Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation

Civil liberties crucial to Labour revamp

This article is more than 13 years old
Labour must change its position on human rights if the party is to retrieve its core supporters – and its soul

More than anything else, it is Labour's record on civil liberties that alienated its core supporters and drove voters to the Liberal Democrats. As the party regroups in opposition, this must be a priority.

Working as a barrister on human rights cases, it is easy to lose perspective on what is important to everyone else. You start to wonder if you are in a distorted world, and whether the general public really cares about the abstract principles that get dissected and examined in court. But they do. These issues matter to us all and this election proved it.

We vote with our heads and our hearts. The economy, education, transport and housing remain the hard and important issues. They directly affect our daily lives, making them top of most people's concerns. At the same time, how our government treats civil liberties is a key part of our identity as citizens: it is part of our soul.

Anti-terrorist legislation, extraordinary rendition and curbing the freedom of protesters do not just impact on the few individuals being targeted. They reveal who we are as a nation. And New Labour – to its cost – ignored this.

Barack Obama, the current master of the global political zeitgeist did not make the same mistake.

The million-plus in attendance at his inauguration reserved their loudest applause for the section of his address that began: " … we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals … ". In 2008, US voters were hungry to hear that. In 2010, British voters were too. Unfortunately, our government had been making the opposite argument for far too long.

In the Blair era of triangulation, civil liberties became the "negotiables" – an area where a Labour government was willing take on its traditional supporters. The aim, it seemed, was to show affinity with mythical "middle England" and criticise "the lefties" for being naive and too politically correct. The former home secretary David Blunkett epitomised this approach. When he introduced statutory measures to intern foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial, his response to criticism was dismissive: "We could live in a world which is airy fairy, libertarian, where everybody does precisely what they like and we believe the best of everybody and then they destroy us." But in the long run, he misjudged both the legal framework and the public mood.

A nine-judge House of Lords subsequently declared the provision unlawful, with Lord Hoffman adding: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." It was the first of many defeats for Labour's anti-terrorism legislation. And to New Labour's surprise, far from endearing them to voters, both the right- and left-wing press disapproved. The continual erosion of our rights in the name of "security" became unpalatable.

Last week, in the dying gasps of the Labour government, Blunkett was back, casting doubt over a potential alliance between Labour and the Lib Dems. It was ironic, given that he was a key government figure during the period that drove many Labour supporters to the other party. Disproportionate terrorism laws; the creation of the world's largest DNA database; the attempted introduction of ID cards; and, most importantly, an unlawful war in Iraq tested the loyalty of Labour voters beyond breaking point. At the same time the Lib Dems, to their credit, distinguished themselves as both measured and principled.

How effective was it for the Lib Dems? In this regard, both of the last two general election results are revealing. For all the talk of Cleggmania, the real change in Lib Dem support happened not this year, but in 2005. The party gained 16 MPs and grabbed a sizeable chunk of the popular vote from Labour. In 2010, it merely held on to that gain.

Few would dispute that it was the Iraq war and Labour's betrayal of civil liberties that underpinned the Lib Dem success in 2005. Five years ago, Charles Kennedy led a party which seemed uncertain and confused on many core issues, such as taxation. But in one area it was strong. It emerged as the leading voice for those who cared about human rights principles, and reaped the benefits. Labour, victorious nonetheless, did not seem bothered. It should have been.

In recent years, I have advised a number of campaign groups on forthcoming legislation and have sat with them in meetings with Labour government ministers. The politicians sometimes made little attempt to hide their disdain for being brought to the table to talk about human rights. It was demoralising on many levels.

Labour can and should be proud of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the Human Rights Act. But it is worth remembering that it committed to both those progressive developments before it gained power in 1997. Once in government, the mood quickly changed.

Key left-of-centre voices have been weather vanes. Shortly before this election the Guardian published an open letter supporting the Lib Dems. Its signatories included the former director of public prosecution Sir Ken Macdonald QC, the international jurist Phillipe Sands QC and journalists John Kampfner, Henry Porter and George Monbiot. It described the last 13 years as a "ruinous period" for civil liberties and urged progressives to back the Lib Dems. It echoed the feeling in the Guardian and Observer leaders. In truth, the government's record on civil liberties featured in almost every newspaper's declaration of support for an alternative to Labour. Even the Financial Times felt it necessary to say to its City readers, when endorsing the Conservatives: "The country should be made freer. Civil liberties, eroded as part of a misguided 'war' on terror, must be restored."

If civil liberties really do matter to voters, it is a lesson that the "progressive" Labour opposition must grapple with urgently. And one potential Labour prime minister, in particular, might do well to keep this in mind. The early front-runner, David Miliband, has many qualities that could make him a serious challenge to David Cameron. What he lacks in the "common touch" he more than remedies in other areas. He is frighteningly bright, a master of his brief, energetic, experienced and direct. Despite his youth, his time as foreign secretary has given him the gravitas of an international statesman that none of his colleagues can match.

But his handling of the Binyam Mohamed case was a warning. He fought to the very end to withhold documents from an alleged torture victim, in the face of incredulity and criticism from senior judges. The government's eventual loss was humiliating. If Labour is to win back public trust it will need to demonstrate a different approach. With his powerful and impressive abilities, Miliband as an advocate for civil liberties would be an exciting proposition. Conversely, by appearing to place government interest over human rights he gives the Lib Dems – and, by proxy, the Tories – a serious advantage.

Those of us who grew up as Labour voters were stunned by the party's attitude towards civil liberties during their 13 years of government. The individuals who have had to deal with control orders, the more byzantine aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, or have applied to have their DNA removed from the database after being wrongly arrested, know personally the unfairness of those measures. But the wider public also recoiled at what it saw. Such measures are anathema to British culture.

On most other issues – the economy, Europe, public spending – the Tories and Lib Dems failed to persuade the public that Labour was wrong. But on civil liberties, Labour's proud tradition – and the soul of its core support – was destroyed. It is not just lawyers, or the "airy fairy" who care about those things. It is the very people who voted the government out.

Most viewed

Most viewed