Freedom of the gutter press

Watching the 2008 Max Mosley privacy case I found myself wanting both sides to lose, rather like a Liverpool supporter watching Everton versus Manchester United. But it demonstrates how fiendishly difficult it is to pick apart the issue of freedom of the press versus personal privacy.
Into this issue has stepped the prime minister. His declaration that parliament should be guardians of the line to be drawn between press freedom and privacy, rather than judges is certainly timely. His contention, quite rightly, is that parliament is elected and accountable, while judges are not. Fair enough. But a little deeper thought leads us to another conclusion – that MPs, who will eventually have to seek re-election, may be subject to the vagaries of shifting public opinion and will fail to reach rational conclusions which are in the long term interests of a civilized society. Indeed public opinion on the issue may well be being subverted by a relentless tabloid campaign to undermine the privacy laws, and these are the very organizations that stand most to gain from such a shift.
The waters are further muddied by the growth of the social media. Consider this. An injunction that gags the media, preventing them naming and ‘shaming’ individuals who have transgressed society’s norms, can deal with the press, broadcasters and, in theory the Internet. But it cannot stop ordinary, everyday gossip. It cannot stop the guy who sidles up to you in a pub or a club, saying “ ‘ere, I ‘spose you’ve ‘eard who that footballer is who’s ‘avin’ it off with XXXXXX". I suppose that the premier league footballer who is currently the subject of a super-injunction is well known to everyone involved in professional football. All I really have to do is seek out someone who knows someone who knows a professional footballer and I have my answer. Now what is the difference between such ‘legal’ gossip and the kind of gossip that speeds round the social media? The only difference is that one is faster than the other, yet the law is making a distinction. Refer to an injunctionee on Twitter or Facebook and you are in breach of the law. Discuss it in the pub and club and that’s OK. Just to illustrate, I think I know who the footballer and the TV celeb are because I have friends who know people in both professions and the same names keep coming up.
But, to return to the press, we have a further problem. The tabloids' claim that they are serving the public interest is palpably nonsense. It is nonsense for two reasons – first they are really serving the public appetite for public prurience, second they are really serving their own interests. We know that, don’t we ? So, we may want freedom of the press, but do we want freedom of the gutter press ?
There is no answer to this riddle. One’s instinct it to preserve the freedom of the press, however misused it may be by despicable hack journalists. This is because we fear the Orwellian nightmare coming to pass. But our privacy is indeed precious. Who should hold the line ? My feeling is that it should be judges, at least, that is, until politicians can command more public confidence. Then again I think there is nothing wrong with a dynamic dialogue between judges and politicians on the issue.





http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

House of Lords - swimming against the tide

Like most of us who are interested in politics I have been carried along by the seemingly unstoppable tide of opinion in favour of an elected second chamber. But just recently I have begun to lose the faith. This is partly because the current House of Lords seems to be doing a pretty good job. In fact it is looking more effective that the Lib Dem coalition leaders in blunting some of the Conservative Government's (yes I mean Conservative Government - that's what it is really) more controversial (daft in some cases) ideas - in education, health, constitutional reform etc. It is also because I am becoming jaundiced about the prospect of even more party hacks being imported to Westminster via a party list electoral system. An appointed second chamber would surely be more truly independent than a party-dominated upper house. OK we should remove the rump of hereditary peers and tidy up the appointments system, but why not an appointed second house ? I am also dismayed by the fact that all three main party leaders have, effectively, done nothing and have a very narrow experience of life. In short they are nothing more than professional politicians. How important it is, therefore, that we should have a legislature containing large numbers of activists who can bring a wide, varied experience of life to policy and law making. And, who knows, it may be that an appointed (largely non-partisan) second house might become a breeding ground for some more effective political leaders.

coalition - yet another crisis.

The coalition is, depending on your point of view, suffering a new crisis or the start of a major meltdown. Three issues in fairly rapid succession have revealed the fault lines in the alliance – tuition fees, NHS reform and now immigration policy. All three schisms, which measure high on the coalition ‘s Richter scale, have one common feature: they have been introduced with a minimum, if any, cabinet discussion. Indeed it appears that very little ministerial consultation at all has taken place. Tony Blair may well have marginalised his cabinets; Margaret Thatcher may well have bullied them, but they did at least make attempts to ‘clear’ policy with senior colleagues on the Downing Street sofa. By-passing cabinet is a dangerous business at the best of times, but when the cabinet itself is a cross-breed of two parties and when the policies in question are extremely hot potatoes, the result of such a lack of ground preparation is potentially seismic. This clearly cannot continue. Cameron and Clegg have to adopt a more considered approach to policy making, especially when policies do not appear either in party manifestos or in the coalition agreement. Rushing through the cuts programme may have been justified, but this cannot be said of the reform issues. The Government does not have a democratic mandate for such policies and so has to create one. This can only be done either through parliament or through the cabinet system. To compound the problem, the NHS reforms were unveiled without sufficient consultation with the relevant professional groups, thus further reducing their legitimacy. Of course, if we did have a highly sophisticated and pluralistic parliamentary system (as is the case in the USA), policy making could take place in the context of Westminster. But we do not. Parliament is a legislative machine, not a policy-refining body. Time then, for the return of that old friend, cabinet government. Without it the coalition may well find itself engulfed in a tsunami of resignations. (sorry for the extended metaphor, I couldn’t resist it). http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

Now is the hour

This has to be a pivotal moment in the furtunes of the Liberal Democrats. Two critical issues that now confront the Government - reform of the NHS and the banking system - may make or break the Lib Dems for the next generation. If there is a fudged and indecisive compromise on these issues the party will failt to regain any of the massive amount of political capital it has lost over tuition fees. If Norman Lamb is serious about his potential resignation, and if Vince Cable is sincere in his desire to see genuine banking reform, the leadership must now dig in its heels and force the Conservatives into open ground. The Liberal Democrats gained enormous respect, especially from a younger cohort, for their stance on Iraq. This was then thrown away. A principled and firm stance on health reform will not stem the bleeding, but it will reduce the flow. Similarly, support for the new report on reform of the banks will chime with public opinion which is possibly stronger on this issue even than on the NHS. The problem is that some leading Liberal Democrats (Clegg, Cable, Hughes) seem to have fallen in love with power and no matter how many times they are told it will 'all end in tears', as many temestuous love affairs do, they cannot extracate themselves from it. As with many a love affair, they are willing to sacrifice long term happiness and security for short term gratification. So, they must first come to their senses and then do the right thing - and they know what the right thing is. The alternative could destroy the third force in British politics for decades.

AV and John Lewis

Its a bit like this really........ You go to John Lewis to buy a sofa. Let's assume you can't go anywhere else for the sofa. You find the sofa you'd like and order it from the assistant. She tells you that it may not be in stock and it is discontinued. She offers you a choice. If there are no more of these sofas available either you can let her choose one for you, or you can select a second choice in case you can't have the first. Which option would you take ? It's a no brainer. Obviously you would make your second choice known to her. Well, you have guessed it by now. The first option is FPTP and the second is AV. ..........There you are. http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

The trouble with AV

Having spoken to quite a number of people about AV it is becoming clear that most people believe that AV is fairer than FPTP, but are fearful that it will continually reproduce the kind of political circumastance we have now - i.e. coalition that is not working as people hoped it might. This is the real battle for the 'Yes' campaign, persuading the voters that AV either does not necessarily mean coalition or can produce coalitions that work, i.e. coalitions where the junior partner is prepared to stand up for its beliefs (e.g. a Labour-Green coalition). Nick Clegg especially needs to see that. The Lib Dems' attitude to NHS reform is a good starting point. http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.

defence cuts

I have just heard about the defence cuts. I note that the government has assured us that 'front line services wil not be affected'. This begs the question - if we do not really need these personnel, why did we have them in the first place ? http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/Colleges/Government---Politics.aspx?mRef=CNM01.