X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

The Quiet and Sorry Death of Liberalism, Part CCXXXIV

10 January 2014

2:31 PM

10 January 2014

2:31 PM

The whole point of the House of Lords is that it lacks democratic legitimacy. This, as they say, is a feature not a bug. A damn good feature too. It is – or can or should be – a valuable cooling saucer into which ploys devised by the lower, popular, house are poured until such time as they congeal to be revealed in all their unappetising horror.

From time to time the will [sic] of the people, as expressed by Her Majesty’s Government, jolly well should be frustrated or otherwise suppressed. Take this headline, for instance: Peers block law on being annoying in public. 

That’s from the BBC not The Daily Mash though I’d forgive you for assuming otherwise. You click on it because you think, hang on, even Westminster wouldn’t try and pass such an obviously daft notion. And then you discover that, by jove, they would. And did! You see:

Ministers want to replace anti-social behaviour orders in England and Wales with injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance (Ipnas).

Courts could impose these on anyone engaging – or threatening to engage – in “conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person”.

An Injunction to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance! How marvellous. Can one be issued to the House of Commons?

[Alt-Text]


You may now, if you have not already, bury any lingering hopes this might prove a pleasingly, refreshingly, liberal government. Hark at this, however:

The Home Office has said the new injunctions – part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill – would never be imposed in an unreasonable way.

Of course not. Just as no-one making a joke on Twitter would ever be tried and convicted for falling foul of anti-terrorism laws. Move along now, do not trouble yourself, none of this will ever be imposed in an unreasonable way. Only tinfoil-hat-wearing libertarian lunatics could think that.

You would like to think the Home Office – and MPs – might appreciate that there is virtually no aspect of human life or behaviour that is not capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to someone. Only a fat-headed optimist could think such measures would not be abused and, more to the point, abused as a matter of course. It is, naturally, yet another invitation to petty, interfering, illiberalism.

Such is the temper of the times, alas. The spirit of live and let live  – the spirit which ought to be the default presumption in all matters of public policy – evidently perished long ago. Shame on the 178 peers who supported the government’s proposals.

Granted, a Labour government led by Ed Miliband would be no better and, heavens, might even be worse but that’s a miserably low bar to better. You would like to think David Cameron and Nick Clegg could or would be better than that but such hopes, for the love of god, might be held in vain. Poor liberalism, for she is dead.

What a country.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close