CentreForum Liberal Hero of the Week #39: Diane Abbott
Liberal Hero of the Week (and occasional Villains) is chosen by Stephen Tall, Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and Research Associate at CentreForum. The series showcases those who promote any of the four liberal tenets identified in The Orange Book — economic, personal, political and social liberalism — regardless of party affiliation and from beyond Westminster. If they stick up for liberalism in some way then they’re in contention. If they confound liberalism they may be named Villains.
Diane Abbott
Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
Reason: for championing the importance of academic rigour for disadvantaged pupils
I am in love! The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and if I had been a member of the Labour party I would have voted for her to be leader.
Few kisses of death can have been bestowed more rapturously than Michael Gove’s declaration of love for Labour’s Diane Abbott. What prompted such extravagant praise, such fervent admiration? It was this intervention by Ms Abbott in response to the Secretary of State for Education’s latest (and most successful) attempt to reform GCSE exams:
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): The Secretary of State will appreciate that I cannot speak about the detailed implementation of his reforms, but does he agree that an emphasis on rigorous qualifications and on obtaining core academic subjects is not, as is sometimes argued, contrary to the interests of working-class children and of black and minority ethnic children? On the contrary, precisely if someone is the first in their family to stay on past school leaving age, precisely if someone’s family does not social capital and precisely if someone does not have parents who can put in a word for them in a difficult job market, they need the assurance of rigorous qualifications and, if at all possible, core academic qualifications.
To dispel any doubts that she had mis-spoken, she followed up with a Guardian article, highlighting how important educational rigour had been in her life:
My parents left school in rural Jamaica at 14. They migrated to Britain where my mother was a nurse and my father was a sheet metal worker. Growing up, I didn’t know anyone who had gone on to higher education. In fact I did not know anyone who did anything other than the standard occupations of working-class West Indians of the era: nursing, public transport, factory work and manual labour. No one in my family circle had any practical advice to give, any strings to pull or any contacts to help me in the world of white-collar work. To make matters worse, I was obstinately left-wing. So I owe everything in life to my string of A grades at O- and A-level and my Cambridge degree. I did not know at the time what a phenomenon it was for a working-class black girl to have acquired a string of academic qualifications. But I have grown to understand the benefits of academic rigour.
Indeed it was her commitment to academic rigour which caused her to risk the wrath of her left-wing comrades and the scorn of her right-wing enemies by sending her own son to a fee-paying school. (Ironically, her decision co-incided with the turnaround in Hackney’s state schools, now among the best-performing in the country.)
I chose Michael Gove as a Liberal Hero a year ago. As I said then, I don’t agree with all his policies or pronouncements.* Too often his restless search for creative disruption in the education system risks over-correcting.
He has virtually abolished local education authorities without thinking through what should replace their convening role or how effective practice can be spread without them. Academies and free schools are now directly accountable to him as Secretary of State: that is centralisation of our schools on a breathtaking (and, make no mistake, worrying) scale. His devotees in the right-wing media, most notably The Spectator, happily gloss over such flaws. For them it is enough that he is seeking to unleash competition through the creation of free schools.
However, Michael Gove has driven forward the agenda on higher standards in schools and how crucial they are for those from the most challenging backgrounds. For that he deserves a decent dollop of credit. Good on Diane Abbott for giving praise when it is due.
* The Times’s Tim Montgomerie recently divided Gove-doubters into three categories. First, those ‘local education authorities, Department of Education bureaucrats and the unions that have defended under-performing teachers over too many decades’. The “enemies of promise” as Mr Gove would term them. Second, ‘many thoroughly reasonable members of the teaching profession who have genuine reservations about the dizzying scale of change’. And third, those who regard Mr Gove’s record as something of a contradiction: exhorting school freedom while seeking to micro-manage standards and the curriculum. I’d place myself in both the latter two camps.
You can view our list of ‘Liberal Heroes of the Week’ (and occasional ‘Liberal Villains’) here. Nominations are welcome via email or Twitter.
Two stories jumped out at me this week as being deeply connected. Stephen Tall praised Ed Balls for not ignoring the huge chunk of welfare spending that goes to pensioners. Then, a new website from Public Health England reminded us of the country’s large health inequalities. These inequalities should give us extra cause to question the fairness of current spending on pensioners.
As Stephen wrote “Spending on the state pension will increase by nearly 20% in real terms between 2010–11 and 2017–18.” The challenge of an ageing population was present even before the financial crisis. It’s now even more essential to consider how public spending can be made to add up, and whether we’ve got it right on pensioner welfare spending, pension tax incentives and the pension age.
Is the state pension progressive? Well, it is a universal benefit that goes equally to most OAPs, and pensioners are on average poorer. And the Coalition’s Single State Pension will make it simpler and more equitable. But the total amount you get from the pension also depends on the length of your retirement, and the grim truth is that poorer Brits don’t live as long as richer workers.
Men currently receive the state pension from 65, and the “pensioner freebies” earlier. But ONS figures show that while a male ‘professional’ (at birth) could look forward to over 15 years of retirement (to over 80), an unskilled manual labourer might expect just 8 years (to 73). If anything, this inequality has grown over time.
As reinforced by the premature deaths website, the chances of the unskilled worker reaching 65 to ‘get something back’ are much less than for managers and professionals. With an average life expectancy of 73, the majority of unskilled manual labourers in this country will never receive the free TV license, nor the higher rate of winter fuel payment (nor the highest personal allowance, now to be phased out). Even for those who reach 65, the average professional will live almost 30% longer beyond that than their unskilled counterpart. That means 30% more state pension – even without future increases, to say nothing of those other ‘universal’ benefits.
A long-running political stats issue is that we can only look at snapshots of incomes at a particular time. For individuals, the unemployment or low income caught by these snapshots might not be permanent. Ideally, however, we would also look at lifetime incomes and ensure that the tax and welfare system redistributes to those whose lives as a whole are more financially deprived. With higher-class individuals living longer, the state pension and pensioner freebies may not fulfil this function. This is in contrast to working age benefits, where benefit receipt is likely a much better predictor of lifetime poverty.
I don’t mean to suggest that because the state pension etc. on average are worth less to the ‘lower classes’ that they should therefore be scrapped. As most people see it, workers pay in via taxation and then take out in old age, even if the unpredictable and inscrutable black box in between is more like a Ponzi scheme. So (even while ending the additional state pension) it might be reasonable for the rich to pay more in and then take more out through longer lives. But the inequality is yet more reason to look critically and carefully at pensioner spending and the pension age.
Ian Mulheirn at the Social Market Foundation wrote an excellent article on this topic, saying: “A higher uniform pension age in this context is only going to hand a greater proportion of pension spending to those who need it least, while cutting the entitlement of the lower-paid. This is hardly fair, not least because a well-paid professional is likely to have greater capacity and desire to work longer…”
His solution – tackling both the fairness and state pension age problems – is very intriguing. “Rather than paying everyone a fixed income from an arbitrarily chosen age – too early for some, too late for others – government should instead give citizens an equal lump sum at the age of 60 [which must go into a pension scheme], leaving them to choose when to take it to an annuity provider to convert into a monthly pension income. Let’s call it the ‘state pension pot’. Those who choose to work longer would be rewarded with a higher income from their annuitised state pension pot upon retirement. And the new arrangement would be much fairer since annuity providers would reflect the lower life expectancy of lower-paid citizens in a higher annual retirement income.”
It would be right to say we must do more to reduce these health inequalities in the first place, but do the necessary policies cost money? If so, the chances are that they’ve been cut to make way for increased spending on those living longest.
Adam Corlett is a researcher at CentreForum. He is the author of ‘Ending the self-employment tax break’ and co-author of ‘Tax justice: whatever your age’. This piece originally appeared on libdemvoice.org.
Liberal Hero of the Week (and occasional Villains) is chosen by Stephen Tall, Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and Research Associate at CentreForum. The series showcases those who promote any of the four liberal tenets identified in The Orange Book — economic, personal, political and social liberalism — regardless of party affiliation and from beyond Westminster. If they stick up for liberalism in some way then they’re in contention. If they confound liberalism in some way they’re liable to be named Villains.
Ed Balls
Labour’s shadow chancellor
Reason: for ending Labour’s support for the winter fuel allowance for wealthy pensioners
Ed Balls this week announced a future Labour government would halt winter fuel payments for 600,000 of Britain’s richest pensioners. To some in his party (such as Peter Hain) this is a betrayal of its founding socialist principles. To me it signals — at long, long last — that Labour may, just may, be beginning to grapple seriously with how to deliver true social justice through the welfare budget.
The reason those on the more unthinkingly knee-jerk left give for believing millionaires like Alan Sugar deserve assistance with their fuel bills when they reach 65 is that it is fundamental to the principle of welfare universalism: that everyone has to know they will one day receive benefits in order to buy into the re-distribution which underpins the welfare state.
This ignores a few key points as well as a big slab of common sense. Let’s start with the big slab: it is wrong, utterly wrong, for a 20-something in a low-earning job struggling to make ends meet to be helping to pay for Lord Sugar’s central heating.
Now a few other key points. First, the winter fuel allowance isn’t universalism in any meaningful sense. It is available only to pensioners for a start! That low-earning 20-something has more than three decades to wait before they can receive this supposedly universal benefit.
There is, to be fair, a reasonable enough logic for winter fuel payments: pensioners are liable to feel the cold more than younger people and more likely to be at home for much of the day. But that is an argument for ensuring the state pension is set at a decent level — and for incentivising individuals to get smarter at saving for their old age — not for indiscriminately handing £200 to every 60 year-old in the country regardless of their means. And, as it happens, spending on the state pension in Great Britain, which accounts for nearly half of all expenditure on benefits, will increase by nearly 20% in real terms between 2010–11 and 2017–18.
Indeed, the Coalition’s ‘triple lock’ on pensions is further skewing public spending towards those who are old and away from the young. As Tim Leunig and Adam Corlett put it in their CentreForum pamphlet ‘Tax justice whatever your age’ (2012):
Financial pressures are not even over our lifetimes. People usually find themselves most “squeezed” immediately after buying their first house, and after their children are born. If Britain were to have age-specific tax breaks, it should be for the young.
We know why this is: the old are more likely to vote than the young. Woe betide the politician who suggests levelling the playing field by cutting back on benefits to pensioners! Remember the furore over the so-called ‘granny tax’, which simply tried to ensure working-age people and over-65s were taxed equally? Back then Labour were on the side of those conservatives who sought to protect a basic inequality.
The debate has, thankfully, moved on. Credit is due to those, including such strange bedfellows as Nick Clegg and The Sun, who some time ago staked out potentially unpopular positions calling for an end to these benefits. They have created the political space that allows a proper look at how we re-distribute public money to ensure we adhere to the welfare principle that help goes first to those who need it most.
Lord (Geoffrey) Dear
Ex-chief constable of the West Midlands Police and crossbench peer
Reason: for seeking to wreck the same-sex marriage bill
Six months ago I nominated David Cameron as a Liberal Hero for his support for same sex marriage despite the virulent opposition of many in his party.
The Bill which will legalise lesbian and gay couples to have their relationships formally recognised as marriages by the state — and give religious institutions the freedom to conduct ceremonies if they wish — is still working its way through parliament, still clearing the obstacles put in its path by opponents.
The latest hurdle was put in place by ex-chief constable Lord Dear, who tabled an amendment in the House of Lords aimed at stopping it proceeding any further. It is not simply that I disagree with Lord Dear on the issue.
There is another point: the unelected House of Lords shouldn’t seek to torpedo legislation that has been approved (with a substantial majority of 205) by the elected House of Commons on a free vote.
A chamber which has no democratic legitimacy should not try to tell one that does that it is wrong. Revise and improve legislation? Yes. Reject and wreck? No.
* You can view our list of ‘Liberal Heroes of the Week’ (and occasional ‘Liberal Villains’) here. Nominations are welcome via email or Twitter.
Liberal Hero of the Week #37: Ingrid Loyau-Kennett. Our Liberal Villains are John Reid & Alex Carlile
Liberal Hero of the Week (and occasional Villains) is chosen by Stephen Tall, Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and Research Associate at CentreForum. The series showcases those who promote any of the four liberal tenets identified in The Orange Book — economic, personal, political and social liberalism — regardless of party affiliation and from beyond Westminster. If they stick up for liberalism in some way then they’re in contention. If they confound liberalism in some way they’re liable to be named Villains.
Lords (John) Reid and (Alex) Carlile
Former Labour home secretary, and former Lib Dem MP and independent reviewer of terrorism legislation
Reason: for wanting to sacrifice our liberties ‘for the greater good’
There’s a familiar pattern to a terrorist outrage. Immediately, there’s the shock at innocent life cruelly and calculatedly obliterated; followed by the grief on behalf of their family and friends, robbed of their fellowship. Then there are the sonorous statements from politicians, gravely intoning that we must remain steadfast, that the murderers will not win, that our lives must continue as normal; anything else would be to hand the terrorists their victory on a plate.
And then comes the next inevitability: politicians striking a pose as authoritarian strongmen by cravenly giving the jihadists the glory they seek. Two of the usual suspects this week displayed to the full their instinctive wish to do the terrorists’ job for them and concede defeat on our behalf: step forward Lords John Reid and Alex Carlile.
As the rest of the country watched in horror at the ritually savage attack so calmly executed in Woolwich this week, they ignored the Prime Minister’s sensible, sober words…
… one of the best ways of defeating terrorism is to go about our normal lives, and that is what we shall all do.
… and instead took the opportunity to urge crackdowns, resurrecting the ghost of the Data Communications Bill (aka Snoopers’ Charter) which sought to keep tabs on private citizens emails and internet activity ‘for the greater good’.
Here’s Lord Carlile speaking on Wednesday’s BBC2 Newsnight: “we must ensure that the police and the security services have for the future the tools they need that will enable them to prevent this kind of attack taking place. I hope that this will give the government pause for thought about their abandonment, for example, of the communications data bill.” His co-conspirator Lord Reid cheerily asserted, “some of the measures the Government has refused to implement, like data communication, is absolutely essential for effective fighting of terrorism.”
You might ask where their evidence is that giving into the terrorists as they desire will make any of us safer. The issue has already been examined in detail by a parliamentary Joint Committee who pointed out how flawed the Snoopers’ Charter was, giving the state powers well in excess of those needed to prevent atrocities such as Woolwich. As Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert pointed out at the time:
While the Home Secretary claimed in the Sun that ‘Only suspected terrorists, paedophiles or serious criminals will be investigated’, the truth is as that it could also be used for speeding offences, fly-tipping and things as vague as being in ‘the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom’. We are all suspects under this bill.
This week’s killing was a tragic, symbolic attack on our democracy — on the freedom of individuals to live our lives as we want within just laws. It’s precisely at times like these we need to stand confidently in defence of our liberal democracy, not fearfully give up our hard-won liberties as Lords Reid and Carlile want us to do.
Ingrid Loyau-Kennett
Cub Scout leader from Helston, Cornwall
Reason: for composure in the face of terrorism
If Lords Reid and Carlile showed us how not to react to terrorist outrages, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett showed us how we should respond:
When the prime minister talked about Britain having a shared duty to confront extremism, the Cub Scout leader from Cornwall was the example he chose: “Told by the attacker he wanted to start a war in London, she replied, ‘you’re going to lose, it’s only you versus many’.”
With those few words, he said, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett had spoken “for us all”.
(Available to watch on YouTube here.)
* You can view our list of ‘Liberal Heroes of the Week’ (and occasional ‘Liberal Villains’) here. Nominations are welcome via email or Twitter.
Liberal Hero of the Week #36: Jo Swinson MP
Liberal Hero of the Week is chosen by Stephen Tall, Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and Research Associate at CentreForum. The series showcases those who promote any of the four liberal tenets identified in The Orange Book — economic, personal, political and social liberalism — regardless of party affiliation and from beyond Westminster. If they stick up for liberalism in some way then they’re in contention.
Jo Swinson MP
Lib Dem business minister
Reason: for championing the rights of the consumer
HM The Queen read out a list of bills the Coalition Government intends to bring forward this week. It was the usual mix of the good, the bad and the indifferent.
The Conservative end of the Coalition promenaded their anti-immigration pose-striking measures. For a party that is supposed to believe in a small-state, regulation-light liberal market economy, I never cease to be amazed by their desire to impose new laws on private businesses in their desire to restrict the free movement of labour.
Meanwhile the Lib Dem end of the Coalition breathed a sigh of relief at the absence of the intrusive Communications Data Bill (aka ‘snoopers charter’) and trumpeted the diligent work of Steve Webb and Norman Lamb in proposing major reforms to simplify the pensions and social care systems. These subjects are considered by the news media to be boring (unlike the endless procrastinations of the Tory party’s inevitable march towards an EU exit) so their achievement has gained less coverage than they deserved.
But it’s a smaller bill, also largely ignored by Farage-fetishising journalists, that I want to celebrate: the Consumer Rights Bill to be introduced by Jo Swinson. Its aim is straightforward: to simplify, update and strengthen the laws intended to advise and protect consumers buying goods or services from businesses.
There are four key elements, as set out in the Bill:
- Giving consumers greater confidence in knowing their rights when they purchase new products, switch suppliers or make purchases via the internet or phone.
- Updating the law to take account of the modern marketplace and consumer rights with digital content like music and film downloads, online games or software. In the UK, more than £1bn was spent on downloaded films, music and games in 2012. In 2011, over 16 million people experience at least one problem with digital content
- Introducing new protections for consumers and businesses making it easier access to compensation where there have been breaches of consumer or competition law. For example, new powers for enforcers, such as Trading Standards, to seek a court to require compensation to be paid to consumers where consumer law is breached.
- Reducing burdens for businesses through consolidation of legislation. 60 pieces of enforcement legislation will be merged making it simpler for businesses to understand. This would allow for faster resolution of complaints as they would spend less time and money dealing with consumer complaints if the consumer knew where to turn to first.
What does this mean in reality? Jo Swinson’s department has come up with some specific examples. Here’ a couple:
Case Study 1: faulty laptop or microwave
- Your laptop has a series of minor faults and you keep sending it back for multiple repairs but the retailer won’t give you your money back. Currently the law is unclear how many repairs you have to accept. The measures would say you can insist on a refund after one failed repair or replacement.
- You buy a microwave and it stops working after three weeks. The changes would make it clearer that within a stated time limit you will have a clear right to a refund.
Case Study 2: inadequate service quality
- You get a decorator to paint a room in a specific brand of high quality paint and then find that the decorator has done the job in a cheaper paint. Under the new proposals you would be entitled to the job being re-done in the agreed brand of paint or, if that was impossible or could not be done for an unreasonably long time, you would be entitled to money off.
- You pay to stream a film over the internet but it keeps stopping in the same place and is unwatchable and the broadband is working fine. Under the new proposals you would be entitled to a replacement of the film or, if this failed as well, get some money back.
You can find more examples in this briefing note from the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.
Will these new laws transform people’s lives? Not really. But do they help equalise the relationship between the consumer and business? Yes. As Jo Swinson, the minister who’ll pilot the legislation through parliament, put it:
“Stronger consumer protection and clearer consumer rights will help create a fairer and stronger marketplace. We are fully aware that this area of law over the years has become unnecessarily complicated and too confusing, with many people not sure where to turn if they have a problem. We are hoping to bring in a number of changes to improve consumer confidence and make sure the law is fit for the 21st century.”
The Government has this year, mostly wisely, fought shy of the hyper-kinetic legislative over-drive that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown specialised in. The Queen’s Speech was, as a result, a bit of a damp squib, which says much about the widening chasm between the two Coalition parties on many issues, including immigration, Europe and welfare reform.
But if the overall effect was underwhelming, that should not blind us to its modest but important successes. The Consumer Rights Bill is one such success and it deserves to be recognised.
* You can view our list of ‘Liberal Heroes of the Week’ (and occasional ‘Liberal Villains’) here. Nominations are welcome via email or Twitter.
The Queen’s Speech today looks set to be a relatively sedate affair. As Stephen Tall observes, “the Coalition is now pretty much intellectually dead” when it comes to its legislative agenda. Enthusiasm for pushing new ideas has been replaced with a business like determination to deliver what is already underway.
The content of the Queen’s Speech is nonetheless important. It will shape what happens over the course of the next parliamentary session, and will therefore influence the outcome of the General Election. If CentreForum had the privilege of writing the Speech, we would focus on three headline issues in particular: planning, higher education and immigration.
Here, briefly, is what we have in mind. (Note to commenters: this list is not exhaustive!)
Planning Bill
The Communities Secretary Eric Pickles once described our community land auctions idea as “communist”. He must be wondering why so many capitalists, including the Financial Times and George Osborne, think it is a good idea.
When land in the South East is transferred from agricultural to residential use, it increases in value by as much as £45,000 per plot.
Under the current system, that money goes straight to developers, while much of the social cost is borne by neighbours. Under community land auctions, it would go to the community. A village of 45 houses which allowed just one extra house to be built would receive £1,000 for every house.
This is a significant incentive to accept housing development and we want the coalition to legislate for it by the end of the parliament. More house building will mean more homes, more jobs, a smaller housing benefit bill and a rising growth rate.
Higher Education Bill
The Government should continue to raise controls on undergraduate numbers and introduce an income contingent loans system for postgraduates. Expanding higher education will cost nothing as the government is in the unique position of being able to borrow at zero per cent real interest rates over a long period.
The policy will help to reduce youth unemployment immediately, and it will be good for long term growth – investment in human capital always is.
Immigration Bill
The immigration debate is currently dominated by the Left, which leans towards restricting immigration at times when domestic income inequality is on the rise, and the Right, which calls for restricting immigration to protect ‘British jobs’ and/or ‘British culture’. A big challenge for those in the liberal Centre is to work out how public confidence in the immigration system can be restored without having to sacrifice key liberal principles, such as freedom of movement.
Abolishing the hard ceiling on net immigration and removing students (who contribute £3.3 billion per annum to the UK economy) from the official immigration figures are two of the measures that should be contained in a liberal Immigration Bill. But so too is a commitment to tighten up border enforcement and visa administration. It is about balancing freedom of movement with personal responsibility – a liberal approach to immigration that CentreForum will be exploring in coming months.
Our Associate Director of Economic Policy, Tom Papworth, explained our thinking around the Queen’s Speech on BBC Radio 4 Today. You listen to it here.
This article was published by Liberal Democrat Voice on 8 May 2013.
Liberal Hero of the Week #36: The #LibelReform Campaign. (Our Liberal Villain is Sir Edward Garnier QC, MP)
Liberal Hero of the Week is chosen by Stephen Tall, Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice, and Research Associate at CentreForum. The series showcases those who promote any of the four liberal tenets identified in The Orange Book — economic, personal, political and social liberalism — regardless of party affiliation and from beyond Westminster. If they stick up for liberalism in some way then they’re in contention.
The #LibelReform Campaign
The campaign to reform the UK’s libel laws
Reason: for ensuring through the Defamation Bill 2013 that free speech isn’t silenced by those with big bank accounts
Libel reform: it’s hardly a sexy campaigning topic, is it? So a lot of kudos is due to a lot of people for ensuring that the Defamation Bill cleared the final parliamentary hurdles this week and is now set to become the Defamation Act 2013.
The ability of an individual to defend their reputation in court is of course a fundamental freedom. But this country’s libel laws, largely unreformed since 1843, had reached the point where they could be used by the rich and powerful to silence views they didn’t like. Many threatened libel cases didn’t even reach the courts: the mere threat of financial ruin was often enough to deter individuals from arguing their case.
The new law will still mean it’s possible to sue and to be sued, but it has raised the threshold:
- It now needs to be shown that a statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to reputation.
- A public interest defence has been introduced to ensure doctors, human rights NGOs and consumer groups can speak out on matters they reasonably believe to be of wider public interest.
- Corporations (usually those with the deepest pockets) will have to show that any statements they want to sue about were likely to cause serious financial loss.
- The author is held primarily responsible now rather than the publisher, giving greater protection to publishers to offer a platform to controversial voices.
- An end to ‘libel tourism’ with the clear statement that you can only be sued in this country if it can be shown England is the appropriate place.
(You can read more about the details of the Bill in this briefing on the Sense about Science website.)
Usually this Liberal Heroes series highlights a single individual to exemplify a wider point. But Nick Cohen has already written that article — Simon Singh: Let us now praise a bloody-minded hero — about the doctor who took on the British Chiropractic Association when it sued him for criticising the therapy it promotes as ‘bogus’ in an attempt to shut down the debate about alternative medicine.
So instead I want simply to highlight this heroic campaign, Libel Reform, which has succeeded in taking a dry-as-dust area of law and transformed it into a campaign uniting so many — campaigning organisations, politicians, writers, comedians, academics, scientists, broadcasters, and many, many more — all in the defence of free speech which belongs to us all.
Sir Edward Garnier QC
Libel lawyer and Conservative MP
Reason: for trying to protect companies from the Defamation Bill
While it seems invidious to highlight one individual as heroic for securing reform I’ve no such compunction in singling out Sir Edward Garnier for his last-ditch attempt to protect the interests of companies and those in public office. Here’s the Daily Mail report from a couple of weeks ago:
Libel lawyer and Tory MP Sir Edward Garnier has put down amendments to the Government’s Defamation Bill that would remove key sections designed to boost freedom of speech. The legislation currently states that companies must show that financial damage was caused by something written by a journalist, academic or blogger, before they can sue for libel. Campaigners say the clause is vital to protect the interests of scientists and writers who have been muzzled by big business and drug firms under the threat that they might face ruinous damages.
Sir Edward, a former Solicitor General, wants to strip that protection out of the Bill. He has also put down an amendment to remove a clause that prevents anybody performing ‘a public function’ from suing. That is seen by libel reform campaigners as a vital protection enshrining in law the freedom to criticise town hall chiefs. Sir Edward’s move, if successful, could allow councillors to bully cash-strapped local newspapers and deter negative coverage of their activities and use of public money.
But even after his earlier attempts failed, even this week he was trying to re-introduce amendments into the House of Commons to un-do the reforms. His efforts were blocked, but they cannot go unrecognised: which is why he’s my choice as Liberal Villain.
* You can view our list of ‘Liberal Heroes of the Week’ (and occasional ‘Liberal Villains’) here. Nominations are welcome via email or Twitter.
