open Democracy News Analysis - Detention without charge - Comments

Dr. Jeffrey Portland on "This could be the moment the freedom debate turns"

Dr. Jeffrey Portland — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 07:01:54 +0000

The Green Party must continue to stand in this debate of political and civic liberties. David must continue to move on in the right direction with this worthy cause .

Hacker4lease on "Security services colluded in unlawful detention, court rules"

Hacker4lease — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:31:14 +0000

This kind of real time information will be useful to everyone.We want you to come with more information so that will be helpful to everyone.

Hacker4lease-IT Security Service

Toque on "The roll of shame"

Toque — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:59:44 +0000

Did you see him in his ermine robe the other day. Urgh, what a creep.

He's still raking it in from the EU gravy train too.

It simply beggars belief that someone so deeply disturbing can legitimately earn such obscenely huge sums from the taxpayer.

Wyrdtimes on "The roll of shame"

Wyrdtimes — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:08:37 +0000

Baron Von Mandleson - no surprises - slime personified.

Toque on "42 days in the balance"

Toque — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:33:42 +0000

Cheers for that, signed and forwarded.

Portland cosmetic dentist on "This could be the moment the freedom debate turns"

Portland cosmetic dentist — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 20:44:48 +0000

the Green party is my party. I'm so glad that we have a party that stands for something decent.

Not logged in on "What are we fighting for? Libertarians and nationalists must make common cause"

Not logged in — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:48:05 +0000

From Keith McBurney

Padav,

So NO to a federal and Yes to a confederal solution, with the state we are in replaced by a Union of the Isles with the intergovernmental Council of the Isles dealing with such matters we chose in our mutual interests to pool our individual and several sovereignties in sharing risks and rewards (eg Defence).
And YES to decentralisation all round from our nations, principalities, provinces (+/- counties) and self governing islands and overseas territories to intermediate/area and local level with powers being passed upwards together with the requisite taxation of resources to fund the next levels, redistribute wealth and take part in collaborative policies and ventures, such as research and development, which merit our combined efforts and expertise.
An 'English' parliament might set about doing all of the above if the English electorate made itself heard. Unlock Democracy's Citizens' Convention Bill is the means. Holding your own Citizens' Constitutional Convention is the method. And - as you are individually and severally sovereign - you do not need any parliament's approval to get on with it. Trust those who would be party to the solution - that's you, me and us the people - rather than remain part of the the problem.
Freedom for all in liberty, equality and humanity, the prerequiste for such interdependence being independence, not cashback for votes dependance.
As here, so there. Sovereingty & Confederacy: the antidote to Unions' Blues.
Federation is so old hat, top down. In uniquely accommodating pro-Independence and pro-Union preferences, Confederation is a win win all round.
Aye Ours
Keith
Frae Fife and Yorkshire

padav on "What are we fighting for? Libertarians and nationalists must make common cause"

padav — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:15:48 +0000

Quote:

Not logged in, Mon, 2008-07-14 09:31

"The Libertarian Party is leaning towards a Federal Great Britain, but not at the expense of more Government tiers and layers.

The only legitimate role of small government is that of defence, and therefore we are attracted to the SNP idea of a council of the Isles.

As to an English Parliament, personally I feel that the English should have a Parliament as to bring Government closer to the Governed

You've just contradicted yourself in the space of a few paragraphs!

How will an English Parliament, which judging from the rest of your post will be engaged in developing a written constitution exclusively for England (obviously) bring government closer for the English peripheries?

Scotland is 5.1 million, Wales 3 million & N.Ireland 1.7 million. A major factor in the relative success enjoyed by the devolved institutions is the size of the populaces they represent and their percieved immediacy.

England as a stand alone territorial solution is 50 million so creating an English Parliament will specifically NOT solve the problem of immediacy, particularly for the existing English peripheries, which already suffer from chronic social and enconomic inequalities compared with their more affluent London/South East neighbours. Swapping the name over the door from UK to England will solve nothing - in fact it is likely to exacerbate this malign feature of the UK constitutional landscape.

A primary factor driving the English Nationalist community is the perceived levels of financial favouritism bestowed upon the devolved Nations. We can argue the reality of their claims but at least the problem is recognised.

So YES to a federal solution with the UK performing a relatively small government role but NO to an English Parliament, which will merely perpetuate the centralising culture we see in the current UK set up.

Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England

Not logged in on "Why the BBC despises Davis and his campaign"

Not logged in — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:50:16 +0000

The BBC despise him and what he has done. I am not saying that a memo went out, but a corporate view was formed, instantly and deeply, that he needs to be banished to the outreaches of purgatory.Is that really the case? Or is it rather that 'they' don't really understand what his stand is about?

Not logged in on "What are we fighting for? Libertarians and nationalists must make common cause"

Not logged in — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:31:54 +0000

The Libertarian Party is leaning towards a Federal Great Britain, but not at the expense of more Government tiers and layers.

The only legitimate role of small government is that of defence, and therefore we are attracted to the SNP idea of a council of the Isles.

As to an English Parliament, personally I feel that the English should have a Parliament as to bring Government closer to the Governed, more importantly for the LPUK, is small government with more real power delegated back to the towns and cities, and that in the event of an English Parliament there should be no more than one hundred MP's and their first task to frame a written Constitution to protect our Liberties, not to act like social workers on speed, looking to solve every problem with legistlation.

Rosemary Bechler on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Rosemary Bechler — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:06:00 +0000

OK OK. My choice of the word pusillanimous was mainly directed at our New Labour Government. What we do urgently need however, at this stage in the changing history of political parties is ‘good tactics’ to deal with the new stage we’re in.
But if I apologise to James, can we get back to the real issue – we didn’t learn much more even in the H&H by-election about why on earth we alone in Europe and beyond are being saddled with 42 days. Perhaps if we looked more closely at those constituencies who have lobbied for 42 days or more, we might be able to detect some meaningful pattern...?
Rosemary Bechler

Not logged in on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Not logged in — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:37:39 +0000

I would agree with that Anthony and indeed made a similar point in my CiF piece today. But that is a question of bad tactics not "pusillanimity". Tarring Clegg with the same brush as Brown is bad form.

James Graham
Quaequam Blog!

Anthony Barnett on "Scared or just pusillanimous? Labour, the Liberal Democrats and 42 days"

Anthony Barnett — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:04:46 +0000

Good on you James. I think this is a case of the glass exactly half full, or half empty. I agree that the decision not to stand against him was unusual, refreshing and essential. The collaboration on civil liberties by Davis and the Lib Dems in good for all three (ie the two parties and civil liberties). But having acted in a non-party way that actually (naturally) helps his party in the longer run, Clegg seemed to pull back and go all passive. What I think would have filled the glass, often a good thing to do in politics once you have started, would have been for Clegg or Huhne or Ming or even Paddy, to have gone there and spoken on the same platform as DD, in the way that Bob Marshall-Andrews did: explaining his strategy to his own people there, rallying the local Lib-Dems, promising to give DD a run for his money in the election itself.

Toque on "What are we fighting for? Libertarians and nationalists must make common cause"

Toque — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:03:58 +0000

I think the idea of England is much more firmly rooted.

The idea of Britain is more about Crown, Westminster and Empire, adopted from England, to be sure, but that doesn't mean that England should take them back.

Anax on "What are we fighting for? Libertarians and nationalists must make common cause"

Anax — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:31:36 +0000

@Anthony Barnett

"But David aka... says right at the start that he wants to go further
than this. But I agree strongly that nationalism should not be adopted
or advocated in an instrumental fashion."

It's not so much going further as building liberty on unsuitable foundations. Progressive nationalists seem to believe that liberty and local democracy will generate a reinvigorated sense of nationhood. It could just as easily lead to a decline in nationhood, with national days being ignored and national traditions being laid to rest.What will the nationalists do then?