Terrorism, security, liberty and One Nation Labour

November 15, 2012 2:23 pm

By Conor Gearty

Benjamin Disraeli is rightly revered in the Conservative party.  It was under his watch that the Tories discovered – initially to their disbelief and then to their joy – that not only could they survive in the new democratic era that was then emerging but that they could even thrive as well: win power, protect privilege, support inequality in practice (if not any more in words).

The Party has been trying Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ sleight-of-hand ever since; Cameron’s version was compassionate Conservatism (aka ‘Hug a Hoody’). To win Labour must resist it: one nation Labour is Mandelson’s bulldog repackaged for 2015.

To be effective it has to mean something. Labour under Miliband is neither a bunch of advertisers nor a gang of opportunist sloganisers.  The Miliband ‘brand’ has to be careful, thought-through radical thinking.

So what does One Nation mean for the liberty and security agenda?

Since the civil wars of the 17th century the dispute in this country has been about the extent rather than the meaning of liberty.  Is freedom to be for the many or the few?  The Levellers thought the former, but the country – with an elite intellectually empowered by Hobbes and Locke – were guided to the latter.  The last three hundred years have seen a gradual broadening in the range of people who have been able to enjoy the chance to lead flourishing and successful lives.

These have been democratic achievements, wrenching liberty and security from the privileged and ensuring access to them for all.  Labour has led the march towards this more progressive society – one in which personal security has become the platform on which every life has the opportunity to be lived to the full.  Its high point has been the ‘Welfare’ not ‘Warfare’ society imagined by reformers during the dark days of the Second World War and implemented with zeal and courage by the Attlee government in its immediate aftermath.

Initially the Tories surrendered to this practical version of One Nation Labour, Butskellism.

Two changes have emboldened them to return to division.

First, the end of the Cold War saw an upsurge in neo-liberalism – a kind of aggressive, market-oriented libertarianism in which freedom is enjoyed by all in theory but in practice only by those whose fortuitous life circumstances are such that they can hardly fail to flourish.   Neo-liberals use liberty as a gloss to be applied as a light coat over a fundamentally unequal society – the adman’s way of painting over deep divisions rather than robustly tackling them.

Second, there were the attacks of 11 September 2001, and the so-called ‘war on terror’ that the Bush presidency initiated by way of response, with the Labour governments of Blair and Brown following suit (albeit, it is true, in a less aggressive fashion).  In the post 9/11 era, it has been tempting to see liberty as something belonging to us (Brits; Europeans; whites; Christians; liberals) and not to them, the others ‘out there’ who are different from us (asylum seekers; Muslims; non-whites; refugees; foreigners from cultures we receive as alien; ‘enemies within’ who oppose our wars of liberation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya or wherever).  On this bleak analysis, almost the norm in the first decade of the 21st century, the liberty of the other must be sacrificed at the altar of our security.

One Nation Labour must escape from this double neo-liberal and counter-terrorism bind.

Liberty and security are for all those within this island.  To everyone lawfully present we give the opportunity to flourish against a background of personal and social security. To those here against the law we offer a firm but speedy and fair system of resolving our dispute with them in a way that does not therefore (and thoughtlessly) destroy their lives.

The language of universal liberty must be taken back from neo-liberals and their libertarian apologists and returned to the community. Social security matters as much as national security.

And so far as terrorism is concerned, security is for the whole society and not just those whose wealth allows them to hide behind gates and be sheltered by the police.  Terrorism is a criminal challenge and not an existential one. Universal security requires it be dealt with but within rather than outside the regular law.

Conor Gearty is Professor of Human Rights Law at LSE and a Barrister at Matrix Chambers

This piece forms part of Jon Cruddas’s Guest Edit of LabourList

  • http://twitter.com/HamjaAhsan Hamja Ahsan

    This article resonated with the case of my brother Talha Ahsan – a vulnerable Aspergers sufferer accused of cyber crimes like Gary Mckinnon that Theresa May boasted & gloated of extraditing him at the Tory party conference with the threat of dying in solitary confinement (where 50% of prison suicides take place according to their own stats). After the longest periods of detention with charge, trial or evidence in British history. May Partisan application of the law and a cruel and brutal example of double standards. “In the post 9/11 era, it has been tempting to see liberty as something belonging to us (Brits; Europeans; whites; Christians; liberals) and not to them,
    the others ‘out there’ who are different from us (asylum seekers;
    Muslims; non-whites; refugees; foreigners from cultures we receive as
    alien; ‘enemies within’ who oppose our wars of liberation in Iraq,
    Afghanistan, Libya or wherever). On this bleak analysis, almost the
    norm in the first decade of the 21st century, the liberty of the other must be sacrificed at the altar of our security.

    One Nation Labour must escape from this double neo-liberal and counter-terrorism bind.Liberty and security are for all those within this island” Too right Conor Gearty. I commend profoundly for this article. Take note Labour – Theresa May is booed at many public events, paraolympics & her own police force for a reason …

    http://www.freetalha.org

  • LembitOpiksLovechild

    Fine words but I’m really not sure what this article is about at all. From a party that wanted 42 days, ID cards and oversaw a massive increase in state surveillance I would hope for something rather better and certainly more detailed.

    How do we balance the rights of privacy and liberty and State intrusion in the name of protecting the population “Your safety is paramount” is always the cry but so many times it’s either a figleaf to cover the fact that ittle can be done or an attempt to increase state control of the populace by back door means.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    Perhaps the author could be a little more specific about what these words mean in practice: using Abu Qatada as a case study for example would be particularly instructive.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    Perhaps the author could be a little more specific about what these words mean in practice: using Abu Qatada as a case study for example would be particularly instructive.

  • Guest

    My God, there really is a sneering tone to this article. I’m not sure it’s helpful, and I think a Professor should be a bit more objective and substance-focused than this.

Latest

  • Comment Why Britain’s women won’t “calm down”

    Why Britain’s women won’t “calm down”

    From November 4th until the end of 2014, women across the country will effectively be working for free. The gender pay gap means that women are paid on average 15% less than their male counterparts; we have to work an extra 60 days annually to earn the same amount as a man doing the same job. For black and minority ethnic women, the pay gap is 20%. Women in Britain need a pay rise. It was heartening to see so many […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Get used to hearing a lot more of what Cameron’s Tories really think…

    Get used to hearing a lot more of what Cameron’s Tories really think…

    The revelation earlier this week that government welfare minister Lord Freud had referred to disabled people as ‘not worth the full [minimum] wage’ seemed somewhat familiar – and not only because of the Prime Minister’s repeated assertion that, when it comes to disabled people, anything his government does is above criticism. Fans of longstanding rent-a-reactionary-view Philip ‘why it is so offensive to black up your face’ Davies, Conservative MP for Shipley, will remember that he made the same point in […]

    Read more →
  • News “I rule it out”: Burnham says he won’t be making a leadership bid

    “I rule it out”: Burnham says he won’t be making a leadership bid

    Andy Burnham has been named in several newspapers lately as a possible future Labour leadership candidate, but he was keen to scotch such rumours when he appeared on Marr this morning, saying: “I rule it out… No, I am [a] Labour loyalist to my core. I am loyal to the leader, and the leader of our party, Ed Miliband, has said, the NHS will be his big priority going towards this election. I am 100% focused on developing a plan for the […]

    Read more →
  • News Tory minister: “disabled people work harder because they’re grateful to have a job”

    Tory minister: “disabled people work harder because they’re grateful to have a job”

    Tory Minister Lord Freud was put under pressure this week after he suggested that disabled people were “not worth” the minimum wage. Today another Tory Minister appears to have make similarly ill-judged (and revealing) comments about the Tory Party’s approach to disabled workers. The Independent on Sunday reports that Andrew Selous – the former parliamentary aide to Iain Duncan Smith and now a Justice Minister – told a fringe meeting: “disabled people work harder because they’re grateful to have a job”. […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Our party should welcome a debate with Farage – and we can win it

    Our party should welcome a debate with Farage – and we can win it

    By James Dray and Lewis Iwu Should UKIP be part of the televised election debates? Forget for a minute the question of whether or not Farage should be entitled to be there; instead, let’s look at the real question; can we beat him? A man who significant numbers of people see the rather obvious faults of but still really rather like? A man who decimated Nick Clegg in the European debates? We think that we can, and more importantly, we […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y