, we must also show liberalism to be practical and not just conceptual. Liberalism must mean something to single parents, the sick, the elderly and the disadvantaged.

The great liberal Beveridge in the language of his time identified five giants to slay, Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness. Modern liberals should now lead the fight for five freedoms; we need the freedom born of opportunity, the freedom born of good health, the freedom of personal security, the freedom of prosperity for all, and the freedom of a clean environment. These are the practical freedoms of a liberal society. To know them is not enough. To achieve them is what is needed.

Sir Menzies Campbell is a former leader of the Liberal Democrats

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

3 comments from readers

upbeatskeptic
04 March 2009 at 21:57

Why is it a march away from liberal government automatically a march toward 'the right'? It seems to me that the more to 'the left' a government proceeds, the more willing it is to sacrifice individual freedoms in order to better achieve political or social goals.

upbeatskeptic
04 March 2009 at 22:14

Why is a move away from liberal freedoms necessarily a 'march to the right'? Those on the left are as prone, indeed maybe even more so, to the sacrifice of individual freedoms for the attainment of political or social ends. Twentieth century history is littered with examples to prove the case, whilst Miss Harman's recent exaltation of the 'court of public opinion' (will there be a guillotine in this court?) over and above the common law could hardly be described, all things considered, as a 'march to the right'.

It seems to me that if contemporary liberal thinking is to remain classically liberal, then perhaps it needs the a little more of the state-restraint thinking that right of centre politics tends to offer. Statolatry is rapidly becoming synonymous with liberalism, and thus synonymous with the erosion of individual freedoms - I'm yet to be convinced that this is because liberalism has marched to the right: perhaps it has marched too far to the left?

gnuneo
05 March 2009 at 02:06

ahhh Ming, we lost you to gain the "modernising Clegg"?

it may be that "Oppositions do not win elections, Govts lose them", but for certain however Opposition can shoot itself in the foot.

excellent words, well spoken.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Also by Menzies Campbell

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker