Terrorism, security, liberty and One Nation Labour

15th November, 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 The truth is that South Thanet should never have been blue – let alone in danger of turning purple

    The truth is that South Thanet should never have been blue – let alone in danger of turning purple

    There’s a lot of interest in the exact Dulux colour composition of Farage’s purple peril. We’ve already had the Ribena test, and this week a City AM piece sought to disentangle ‘red Ukip’ from ‘blue Ukip’ – the Labour component of Nigel Farage’s appeal from the Tory one. The latter article, probably unsurprisingly, concluded that red Ukip was mainly a northern phenomenon and blue Ukip predominantly southern. South Thanet, the Kent seat where I’m standing against Nigel Farage, seems at […]

    Read more →
  • Comment I hate Labour’s immigration mug – but I hate their immigration pledge even more

    I hate Labour’s immigration mug – but I hate their immigration pledge even more

    Yesterday the Labour Party put a dent in the good week they’ve been having by putting on sale a mug stamped with Labour’s promise to put “controls on immigration”.  The was rightly criticised across Twitter; some said it was pandering to Ukip while others seemed to be in disbelief that the party would even produce a piece of merchandise. However, the mug is one of a family of five, each of which are branded with one of Labour’s election pledges. In response to […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Has there been a post-debate “Milibounce”? Signs are good, but lets not get carried away

    Has there been a post-debate “Milibounce”? Signs are good, but lets not get carried away

    Here’s a Sunday Times front page that Miliband and his team will be delighted with – a four point lead with YouGov and talk of momentum for Labour: But – it’s only one poll. That’s the best and most important place to start when talking about a post-debate bounce for Labour (or a “Milibounce” as it was inevitably labelled). The only poll that has been released so far with fieldwork produced post-debate is the YouGov poll in today’s Sunday Times – […]

    Read more →
  • News 40 days to go: Alexander kicks off Labour’s campaign

    40 days to go: Alexander kicks off Labour’s campaign

    Today Douglas Alexander, Labour’s Chair of General Election Strategy, will visit marginal seat Ealing Central and Acton to mark the fact that there are 40 campaigning days left until the general election. Alexander will also visit this constituency, which Labour’s candidate Rupa Huq hopes to win from Conservative Angie Bray, to send a message that Labour have 40 policies that would make Britain better (a list of which can be found below). This ties in with Labour’s campaign slogan “A […]

    Read more →
  • Comment It’s time for the Tories to come clean on their secret £12billion plan to hit children, carers, families and disabled people

    It’s time for the Tories to come clean on their secret £12billion plan to hit children, carers, families and disabled people

    David Cameron and Iain Duncan Smith have repeatedly refused to explain how they would make the £12 billion cuts in social security spending that their fiscal plans for the next parliament depend on. If anyone wondered why, now  we know. Leaked documents drawn up by civil servants for Conservative ministers and reportedly discussed with Conservative officials, confirm that this extreme cuts plan would hit disabled people and their carers hard. The Tories have denied this is their plan. But the truth is […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit