Tom Griffin (London, OK): The Convention on Modern Liberty is fast approaching at the end of next month. Sunny Hundal offers a valuable perspective on the event's significance.
The mainstream liberal-left has become far too accommodating of encroaching state power in recent years, justifying it simply because a supposedly left-wing government was in power.
For me, the left should always be suspicious of state power because it is usually biased towards powerful vested interests against the rights of the common woman or man.
Sunny and Liberal Conspiracy will be hosting a Blogger's Summit on the day. You can help set the agenda by joining the conversation.
Comments
Twaddle. The Left has always loved increasing state power. By increasing the power of the state in so many different aspects of life, it increases the power and influence the Left can wheeled. Bossing people around and meddling in other peoples lives is the stuff of the Left. We need to roll back not only the power but also the role of the state. The Left wont do any of this as it would diminish their own power.
Tom, I'm not very good with irony. Is this irony?
It's a complicated issue but essentially I agree with what Owly says.
'ID cards, increased detention times, and greater powers of arrest spring to mind'All introduced by a Labour Government. And today we hear that they have reintroduced an attempt to be able to hold Inquests in secret even though this was thrown out by the House of Lords. It is a relentless spiral and only a radical attack on the powers of the State can reverse this. And such an attack will be profoundly uncomfortable for the whole of the Left.
Owly, I would say that rolling back the powers of the state exposes all members of society to the whims of the markets and economic forces. Irrespective of the political inclinations of a political party (or individual) all agree that the most vulnerable need to be cared for and every human being should be accorded dignity.
The last decade has seen more socio-economic impacts as a result of market forces than any previous decade. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest has widened and continues to widen. "Rolling back the state" simply moves the labels of government to a place where the transparency, accountability and measurement metrics change; no longer appearing to be government but, really they are.
ID cards, citizenship tests and increasing police powers are as much a neoliberal impact of a global shift to the right as a consequence of the rising state security concerns after 9/11 and the July bombings in London. Recent events in Mumbai probably won't lessen the concerns.
The view of state power as a potential blight on the individual should mean that the political left and right align to rebuke measures which impact the liberties of the individual because both fear the impacts of increasing state power, for differing reasons.
I would contend that the root cause of no longer standing up to state power is not political but economic. Generations are living longer, largely in better socio economic conditions and no longer recall the basic services of their life such as education, public transport, property ownership, universal healthcare, sewage systems, and political expression as Rights. They are now the background noise of daily life where school standards are falling, buses and trains run late, younger generations can’t afford home ownership, there aren’t enough doctors, older houses still have lead pipes for water systems and politicians don’t effect change because they are focused on self promotion. The public focus is moving to quality of service provision rather than the provision of the service. There is 200 years of well documented recent history to show that battles against state power (by all political inclinations) are hard fought but those battles are becoming legends and what shouldn't be forgotten is being lost in divisive, election oriented, short-term, political debate.
Some of you if not all agree that reflection and comparison help our understanding of the issues, whether Britain or elsewhere is the focus.
For Britain "Big" is direct and clear. Owly indeed makes a good argument in contemporary sense. People are getting over sensitive to the circumstances of terror threats to the state, making 'resizing' her play-down liberty!
Notions of our freedoms depend relatively on economic responsibility and rights, political rights and no-less civil liberties - all of which overlap in many ways also. Many would argue that size of the state fluctuates: defined by eras of rule, events and the stuff: politics.
The latter is always tactical. In a multi-party democracy now that Britain, for example, is somewhat a weak two-party system with the Liberal Democrats - more or less a center-politics driven party is enchroaching on fringes of the two major block: Labour and Conservatives.
Liberty arguments now in British politics offer a chance to be reflesive, comparative and causal: post Blair era syndrome. As a hangover, on the spectrum of state power disourse, the problem is which of the political parties will best manage the challenges? Labour has been in power for a long time now and David Milliband in Brown's present Labour government, has come out straight on the need to look into and understand better the sources of violence. Is it that the ultimate effort will now be to stop clamping down on liberty, but better the lots for people?
How are these to be compromised in state power and size arguments without a sense of coalition rule, as a moderator and national unity government initiative at a time of dare economic challenges. The convention will
benefit deliberating 'inclusively' thus also!
[Good to single out people positively as "world citizens"] not 'intimidate/denigrate' them!
Post new comment