It appears to me madness to base all our political efforts upon the faint hope that we shall be successful in obtaining excellent, or even competent rulers.
The Open Society & It’s Enemies – Popper
Popper: Rulers
June 13th, 2010
Gareth Epps in
Digital Economy
Bill Response
April 27th, 2010
Mr Gareth Epps, Liberal Democrat Candidate for Reading East responds to my letter concerning the Digital Economy Act
David,
Thanks for getting in touch with me on a subject that has clearly touched a very raw nerve indeed.
We have the most up-to-date and liberal policy on freedom, creativity and the internet of any of the parties (at our Spring conference last month, an emergency motion was passed setting out our Party’s views in the context of this Bill). That led to our vocal opposition to the web-blocking provisions of the Bill and our MPs voting against the whole Bill at 3rd Reading. By contrast, the Conservative candidate failed as our MP to turn up for the vote; his party’s position was to let the Bill go through.
Subsequently, Nick Clegg has confirmed that he would seek to have the Act repealed altogether. The use of affirmative resolution procedure would enable us to cast our votes to try and block the Regulations to use disconnection/interference. Our MPs said during the passage of the Bill that they will veto any implementation of disconnection powers until there has been full discussion and debate.
Our party’s position is not 100% against everything in the Bill, but we have more concerns than the other parties, and our MPs were the only ones whipped against the Bill at 3rd Reading. I was one of 25 Liberal Democrat candidates who signed an open letter which succeeded in strengthening the Party’s resolve to oppose this legislation. (see http://www.libdemvoice.org/twentyfive-lib-dem-ppcs-sign-letter-asking-lib-dem-parliamentarians-to-think-again-on-digital-economy-bill-18185.html)
The other points I would make are:
Web-blocking: the LibDems are opposing web blocking unlike Labour. Our stand would lift the threat of blocking from all manner of websites from community noticeboards to YouTube, and the fact that this was ever proposed shows how out of touch and illiberal Labour are. [The minister responsible, Stephen Timms has been ridiculed for getting the concept of an IP address (Internet Protocol) muddled with IP (Intellectual Property) in a standard letter to objectors. As someone who is far from an expert on these matters, even I understand the difference!].Disconnection: there are widespread fears that the disconnection measures proposed are arbitrary and disproportionate. Many internet connections, from a family PC to a public wifi service, are shared so the Government will be imposing collective punishment for individual sins. While our position is not against all disconnection ever, we are firmly against disconnection as proposed by the Bill. We have a presumption against disconnection.
Our Peers moved the power to disconnect from the whim of the Secretary of State to the rigour of the courts.
LibDem MPs have set out specific conditions which would have to apply before any disconnection could be implemented, including a minimum of a year’s notice in writing (itself a challenge to write to an online user!) AND the need to prove guilt not simply accuse. This may not be as far as some opponents of disconnection would like to go, but it is the most comprehensive set of protections for internet users proposed by any of the main parties.The reality has been that the arcane parliamentary procedure plus Labour’s majority meant there was a limit to what the Lib Dems could have achieved in the last Parliament, especially with the Tories supporting the Bill (the two old parties in action!). I genuinely believe that we are not the villains in tht we did not propose this legislation!
The important thing is to get as many Lib Dem MPs as possible in the next Parliament because they are web-users’ best safeguard against Labour introducing arbitrary disconnection powers. We are also the only party committed to reforming the voting system and the parliamentary process so that Labour’s railroading of this Bill can never happen again. In Reading East, the bookies’ odds and the advice of increasing numbers of commentators is that we can beat the Conservatives here. On this issue, it is clear that anyone wishing to see this ill thought-out and dangerous legislation halted in Reading East should vote Liberal Democrat.
I hope this helps. Happy to answer any further questions on this or any other issues.
Yours sincerely
Gareth Epps
Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary candidate for Reading EastPolitics, General Election, LibDems, digital economy bill,
Digital Economy,
Britain, Post
General Election
Circa 6th May
April 21st, 2010
From: David Miller
To: garethepps@cix.co.uk
Subject: Digital Economy, Britain, Post General Election Circa 6th May
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:30:36 +0100
Message-ID: <87vdblm49v.fsf@deadpansincerity.com>
–text follows this line–
Dear Mr Epps
I understand you are running for election in Reading East.
One of the issues which most concerned me was the way in which, and
content contained in, the Digital Economy Bill.
I would be most interested to hear your position on this matter.
I would want my representative in government to do the following:
* Speak in the House of Commons
* Vote there accordingly
* Attempt to raise the priority of the issue within their own party
in order to accomplish the following:
* Removing all reference to disconnection from the internet as a possible penalty.
* Ensure that before any action can be taken, infringement must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
I look forward to your response.
–
Love regards etc
David Miller
www.deadpansincerity.com
07964250347
340 Gosbrook Road
Caversham
Reading
RG4 8EG
–
This message sent from Emacs
“Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. The
sooner people accept this, and build business models that take this into
account, the sooner people will start making money again.” – Bruce Schneier
An open Letter to
Mr Rob Wilson
concerning the
Digital Economy
Bill
April 15th, 2010
Dear Mr Rob Wilson
Thank you for your letter of 12 April.
I was gladdened to hear that you found the manner in which the Digital Economy Bill was passed ‘distasteful’. I wholeheartedly agree.
In your previous correspondence you explained that even if:
‘every Conservative and Liberal Democrat MP voted against the Bill, it still would have passed if every Labour MP had turned up to vote’
In and of itself, this is a factual statement. Taken in the context of your explaining why you did not even bother to turn up to the vote however, it takes on a rather disturbing implication.
If this is a valid position to take, (and I would strongly suggest that it is not), then it would follow from this that any non Labour MP voting on any bill for the last five years has not been the exercise of democracy, but merely an empty façade.
As the opposition party, it was your duty to oppose bills that are badly thought out or badly written. I would hold (and you have given me every indication that you agree) that the Digital Economy Bill was both of these things. Being in opposition to a government with a majority does not absolve you of your democratic responsibilities.
In your letter you went on to say that:
‘My party has pledged that, if we are elected to Government on May 6th this year, we will revisit the Bill and look at alternative options for a balanced solution as part of a broader update of copyright’
This is a start, but not nearly enough.
You are standing for re-election and asking for my vote. In order for me to consider this, given what has happened with regards to this bill in the last few months, I would ask you to personally pledge the following if elected, whether to Government or opposition:
To take all actions within your power, including but not limited to:
- Speaking in the House of Commons
- Voting there accordingly
- Attempting to raise the priority of the issue within your own party
in order to accomplish the following:
- Removing all reference to disconnection from the internet as a possible penalty.
- Ensure that before any action can be taken, infringement must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
Regards
David Miller