Slashdot Mirror
UK's House of Lords Speaks To Voters Via YouTube, Blogs
PHPNerd writes "In a bold move to connect with the next generation of young British voters, the House of Lords has launched a YouTube video series that will detail what it does and make it more accessible to the younger generation. It accompanies an experimental blog in which various Lords write about political issues and can receive feedback from anyone around the world. The article quotes spokesman Owen Williams saying, 'We're trying to engage with younger people and people who may not be interested in politics. We looked at YouTube because it appeals to people outside the political elite.' Is this doomed to failure, or should more governments be doing something similar?"
I wonder if we can expect other branches of the government to follow suit?
We are the members of the House of Lords
And what we're laying down won't make you bored.
We debate the shit the House of Commons proposes,
But we ain't no rubber stamp like some people might supposes.
Loose lips lose spit.
I welcome our new YouTube over^WLords.
Makes you wonder, on the one hand they engage in strangling the privacy of the people which includes the internet, and then they want to be thought of as hip by using that same medium to promote themselves..?
home
Connecting to them pesky youngsters has been tried before. It didn't turn out so well.
For your information.... the House of Lords is not an elected body, it consists of members who have been given the priviledge (with a very few now who have inhereted it).
Some might say that this is a problem because it's not representative. However, unlike an elected body it's free to make decisions on their merit without the worry of being popular. i.e. it doesn't have to pander to the current tabloid whims.
Also, it has the advantage of having a large number of non-partisan members who aren't on the political party leash, many of which are experts in the fields of business, science and the law.
The main purpose of the House of Lords these days is to put a brake on all those stupid, popularist, knee-jerk bills the current encumbent party tries to force through. Of course, they don't like this and are hence trying to "reform" the house and make it weaker.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
I was thinking, how is that news for nerds, but then it hit me!
THAT IS NEWS FOR NERDS !!
I would not only encourage young people in Britian to watch youtube, but to also have more tea parties.
Love,
American Nerd.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
They also tend to be rather better than the Commons in terms of serving the people (they have often voted against legislation that undermines civil liberties, for example), because they are far mroe independent from the executive.
YouTube videos would seem to be entirely consistent with the English constitution, according to Bagehot:
"The fancy of the mass of men is incredibly weak; it can see nothing without a visible symbol, and there is much that it can scarcely make out with a symbol. Nobility is the symbol of mind. It has the marks from which the mass of men always used to infer mind, and often still infer it. A common clever man who goes into a country place will get no reverence; but the 'old squire' will get reverence. Even after he is insolvent, when every one knows that his ruin is but a question of time, he will get five times as much respect from the common peasantry as the newly-made rich man who sits beside him. The common peasantry will listen to his nonsense more submissively than to the new man's sense. An old lord will get infinite respect. His very existence is so far useful that it awakens the sensation of obedience to a sort of mind - the coarse dull, contracted multitude, who could neither appreciate or perceive any other."
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
This reminds me of the stupid second life hearing they pulled in the US.
The posturing was so obvious and stilted it wasn't funny.
such lines were spoken as---"you just want help getting to the seventh level in world of warcraft"
They might have thought it was a success but they came off sounding even less connected with the ipod generation than "series of tubes" Ted.
If they want to reach out to we, the younger generations, then they need to stop railing against a common, accepted, everyday activity for 99.9% of us and calling us thieves
no need to dress up in tie-dye and "feel the love", no need to wade through woodstock. Actions speak louder than posing. Stand up for us against the media cartels. Represent US rather than them.
Dump the 3 strikes plan, demand net neutrality instead of net filtering, and if you really want the votes to pour in push and international treaty calling for the charters of all IFPI members to be pulled irrevocably.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Next we'll have an "iConstitution"
It will probably result in the destruction of that institution within one generation -- the "increased publicity" so to speak will help younger people realise how mostly useless an anachronism it is.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't knock it. Australia has Senator On-Line received a mere 8000 votes, but an interesting concept. http://senatoronline.com.au/ Our (well, I am British as well, but cannot vote there as I am not resident) upper house is elected of course.
If they try to "make it cool" in an attempt to make it accessible, it will fail and be quite embarrassing (see HoL rap above!).
If they make it accessible by speaking plainly, relating the issues to how they affect young people, Britain, and the world, it might have a shot at moderate success. (particularly if they show it in schools)
In any event, if executed halfway decently, I believe they should be commended for trying, regardless of the outcome.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Apparently, the House of Lords is very loyal to the populace. They claim they will never tell lies, let us down, or hurt us.
Thanks for correcting my mistaken assumption that someone out there elects these guys too (still more than willing to believe there's a small group on Crown Street that actually "elects" them in the same way they elect the crucial members of the US Congress too, and in the same way they permit the Queen to "run the show" so long as she runs it the way they tell her to.)
.38 Special, and not even a gun to shoot them off with. They've disarmed the populace out of fear of revolution, not fear of murder or "populist knee jerk" programs.
And if people weren't kept in a complete vacuum of thought that the public schools enforce, perhaps they wouldn't NEED to vote for crooks to redistribute other people's wealth, or depend on other crooks to lord over them. And if they didn't try to harm others (rich or poor notwithstanding) then they wouldn't need self appointed "der ubermensch" to come think for them and prevent their folly.
Besides, its not like the House of Lords prevented England from turning into an overt police state in the last 15 years. So throwing a pittance to the shackled masses isn't exactly what I call "benevolent"... I call it "saying nice doggie until you find a big enough rock." I mean, England is small enough that they can't hide without fleeing the shores, should a revolution start. Thus, the Lords have to do something to make them look friendly to the masses, should the masses finally wake up to reality and do as Mencken suggested, and "spit on their hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats." Why else do you think there would be so damn many cameras in London, yet they always fail to protect civilians... what other purpose would such a panopticon serve? Though that DOES explain why some woman in England could go to prison for a 3 years for possessing a mere 12 rounds of
Thankfully the english are more cowed than their fellow socialists in America and even Europe. They're great at subjugating other cultures (as was proven by their rape of the new world and of asia and some of africa) but they're miserable at being anything but obedient subjects. The English, however, don't even need to be brainwashed by force anymore, they brainwash themselves. Its a great time to have a fancy title in England and be worshipped by the masses.
As for their wondrous achievements, I wonder if they were achieved the same way as dictators from certain communist dictatorships received degrees from Harvard or Yale or even, "gasp" your vaunted Oxford. One has to wonder how the wife of Nicolae Ceausescu, who, from all accounts never got into middle school, somehow became a PHD in chemistry while visiting "the west"?? I'm fairly sure the dictators were equally as qualified as the Lords in England, but the question is, who qualified them, and for what purpose? Lording over a nation comprised mostly of Proud Chavs doesn't exactly make them worthy of respect.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
anybody that rickrolls them will be spending 42 days at her majesties pleasure tho.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
"Represent US rather than them"
I would argue that everybody should be represented in the house of Lords. And in general the people who are appointed have either held power or are well versed in 'speaking truth to power'. Together they make up a broad political cross-section of society that is largely driven by the priciples of science and law, it's quite amazing sometimes to sudenly hear a politican make sense and express doubt when they have been freed from the schackles of party policy. I would also argue that the US copyright regime and a large spontaneous US festival in the 60's should not be on top of their agenda.
IMHO setting up shop on youtube is an excercise in transperancy (others may see it as propoganda), either way there are plenty of old farts from the 60's like me who use it, and transperancy (or access to all propoganda's if you like) is always a GoodThing(TM). OTOH the second life thing sounds like an experiment with 'the new media' that was sold to someone without a clue, I would expect better from THoL.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Slashdot Jeopardy! "I'll take government and media for four hundred." "UK's House of Lords Speaks To Voters Via YouTube, Blogs" "What is the last resort of the UK to get this generation to become engaged in politics?" "Correct Charles!"
Next we'll have an "iConstitution"
For some reason I have a sneaking feeling that we will have been better off BEFORE this "iConstitution"...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I've often wished that governments and politicians would use a blog system like Slash. Contentious issues are so prone to all the problems slash was designed to deal with - think how good it would be!
Hopefully this is the first step in that direction.
I wonder if slash is up to the task of handling such contentious material? Politicians and their "offices" can be so viciously manipulative sometimes...
A nice summary, but you forgot one other factor; because positions in the Lords are not dependent on party privilege, it is more or less impossible for a chief whip to force the Lords to toe a line because kicking them out of the party damages the party more than the Lord/Lady. As such the party structure in the Lords is what it used to be in the commons; a convenient system of shorthand labels for broad factions within an individualistic populace.
Erm...what? I don't know where to start...
Let's go with;
Firstly; rank and privilege are actually not respected by the majority here.
The British consitution, as it stands, establishes the supremacy of both Parliament as a whole and the Commons within Parliament. The English Civil War(War of Three Kingdoms), Act of Settlement and Glorious Revolution firmly cemented Parliament's control over the monarchy. The Commons controls the finance and inheritance of the Crown. The Crown retains the theoretical ability to veto, but otherwise it truly is a constitutional placeholder. The supremacy of the Commons within Parliament is established by the Parliament acts of 1911 and 1949, allowing it to pass laws without approval from the Lords. The Lords now is relegated to the role of, effectively, saying "are you sure you want to do that?"
I think the Lords is anachronistic, but a house independent of the masses seems to work well. After all, the masses who apparently yearn for freedom from government and want to hoist the black flag are about 70% in favour of the state detaining people for 42 days without charge.
Admittedly I can't think of anything more Socialist than that, but I'm not sure how you're combining the threads of anarchism and socialism, which are self-evidently like oil and water as far as political theories go, so I don't really know where you're coming from. If I had to choose between the two, I'd choose anarchy, but I'd rather have a system that works.
It's not just the House of Lords. Here are two YouTube videos of Sir Norman Fry (of the House of Commons) explaining a few things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72ZO6w0rl6Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF6eRIAA6mE
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
"For your information.... the House of Lords is not an elected body, it consists of members who have been given the priviledge (with a very few now who have inhereted it)."
Ironically, the remaining hereditary peers are the only members of the Lords who stood for any kind of election to gain their seats.
use a Wiki to allow laws to be written
I think the grandparent meant it more like "we need someone to make our votes/decisions for us"...
Yes, but it's also a concept begging for a raid by 4chan....maybe it's for the better that they weren't elected ;)
Between the falling angel and the rising ape
The great thing about being a non-elected lord is that you don't have to do and think vile things to get elected. Perhaps it's a sad fact, but true. Years ago, there was a police attack on a number of really quite harmless hippies in Wiltshire. Unfortunately a member of the Lords was passing by on his motorcycle, observed the whole thing and reported it to the Lords. The outcome was not pleasant for the police. I am quite sure that a local elected politician would not have rocked the boat in this way.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
They don't make the decisions, the House of Lords cannot create or pass laws. All they can do is approve or reject bills that are sent to them by the House of Commons. If they reject a bill, the Commons can modify it or not as they see fit and send it back again. A few years ago the Parliament Act was passed to give the government a means of forcing a bill through when the Lords repeatedly reject it, although I don't know the details of it.
To be perfectly frank, at times the Lords is the only thing standing between us and yet another stupid, knee-jerk law that would do more harm than good. If you've been following UK news lately you'll have seen a number of instances of bad anti-terror laws being abused to do things including making sure families are in the right area for the school they want to send their children to to enforcing local rubbish disposal rules.
Oh, and none of the Lords are self-appointed; some inherited their titles from their parents, while these days most are awarded them by the government.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You've got to be a troll, because only a troll could deliberately misunderstand the way the British Parliamentary system works so badly. Where's my (-1, Wrong) moderation option?
Pirate Party UK
Mod parent up.
Unfortunately, it also seems to lead to a rather nasty strain of eliteism. Check out this indictment of referendums. Yeah, I kid you not, the guy thinks referendums are on principle a bad idea because the result can depend on how you phrase the question.
To support this he uses the one of the weakest arguments I've seen for a long time - that based on "surveys" (uncited) if you ask people whether they want an elected second house, they say yes, and if you ask people if you want an expert and independent second house they say yes, so whether you have an elected second house depends on how you phrase the question. The implication is clear - people are sheep and are subject to the whims of a clever question phraser. Why the proles would abolish us if only they were asked in the wrong way!
In other words, if you ask people two unrelated questions that are not correlated (what arrogance, to assume that being elected implies not being expert or independent), people might say yes to both of them. Oh noes!
It's pretty sad that I see sharper and more solid arguments on Slashdot of all places. If this is the quality of argument they make then maybe they should be scrapped!
If they want to connect with todays generation they should fund a new Spitting Image series. At least people could name politicians during the years it was on the air.
To expand on this -- the British system of "constitutional monarchy" with House of Lords and House of Commons has been in existence and working fairly stably for over half a millennium. If it was such a terrible, terrible idea, and doomed to failure by neglecting the needs of the common man in favour of putting wealth and power in the hands of only a privileged few, one would expect that it would have been overturned by bloody revolution by now, wouldn't one?
I challenge you to name a country which has had a single governmental system for an equal amount of time, without revolution or major constitutional reforms.
Consider that having a wholly unelected chamber might be a good thing, allowing longer-term problems to be actually dealt with rather than merely wallpapering over the cracks well enough to get to the next election.
Pirate Party UK
Seriously, this is like the fifth time I've seen this on /. Sure, for a time flash support wasn't too great with Linux, but who is so annal about open standards that they won't use a free and multi-platform service like flash. OSS and commercial software both have the right to exist you know.
Anyway, its a good idea for the lords. They have a major image problem and need more programs like this to correct it.
Actually, the British Monarchy has a very nice web site at http://www.royal.gov.uk/ and a YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/theroyalchannel.
Sock puppet: be my guest!
Well since Lords are appointed for life what ends up happening is that the current government is watched over by the Lords appointed by the last few governments. It works pretty well. Many of the Lords appointed by the current government are seen in the House as sock puppets and don't get a lot of respect.
Let's assume you're counting from the Revolution of 1688 to the present - that's 320 years, not 500. The Chinese Ming Dynasty would be comparable, at 276 years; as would the Ottoman Caliphate, at 350 years, and the Sassanid Empire in Persia, at 425 years. The heyday of the Byzantine Empire from, say, 395 to 1025 would beat them all, at 630 years.
My point? Stability doesn't necessarily come from democracy, and longevity isn't necessarily a sign of justice.
Ok - How easy is it to fake a YouTube Video?
If you say that it is from the government, what if it isn't? Where is the link from?
The TV is more official than You Tube. What do you think people do after they look at these? Make fun of them and make blog jokes.
I suggest you to go to that blog and read a few entries yourself. I haven't noticed any attempts to "make it cool" there from the first glance - only serious and rather in-depth comments on interesting political issues.
Actually, they can initiate legislation (with the exception of some financial bills).
Wikipedia has an article on the Parliament Acts. The first one was passed in 1911 when the Conservative-dominated Lords rejected the Liberals' budget, essentially out of self-interest (it would have increased taxes on wealthy landowners, many of whom sat in the Lords). In its present form, the Parliament Act prevents the Lords from delaying most bills for more than two sessions (one year) and money bills for more than one month. It's generally a last resort and has only been used seven times since 1911.
All but ninety-two of the hereditary peers were expelled in 1999.
Actually, the House of Lords is not such a bad idea, except for the heredity thing. For one thing, it's the only way somebody who's not in the idle rich to participate in politics. It's the elected bodies around the world that are bastions of elitism these days, except it's economic elitism.
Now, a House of Lords that was selected by an open lottery, rather than a hereditary one, would be an interesting idea. Maybe you'd require some level of educational attainment, say make it open to anybody with an advanced degree.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Or rather, I wouldn't be surprised if one did.
The unelected house of lords appears to be contributing most of the good governance of the UK whilst the elected house of commons is contributing most of the crappy stuff.
If we can't fix our system of government (the main probably being we lack a proper head of state, leaving the head of government with excessive powers) then how can we convince younger generations that democracy is worth it?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
The UK is the most stable democracy on this entire planet, so I think we've got a pretty good idea of what works and what can go wrong.
The UK Lords may send their dry message via youtube, but only American Judges send pr0n.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
Oh yes the more they try and make it "cool" the more they might become a laughing stock rather than getting the message across then it will end up being satirised on one of our television shows and that will ice the proverbial.
Let's hope it does have a positive effect as too many youngsters do not have a clue about politics and either don't go and vote or go and vote for the one with the weirdest name / nicest colour badge etc.
Personally I use messenger to get my kids to come for their tea and it works a heck of a lot better than shouting them!
Got any more exploding carrots? Sleep is a symptom of coffee deprivation
Class distinction through self appointed title is bad enough, but to call yourself "Lord".... that's just rings of egoooooooo.
Anarchism and Socialism are hardly like oil and water; most respected branches (that is, not the ludicrous "anarcho"-capitalism and the like) come under the branch of social Anarchism, and Anarchism has much shared history with communism (despite the communists habit of shooting us -.-)
What I wouldn't do for the ability to mod "-1, Plain Wrong"
As a school teacher I would love to show such videos in tutor time as a discussion starter.
However, like all schools in my city and many across the country, YouTube is blocked by admins paranoid about "inappropriate content".
This is a major problem with places using YouTube as their video host, I'd rather the goverment didn't use systems that government employees deem unsuitable.
And it's for i386 only, at a time when 64bits processors are almost standard.
Thus forcing 64bits Linux users to either use an additional unsupported layer to adapt it into 64bits browser, or to switch back to a 32bits software.
There's no flash on the iPhone.
There's no flash on the PS3/Linux.
There's no flash on most PDAs.
There's no flash for anything else except i386. Not for any of the various embed processor you may find on modern internet tablets.
All those alternate usages have to either get blocked because they lack flash and the websites' designers didn't think of an alternative possibility ; or they have to use 3rd party plugins like Gnash or SWFDec.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Are you an American? If so, think of the way the Supreme Court of the United States is appointed.
The parliament act was created in 1911 and update in 1949 - admittedly this government has used it 3 of the 7 times it has been invoked, but it was not recently passed.
The Lords can and do introduce bills, although by tradition not financial bills. They are mainly used for technical non controversial bills as you cannot use the parliament act to force through a bill introduced by the Lords.
The parliament act was created in 1911 and update in 1949 - admittedly this government has used it 3 of the 7 times it has been invoked, but it was not recently passed. The Lords can and do introduce bills, although by tradition not financial bills. They are mainly used for technical non controversial bills as you cannot use the parliament act to force through acts introduced by the Lords
Since we're talking about the House of Lords, does that mean that they're preparing YouTube videos with the Queen as the intended audience?
This is what is hard to understand:
And the Commons votes to increase surveillance of people through cams.
The Lords opens its own doors to cams.
I mean isn't this a paradox?
The people who need NOT be concerned about people do the best for them. And the bastards that need to heed to people trample upon them and get re-elected.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Where are you from that the assumption is arrogant? I definitely live in the "sad but true" part of the world and would like to come there.
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
I challenge you to name a country which has had a single governmental system for an equal amount of time, without revolution or major constitutional reforms.
You can't there isn't one. and while it isn't 'half a millenium' (its 300 years give or take) our parliamentary system is, for good reason, called the "mother of all parliaments".Sure it isn't perfect, no one system is, but it does work and for those that forget, I believe we are also one of, if not, the only sovereign state that has moved from Monarchy to a replublic, didn't like what we had and went back to a monarchy again.
The 'problem' is, if there is one, is just one or perception. We have a very vociferous media that personally I think do more to stir up emotional feeling (good or bad) than any real dialogue does.
I'm glad that the Lords are at least trying to 'reach out', if people took the time to listen and read, rather than just spout the latest soundbite from the press I think they would realise what a good job they do. Yes there is the parliament act, but if this is used (and there have been many bills that have been thrown out, or stopped - and they don't all go back and become law eventually - or have been heavily modified), if this act is used to roughshod over bills, then this can play into the hands of the opposition parties.
Remember, the fox hunting ban which was when the last time the parliament act was used, was a ban that was generally supported by most of the Lower House. The '42 day' debacle isn't as cut and dried with a 315 - 306 yes/no vote, so I don't see the act being used here if it gets thrown back (and it has to get thrown back 3 times), I exepect to see it heavily modified (there is more to this terrorist bill than just the 42 day issue).
This issue at the moment is purely political, if the govenrment hadn't passed the 2nd reading, then they would have been seen as very weak. Our Prime Minister is not popular at the moment, and he was backing this amendment. So it was in his political interest to show strength as a leader. had he lost, I am not sure if he could have gone on much longer with the way he was championing this bill.
Now he has won, he has (I think) split the country.
What will happen if the Lords push this bill back again and again? Will the government concede? or will they use the act and really been seen as riding rough shod over everything.
Maybe by then something else will have come along to rescue the PM's popularity and he can then give in and be seen as a 'reasonable' PM. We live in interesting (if slightly scary) times
That's a challenge you can't meet, either. It has most definitely not been 500 years since the last major rebellion in the UK. The Glorious Revolution was in 1688 and there were continued uprisings from that up until the mid-18th century. And since that time, a large portion of the country has actually led a successful rebellion and formed a new republic. That's Ireland in case you're confused.
Ok, let's go back to basic principles;
Anarchism advocates freeing the individual from the bonds of society, normally by destroying the state and any similar non-voluntary associations. This would imply small or no state.
Socialism advocates a centrally planned economy in order to achieve some arbitrary centrally defined concept of fairness and to free workers from the yoke of capital. This implies nothing but the state.
I know that anarcho-socialism is very popular, and has a long history of deep, scholarly dispute behind it. But so does the "mystery" of the Holy Trinity, and that's still a self-contradictory nonsense. I think anarcho-socialism is in the same boat.
"So the government gets to choose who will watch over the government?"
All the parties represented in the Commons put forward candidates for a Peerage in proportion to the number of seats they hold. They are often party politicians but not always -- for example Mary Warnock was made a Baroness and Life Peer in 1984 after her work chairing the Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology. As a member of the House of Lords she has been instrumental in shaping the legislation that has helped make the UK a world leader in cloning and embryology research.
I wasn't sarcastic about House of Lords, but rather about the way the GPP defends the fact they are (undeniably) undemocratic institution (regardless whether they are doing any actual harm or good).
In true democracy, there are no "populist" proposals. Either majority of people wants the proposal, and then it should be accepted, or majority doesn't want it, and then shouldn't. People can hear the expert opinion, but the final decision is theirs. If you don't like that, you don't like democracy, plain and simple.
I admit, I vigorously oppose anyone who doesn't
want democracy, because I believe it's the best system (though there is also empirical evidence). Not just to date, I can't imagine it to be any fairer.
And frankly, I am allergic to that word "populist", because every time the government wants to shove something through our throats, it calls the opposition that way. Also, please do not confuse that with "populist politicians" - it is a valid term for someone who breaks promise that he will act on behalf of the majority.
And maybe, maybe, it is House of Lords who is actually being populistic (= acting in the interests of majority), because the proposals of government that GGP mentions may be disagreed with by many people.
It would be great to have Lord CrossHearted Conrod Black create a video from his jail cell. It would inspire all youth to use corporate assets for personal gain.
Really.
it is the best excuse to envolve the youth in the political rivalry.they should probably write a book on xcuses.an xcuse pls: i want to sleep in my history class what can i say to my teacher? ummm maybe that i was listening her with my eyes closed.what say . politicions should not bring there messy affairs to blogs pls.and by the way what are they doing beeing huddled on a computer when they should be campaining outside.
Locking people up for whatever time is nothing to do with Socialism, as it is nothing to do with economic liberalism. However, if anything, those on the political left are far *less* inclined to lock people up without charge.