Why I opposed Libel costs reform yesterday
Yesterday, a Statutory Instrument that would have reformed costs in English libel cases was stalled at committee stage after several MPs voted to block a reduction of lawyers’ success fees from a 100 per cent mark-up to 10 per cent. Here, exclusively, Tom Watson explains why.
Libel reform campaigners, anxious for progress, understandably pressing for great change, do a disservice to the campaign if they focus their ire on the people who rejected the ill-conceived proposals, hurriedly presented yesterday in Committee Room 12 of the House of Commons.
Briefly, let me make the case for the libel reform I want to see.
- End libel tourism.
- I want the burden of proof rule to be reversed for big corporations who bully writers, creators and scientists.
- I would like to see a change to statute of limitations and the multiple publications rule that’s not fit for purpose in the digital age.
- I’d like to see a defence of “responsible journalism” defined in law.
- And I’d like the law of “criminal libel” to be junked in Scotland as it was South of the border last year.
I came to these conclusions, having heard evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee for our inquiry ‘Press Standards, Privacy and Libel’.
continue reading… »
What the Beeb didn’t say about breast cancer screening
This morning there are many women across Britain, not to mention a few charities, who will have woken up to what seems to be some very reassuring news:
Breast cancer screening does ‘more good than harm’
Breast cancer screening does more good than harm, with any over-treatment justified by the number of lives saved, say experts.
Mammograms can spot dangerous tumours, but might also detect lumps that are essentially harmless, exposing some women to undue anxiety and surgery.
But data suggests screening saves the lives of two women for every one who receives unnecessary treatment.
Even allowing for the generally abysmal state of science/medical journalism, as practised by mainstream news organisations, this is a story that I find particularly frustrating.
continue reading… »
Telegraph columnist rips ConHome a new arsehole
You’ve got to love Gerald Warner’s response to Tim Mongomerie’s accusations of disloyalty to the Tory cause:
Over on ToadyHole they are not liking it up ’em. Tim Montgomerie, the self-important prat who runs the ConservativeHome website, has excommunicated The Daily Telegraph and its bloggers for disloyalty to the Cameronian cause. Lord Tebbit, whom some people might have thought had made a marginally more important contribution to Toryism than Montgomerie, is denounced as “Someone who should know better”.
The bull of excommunication names the other guilty men: Simon Heffer, Douglas Murray, Michael Deacon and Yours Truly. “Anathema sint!” Beyond the Telegraph fold, Peter Hitchens and Amanda Platell are also given the bell, book and candle treatment. “There is constructive criticism,” intones Montgomerie, “and there is destructive criticism… At the moment there’s too much ill-discipline on our side of the fence.”
Sorry? On whose side of what fence? Not all of us are prepared to huddle in the Cameronian sheep-pen, waiting to see our ideals slaughtered by a bunch of opportunists and adventurers who have hijacked the Conservative Party. As Montgomerie sententiously observes: “It’s worth noting that if there’s ill-discipline amongst the commentariat (sic) there’s enormous discipline within the parliamentary party.”
My only complaint here is the lack of advance warning – had I know it would kick off in such an entertaining fashion, I’d have bought popcorn.
Sunny updates: more responses to Montgomerie by…
Peter Hitchens – The rise of Comrade Cam-il-Sung, the modernising centraliser
Damian Thompson – Tim Montgomerie, please note: CCHQ is too scared to allow its candidates to blog
Douglas Murray – Note to Conservative Home: People are loyal to institutions which are loyal to them
Vote Labour (Representation Committee)
contribution by Harpymarx, as part of Hagley Road to Ladywood‘s pre-election series.
New Labour has severely damaged the Labour Party and plunged the party into a crisis. There have been 3 terms ranging from massive to reasonable majorities; unfortunately with a party geared towards a neoliberal agenda squandered it.
As opposed to creating a truly equal transformative society, they choose the financial markets and fight unjust and illegal wars.
So with an election looming why should people vote for a pro-imperialist, warmongering and neoliberal party?
Well, that’s the thing with the Labour Party: the answer is far more complex.
continue reading… »
Is a narrow Tory victory the worst possible result?
contribution by Stephen Tall
For the last month the opinion polls have been suggesting a hung parliament is the most likely outcome of the forthcoming general election.
This has spooked some of those “pin-striped Scargills”, who would much rather their Tory friends were able to start slashing public spending without the restraining need to build consensus ahead of what will be inevitably painful cuts.
It’s an odd argument: in previous serious crises, whether war or depression, most people in Britan have recognised the need for petty tribal differences to be set to one side. After all, we are supposed to be all in this together.
But in the last day or so, there seems to have been a slight upswing in support for the Tories on the back of Alistair Darling’s third budget.
It’s far too early to say yet that it’s a real trend, but still – it looks more likely this week than it did last week that the Tories will sneak back in with a slim majority.
And that’s the result that should worry everybody.
continue reading… »
Vince Cable’s shocking demand to curb strikes
Update: Article re-edited by editor (sunny) in light of a transcript provided in the comments. See below.
I was genuinely shocked when attending Radio Four’s Any Questions in Camden last on Friday, when Vince Cable, the cuddly face of liberalism, came out in favour of banning curbing strike action.
Specifically he said that workers in “essential public services” should not be allowed find it harder to strike. He was pressed on it and was adamant that this was what he believed.
While he doesn’t seem to have said this in print (although I haven’t scoured the entire internet), writing in the Daily Mail Cable says that “We are back to old-fashioned industrial conflict of a kind that we thought, and hoped, had gone.”
Cable is making two mistakes here.
continue reading… »
Tories whined Cable got too much TV applause
Today Times has an excellent scoop on the Conservative party’s attitude to not having Boy George being universally applauded in front of audiences.
An article points out that the Tories complained to programme makers three times during Monday night’s television debate between the candidates for Chancellor.
At one point during the Channel 4 Ask the Chancellors programme senior Tories phoned the hotline to the production staff claiming that the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman was receiving too much applause.
Although many were happy with the performance of George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, senior Conservatives, including David Cameron, were irritated by the way Mr Cable was able to present himself as a referee between two opponents rather than facing pressure over his own policy positions.
Mr Cameron told Sky News yesterday: “The great thing about being Vince Cable is that no one asks you tough questions.”
Except that when Osborne himself is asked tough questions, he starts floundering
Let’s challenge this Red-tape delusion
contribution by Howard Reed
Since the 1980s, debates about labour market policy in the UK and other industrialised countries have been dominated by the notion that the more regulated a country’s labour market is, the worse it performs.
This principle – let’s call it the ‘conventional wisdom’ – has been used to explain the persistence of high unemployment in ‘sclerotic’ continental Europe, the economic success of the United States – the least regulated of all the major developed countries’ labour markets – and the apparent success of Thatcherite labour market reforms in the UK.
It’s an appealingly straightforward picture, with simple implications for the current economic crisis: adherents of this view argue that the UK needs to limit employment rights, curb trade union power, and freeze or reduce the value of the minimum wage to boost employment.
It is also profoundly mistaken.
continue reading… »
Tebbit: Cam too busy with African homosexuals
Norman Tebbit has some advice for David Cameron today.
In a Telegraph blog-post titled: Still no sign of a working majority for Cameron. Time is running out, he says that Cameron must move rightwards.
Having been led up the garden path on to the messy bog of the middle ground by Michael Ashcroft’s strategy for the critical seats, David Cameron now has to put some greater distance between himself and the Prime Minister. If he does not, the voters will reluctantly return the more experienced, battle-hardened man to implement consensus policies.
The comparisons between the merits of the wives of the Party leaders are not merely irrelevant. They are turning voters away from the polling booths. If there are not greater differences between the two men and their parties than that, the electors will leave well (or ill) alone and leave Brown in office.
Fair point. I’ve also been saying for ages that the Labour party needs to create more distance between themselves and the Conservatives if they are going to win back disaffected leftie voters.
But Tebbit then goes on to say:
David Cameron has the brains to turn the tables and come back to win. But he has to inspire the electors to believe he would make a difference not over the trivialities of dress sense or political asylum for African homosexuals, but the management of the debt and spending crisis which threatens to overwhelm the country, our relationship with the EU, the crisis of unintegrated foreign communities, and the regulatory nightmares built on human rights and health safety legislation implemented by politically correct officials.
Tories never change do they…
PCC slams Rod Liddle for his racist blog posting
It’s wonderful to be back in London (I got back last night from back-packing around S.E. Asia) and get such a wonderful present on my return. Yesterday the PCC finally ruled on Rod Liddle’s blog post from December last year where he said London’s African-Caribbean youth were responsible for the “overwhelming majority” of violent crime in the capital and had given only “rap music” and “goat curry” in return.
You can read the PCC ruling here. What’s notable is that Rod Liddle tried to pass off his bigotry as fact, and when questioned the magazine was unable to offer proper evidence to support its case.
The Spectator magazine also refused to amend its own blog posting, as Roy Greenslade points out, and was ultimately forced to publish the ruling on its website.
The ruling has been called “significant” because it relates to a blog. I don’t think it is – the Spectator was only caught out because the magazine itself is regulated by the PCC. The PCC simply extended its mandate to include online content, as it should do.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Do older people really need more NHS healthcare?
» There are alternatives to the reckless ‘Plan A’
» On Beecroft: it is already quite easy to sack people
» Why Cameron’s claim of 600,000 jobs created is plainly wrong
» By using age to allocate NHS funding, Lansley rewards Tory voters
» The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an “isolated” problem
» Adrian Beecroft highlights mindset of Tory right
» The US is now a model for the Eurozone to save itself
» The IMF plan to revive the economy doesn’t go far enough
» The Boris brand is weaker than his friends think
» Nine things you can do to halt Lansley’s destruction of our NHS
|
28 Comments 72 Comments 21 Comments 47 Comments 10 Comments 24 Comments 22 Comments 69 Comments 44 Comments 25 Comments |
|
LATEST COMMENTS » P Ve M posted on Red Tory Blond: gay marriage "homophobic" » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » BenSix posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on How Newsnight demonised a single mother » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on The rise in domestic violence deaths is not an "isolated" problem » Ben2 posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » BenSix posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on Do older people really need more NHS healthcare? » Ally. posted on Criticism of Obama for its own sake: a reply to Mehdi Hasan » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' » So Much For Subtlety posted on '43% of young women sexually harassed' |
