Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Lynne Featherstone: liberal, no. Moron, yes.

Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone is most certainly not a liberal. Today she is wittering on about the hideous intrusions into the lives of home-schoolers—and, incredibly—trying to justify them. [Emphasis mine.]
So–a really interesting conundrum–where everyone is trying to do their best by the children - but the state feels it isn't safe to leave them to their parents alone and the parents think the state should butt out.

No, Lynne, there is no fucking conundrum here. At all. As Bishop Hill points out most eloquently...
You see, this kind of issue is easy for a liberal. This is first principles stuff: the state needs to prove reasonable grounds before it can enter someone's home; it has to get a warrant first; you are innocent until proven guilty. That kind of thing.

These are simple concepts that have been the bedrock of British freedoms for centuries. These are fundamentals. I'm therefore struggling with the idea of a Liberal Democrat MP–a Liberal Democrat MP–in a quandry over whether warrantless searches should be permitted or not. Imagine that–an MP who declares themselves a liberal can't work out whether a fundamental civil liberty, fought and died for over the centuries, is a good thing or not!

His Ecclesiastical Eminence then asks the same question that we all do...
What is the point of the Liberal Democrats if not to speak up for liberalism?

Good fucking question.

16 comments:

JuliaM said...

"I'm therefore struggling with the idea of a Liberal Democrat MP–a Liberal Democrat MP–in a quandry over whether warrantless searches should be permitted.."

That shouldn't be so difficult for him, when one considers that the Liberal Democrats are the most ill-named party since...well, the other two.

Most Labour voters don't work, and most Conservatives in Dave's new shiny party are nothing of the sort...

Vicola said...

He could have just shortened it to 'What is the point of the Liberal Democrats?'.

Laurence said...

"Most Labour voters don't work, and most Conservatives in Dave's new shiny party are nothing of the sort..."

and Gordon Brown on the telly yesterday was wearing the tie of the OEA - borrowed, presumably, like so much else from his opposite number.

Anonymous said...

I have an idea that Bishop Hill is not an ecclesiastical eminence, but takes his name from a hill near where he lives. i.e. a different sort of eminence.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

Yes, I know. It is a pun, or play on words... ;-)

DK

Rob said...

She isn't a Liberal, she is a Progressive. They are complete opposites. One is suspicious of State power and supports the freedom of the individual; the other uses State power to impose alleged 'liberal' policies on the population.

Modern Liberal said...

There are plenty examples of when the state doesn't need a warrant to enter your home. Should firefighters be applying to a court before they enter to put out a fire?

Your idea of liberalism seems to be stuck in a time when all the state did was raise taxes and fight wars (and not educate people!) What freedom does a child have when its parents think education amounts to reading the odd ladybird book? Surely modern liberalism encompasses the freedom from ignorance for all?

Anonymous said...

What planet does "modern liberal" live on? Has he not noticed the lousy, if any , education children are getting these days in the state sector? Ignorance appears to be part of the curriculaum these days. As for L-Ds, they are only liberal in spending other peoples money and they are certainly not democratoic.

Derek

neil craig said...

Rob I don't think the term "Progressive" is justified either. By definition it requires one to support prigress. While the term has been comandeered by "leftists" it has not been justified since at least the collapse of the USSR. Stalinist did support economic progress, indeed they planned in excrutiating detail, but the "new left" has recognised that the free market provides such progress & are therefore opposed to it. Anybody who wants massive subsidies of windmills is, by definition, not a progressive & any such person who claims to be is, by definition, not to be trusted in anything else they claim.

As somebody who, in more niave times, was the only one to speak in principle against the smoking ban at LibDem conference & was subsequently expelled I can state with authority that whatever the LibDims may be they are wholly illiberal.

John B said...

In general terms, it's not at all illiberal to recognise that kids are not their parents' property, and that therefore that - even though adults' actions in general should be allowed no matter how unwise we might believe them to be - that absolutely doesn't hold when a child's interests are involved. Anyone who claims it does is a mentalist, pure and simple.

The question is where we draw the line before intervention (murder is obviously out, but ABH was considered acceptable until recently and many right-wingers defend it. Indoctrination into a crazy cult is out, but indoctrination into religion is jest about OK). And that's got to be a pragmatic, evidence-based question about what's good for the child's interests, not a matter of principle.

Given the complete lack of evidence of higher child abuse rates among home-schoolers, *this particular* regulation is stupid. But that's got nowt to do wth the general point.

Tr0ll said...

God I hate the fucking Illiberal-Anti Democrats.
Twisted statist pukes the lot of 'em.
Lynne keeps talking complete bollocks and forcing me to throw stuff at the TV. Fucking stop it Lynne!! It ain't funny no more.
You know what's really fucking irritating to me about this?
I used to be an Illib-AntiDem myself! Jesus Christ!! I'm so fucking ashamed.

In the words of the Prophet:

FUCKING HELLSKI!!

Bishop Hill said...

Disagree with John B - perhaps I'm one of those mentalists he speaks about. Child abuse is a crime. We have a well-embedded approach to dealing with crime taking place in the home. If there is a suspicion, go to a judge, show him the evidence and get a warrant. The fact that there are a child's interests involved does not mean you throw away basic civil liberties.

James Higham said...

What definition of liberalism though - the socialist type or classical liberalism?

neil craig said...

If it isn't something the founders of liberalism would revognise it isn't liberalism. It is just somebody jacking up the body, slipping a different cehicle underneath & trying to palm it off.

CIngram said...

@John B

No, a child is not the exclusive and unquestionable property of its parents, but it sure as hell ain't the government's.

Rob said...

A few canards quacking about here.

First Modern Liberal:

"What freedom does a child have when its parents think education amounts to reading the odd ladybird book?"

You might have a point if the standard of home educated children was below that of children educated by the State; of course it is not. You would have been better served if your example was directed at State education, not home education.

Second, your example of firefighters tackling a blaze. A fire in a house is a clear and present danger to the lives of those in the house and their neighbours, whereas a child getting a superior education at home clearly is not. It is absurd to use one as an example to justify state intervention on the other.

"In general terms, it's not at all illiberal to recognise that kids are not their parents' property"

Is anyone claiming that children ARE their parents' property? Aren't people saying that parents have the primary responsibility for the care of their children, and that education is absolutely part of that responsibility. given the results of home educated children, it is a responsibility they exercise far more dilligently than the State educators.