![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Update: I did David Heath a disservice, and I apologise - he did indeed raise the question of the Digital Economy Bill on 11 March which was even in advance of its being debated at Conference. I'm keeping the post below for historical reasons, but I'm pretty much mollified, and feeling somewhat foolish for not spotting his contribution. My only defence is that AFAICT, no-one else did, but it's a poor one given that I'm quite used to trawling Hansard.
So, once upon a time there was a Digital Economy Bill. Which, while it did many good things, also did this:
There have been many good things written about why this is a bad idea - here's one of Cory Doctrow's. I won't rehash them here.
Now, fast forward to a month or so ago, when the Bill hit the Lords. Allegedly, two Lib Dem Peers tried to have the web blocking clause removed, but when they realised that they couldn't get cross-party support for just deleting it, they tabled a replacement amendment. It's only the fact that they tried to get it removed altogether that's in doubt, by the way; the amendment was real and is Amendment 120A here. For comparison, the amendment that the British Phonographic Industry wanted to table was leaked on the Open Rights Group web site.
It is perfectly in order for Liberal Democrat Peers to push the vested interests of the BPI, naturally, but I wish they'd be open about it. I like to know who's doing the policy writing for my party.
There was much discussion of this in Lib Dem circles - here's a reasonable sample, and for once I would encourage you to read the comments. Two of our PPCs, Bridget Fox and Julian Huppert - who are both awesome and if there's any justice will be MPs after the next election - led a movement to get an emergency motion discussed at the Lib Dem Conference a couple of weeks ago. The motion was discussed - I even made my maiden speech to Conference on it; that's an extract of the podcast of the full debate - and it was passed near unanimously.
It's now Lib Dem party policy. That's supposed to be how we write them in my party.
There was much rejoicing and optimism. There was even a UK Lib Dems Save the Net Facebook group (about which my tweet said it all), so people knew we were a serious campaign.
The next day, the Digital Economy Bill returned to the Lords. I have heard conflicting reports about what happened there - including that amendment 120A was dropped and the original clause 17 reinstated - but on looking at both the current Bill with the newly-renumbered clause 18 and the Hansard text of the Third Reading in the Lords, that appears not to be the case. Various amendments were proposed and withdrawn, but 120A, drafted by the BPI and introduced by the Lib Dems, remains.
Yesterday, Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, gave the Business of the House, including announcing the Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill on April 6. As you'll see from reading the link (it goes on for a couple of pages), Liberal Democrat David Heath spoke early in that debate. But not on the Digital Economy Bill. No, that discussion was left to Neil Gerrard, Tom Watson and John Grogan (Labour) - I saw reports of a Conservative MP also raising concerns but can't find them in Hansard.
The first point to make about this is that it is widely believed that Gordon Brown will seek to dissolve Parliament on April 6. This means that the Digital Economy Bill will go through on 'wash-up', a system by which bills which have passed through one part of Parliament can be nodded through by agreement between the whips of the main parties after Parliament has formally risen for the election. This procedure does not allow for debate of issues; the only changes that can be made to bills are deletions. It is certainly possible that the Lib Dem whips could at this point try to get Clause 18 of the bill (and possibly others) deleted. It's also possible that they'd succeed; apparently a lot of 'horse-trading' goes on during wash-up, and it's quite usual for entire sections of bills to get a line drawn through them.
It's also, of course, possible that they'll make a show of objecting and then let clause 18 through in order to get concessions elsewhere. The word at conference was that the whips' office was pleased with our emergency motion; I don't have to be too cynical to think that that might have been because they knew it would give them a bargaining chip during wash-up. "Supporting this won't play well with our party, so you'll have to give us something substantial in return." I guess we'll know soon enough which it is.
Not having any MPs speak against the Digital Economy Bill yesterday sent a signal, though, and not a good one. To me, it said the following:
It said that I can't rely on Liberal Democrat MPs to speak up for Liberal principles, even when they're party policy.
It said that as a party member I can do all the right things, jump through the hoops set for me to get my voice heard, and it won't make any difference.
It said that Nick Clegg's claims of about being anti-establishment, and of us being the party of real change, were empty rhetoric.
I'll still vote Lib Dem. I'll still campaign like mad over the next month, and I'll remain a member. I recognise that my reaction to this is partly one of pique, at something I've invested a lot in over the past month being ignored. But I think it's more than that. I think it's a worrying omen for how we'll behave as a party in the increasingly-likely event of a hung Parliament, and I think I, and others, will campaign with that bit less fire in our bellies as a result.
So, once upon a time there was a Digital Economy Bill. Which, while it did many good things, also did this:
"...imposes obligations on internet service providers to reduce online copyright infringement, and allows the Secretary of State to amend copyright legislation to the same end."
There have been many good things written about why this is a bad idea - here's one of Cory Doctrow's. I won't rehash them here.
Now, fast forward to a month or so ago, when the Bill hit the Lords. Allegedly, two Lib Dem Peers tried to have the web blocking clause removed, but when they realised that they couldn't get cross-party support for just deleting it, they tabled a replacement amendment. It's only the fact that they tried to get it removed altogether that's in doubt, by the way; the amendment was real and is Amendment 120A here. For comparison, the amendment that the British Phonographic Industry wanted to table was leaked on the Open Rights Group web site.
It is perfectly in order for Liberal Democrat Peers to push the vested interests of the BPI, naturally, but I wish they'd be open about it. I like to know who's doing the policy writing for my party.
There was much discussion of this in Lib Dem circles - here's a reasonable sample, and for once I would encourage you to read the comments. Two of our PPCs, Bridget Fox and Julian Huppert - who are both awesome and if there's any justice will be MPs after the next election - led a movement to get an emergency motion discussed at the Lib Dem Conference a couple of weeks ago. The motion was discussed - I even made my maiden speech to Conference on it; that's an extract of the podcast of the full debate - and it was passed near unanimously.
It's now Lib Dem party policy. That's supposed to be how we write them in my party.
There was much rejoicing and optimism. There was even a UK Lib Dems Save the Net Facebook group (about which my tweet said it all), so people knew we were a serious campaign.
The next day, the Digital Economy Bill returned to the Lords. I have heard conflicting reports about what happened there - including that amendment 120A was dropped and the original clause 17 reinstated - but on looking at both the current Bill with the newly-renumbered clause 18 and the Hansard text of the Third Reading in the Lords, that appears not to be the case. Various amendments were proposed and withdrawn, but 120A, drafted by the BPI and introduced by the Lib Dems, remains.
Yesterday, Harriet Harman, Leader of the House of Commons, gave the Business of the House, including announcing the Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill on April 6. As you'll see from reading the link (it goes on for a couple of pages), Liberal Democrat David Heath spoke early in that debate. But not on the Digital Economy Bill. No, that discussion was left to Neil Gerrard, Tom Watson and John Grogan (Labour) - I saw reports of a Conservative MP also raising concerns but can't find them in Hansard.
The first point to make about this is that it is widely believed that Gordon Brown will seek to dissolve Parliament on April 6. This means that the Digital Economy Bill will go through on 'wash-up', a system by which bills which have passed through one part of Parliament can be nodded through by agreement between the whips of the main parties after Parliament has formally risen for the election. This procedure does not allow for debate of issues; the only changes that can be made to bills are deletions. It is certainly possible that the Lib Dem whips could at this point try to get Clause 18 of the bill (and possibly others) deleted. It's also possible that they'd succeed; apparently a lot of 'horse-trading' goes on during wash-up, and it's quite usual for entire sections of bills to get a line drawn through them.
It's also, of course, possible that they'll make a show of objecting and then let clause 18 through in order to get concessions elsewhere. The word at conference was that the whips' office was pleased with our emergency motion; I don't have to be too cynical to think that that might have been because they knew it would give them a bargaining chip during wash-up. "Supporting this won't play well with our party, so you'll have to give us something substantial in return." I guess we'll know soon enough which it is.
Not having any MPs speak against the Digital Economy Bill yesterday sent a signal, though, and not a good one. To me, it said the following:
It said that I can't rely on Liberal Democrat MPs to speak up for Liberal principles, even when they're party policy.
It said that as a party member I can do all the right things, jump through the hoops set for me to get my voice heard, and it won't make any difference.
It said that Nick Clegg's claims of about being anti-establishment, and of us being the party of real change, were empty rhetoric.
I'll still vote Lib Dem. I'll still campaign like mad over the next month, and I'll remain a member. I recognise that my reaction to this is partly one of pique, at something I've invested a lot in over the past month being ignored. But I think it's more than that. I think it's a worrying omen for how we'll behave as a party in the increasingly-likely event of a hung Parliament, and I think I, and others, will campaign with that bit less fire in our bellies as a result.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Can we all say Serious and Organised Crime Act?
no subject
no subject
* hug *
Thank you for writing this, because I haven't had chance with my work hours at the mo.
no subject
*hugs you back*
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
If so, then that's fairly stupid and makes us look politically naive, but I would take that if we genuinely managed to kill the bad clauses in the bill in wash-up. It's a very big missed opportunity, though, and it's not as though anyone sensitive to the issues should have missed the honking great demo on Wednesday.
no subject
I am trying to bear in mind that it is *just possible* that the front bench does not spend its entire collective life glued to Twitter and may not be on this particular emotional roller-coaster with us. There are some slightly melodramatic tweets flapping around out there, but whether anyone is actually doing anything constructive to find out what the front bench's view are, I don't know.
It seems obvious to us what they should say and when, but when else have any of us followed our party's parliamentary line on a day-by-day basis about a particular bill, or monitored their reaction to a conference motion this closely? I haven't. I've no idea what our usual Commons tactics are. I don't know what any of our frontbenchers' individual views are, but then none of them are my MP and I've not written to them to ask. The only LD letter I know the contents of is a sympathetic (anti-Bill) one from David Howarth. It feels like getting blood out of a stone, but that doesn't mean it feels the same from their point of view.
I am also mindful of the meeting between Foster, the Lords Tim and the ORG when all this started. They didn't have to do that. Why did they if they never intended to budge?
no subject
no subject
no subject
Of which some are mine, I admit. I tried, I hope successfully, to tone down the melodrama for the post itself.
..but whether anyone is actually doing anything constructive to find out what the front bench's view are, I don't know.
According to an e-mail I've just got, yes they (Bridget and Obhi, for two) are, and the news at first sight is very good. I'll wait until there's some public information before saying more, though.
no subject
Good stuff, I await further news.
no subject
Mark
Digital Economy Bill
no subject