Among a large part of the population, ‘Labour’ still means ‘authoritarian’. Over Leveson, it has once again revealed its authoritarian streak.
Padraig Reidy is senior writer at Index on Censorship
Among a large part of the population, ‘Labour’ still means ‘authoritarian’. CCTV, ID card schemes, all the way to the various legal battles over terror suspects and secrecy.
In 2010, in the run up to the general election, I attended a panel discussion hosted by Privacy International. Nick Clegg made much of the authoritarian streak in Labour policies, even offering a Littlejohnish “you-couldn’t-make-it-up!” as he told the assembled digital activists how Labour had even made up a law banning people from detonating atomic devices (for the record, this sounded like an eminently sensible move to me).
Labour were powerless to fight the ZaNu Liarbore narrative, and the election was duly lost.
Step forward to now, and we’re constantly being told that new Labour is nothing like New Labour. Mark Seddon wrote in the Guardian last week of how this was “not the party that went to war in Iraq.” Those bad old days of control freakery and conspiracy are over, replaced by a new spirit of discussion.
All very nice, but Labour’s behaviour over the recent Leveson negotiations has carried the exact same hallmark of scheming and authoritarianism that was supposed to have been left behind.
The attachment of Lord Puttnam’s Leveson amendments to the Defamation Bill was a disgrace. Let there be no equivocation about this.
Here was a bill which had been built by consensus, with popular support. A bill that could go a little way to making this country a little freer. It wasn’t perfect, but it was an improvement.
Lord Puttnam chose to sabotage it. On Twitter on Friday evening, Chris Bryant was telling people that the defamation bill would pass without amendment if Labour got what it wants on Leveson. It is a tawdry political move.
Meanwhile, Labour’s insistence on statutory underpinning for the post-Leveson press regulator revealed that the authoritarian streak is alive and well. Is there a problem? Only another law can sort it out. A new Quango for the people. The party knows best.
All this in spite of the fact that many journalists are already facing prosecution for hacking and other breaches. We have laws for this sort of thing, so what exactly is this new law for?
Labour could have been brave: they could have pointed out that the focus after Leveson is almost entirely on the press, while politicians get off free. They could have said that here we have an issue on a principle of free press, and discussion about principal is not helped by emotive campaigning.
They could at the very least have signalled some interest in free speech by allowing the Defamation bill it had committed to continue on its path unmolested.
The Labour party chose to do none of these things, and in doing so has once again allowed itself to be cast as an enemy of freedom.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
152 Responses to “Leveson: Labour has allowed itself to be cast as the enemy of freedom”
Michael Cross
“a proper regulator which could levy fines against newspapers who transgress”
Transgress what? Say your proper regulator ruled that reporting the views of trade union leaders during a strike ballot was against the public interest. Would you support fines in that instance?
“During the 80s newspapers like the Sun acted as Pravda for the Tories”
I remember vividly. I also remember the Mirror being staunchly Labour. And there was nothing to stop the Guardian selling 4 million copies a day – apart from the lack of 4 million people who shared its views and had 30p to spare.
Jonathan Middleton
What’s your proposal then business as usual?
Roo Woods
The press was never free in the first place it was controlled by a handful of media barons with thier own agendas . For the most part uts become corrupt , biased and sensationalistic .It no longer is objective so it does need an independant body to control it . To allow it to continue in the way it has would be far more damaging to democracy and freedom .
Mick
Well they can be quite PC themselves and birds of a feather can stick together.
Cymru, like Labour, are so pro-Islamist that they plotted to foist halal meat as default on the public service canteens (as well as doing things like organising a Muslim march in Newport), backed ID cards before backtracking or being just as crazy on mass immigration as Labour.
Mick
Valid arguments have arisen regarding nepotism and things.
But Labour and leftists have waited for just this kind of moment to strike with their own agenda. A Labour-created press control department is way above what’s needed, plus leftists never did get over the fact that politicians need to sweet talk the press just as much as they need to reassure business or union leaders.
In fact, it’s a bigger scandal that Labour have to walk a tightrope between pleasing the public and pleasing their trade union barons. The massive defeat of 1979 proved that unions can be immensely more damaging than rogue journos.