Lib Dems attack strict stance on rioters as 'bonkers'

Liberal Democrat politicians indicated on Tuesday that they have deep concerns over David Cameron's uncompromising post-riots law-and-order agenda, with the party's home affairs spokeswoman in the Lords telling the Guardian there should be "zero tolerance with zero tolerance".

Lady Hamwee, who led the Lords revolt against Tory plans for elected police commissioners earlier this year, said the pledge by the prime minister of zero tolerance on criminality was taking matters too far. Her comment suggests Cameron will meet stiff resistance when parliament returns in September.

Lib Dem backbenchers went further when contacted by the Guardian and accused their coalition partners of short-termism and kneejerk reactions.

David Ward, MP for Bradford East, described plans to withdraw offenders' benefits as "nuts", and Tessa Munt, the MP for Wells, said the plans were "bonkers, bonkers, bonkers". She said: "Frankly, this all smacks of headline grabbing by Conservatives, not calm, rational policy-making."

The vice-chair of the party's federal policy committee, Evan Harris, said he would table an amendment at the party conference asking members to vote to block Cameron's contemplation of barring individuals suspected of causing social unrest from Twitter and Facebook.

On BBC2's Newsnight, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Tom Brake said: "Clearly there are cases where offenders who have committed very serious crimes should expect very serious sentences and that is what I expect to happen. But there have been some cases where people who have committed petty offences have received sentences which, if they had committed the same offence the day before the riots, they would not have received a sentence of that nature.

"This should be about restorative justice, in other words making people acknowledge the offences they have committed and preferably if the victims want it, actually sit down face to face with the victims so they can hear from the victims the impact they have had, but it should not be about retribution."

The party's welfare spokeswoman, Jenny Willott, echoed deputy leader Simon Hughes's opposition, laid out in the Observer on Sunday, to plans to evict people from council houses.

She said the rehabilitation of people who had rioted required them to have enough money to put a roof over their heads and to eat. "I feel strongly, I don't think we can cut benefits," she said. "I do understand that people feel strongly about this and so instead I think there is something to be said for taking a criminal record and whether someone was involved in the riots into account when considering the allocation of social housing. But what is currently being proposed is counter-productive."

Oh what irony, liberalism is in fact a mental disorder ,and they are calling the idea that rioting and looting scum being severely punished 'bonkers' suggests we have grounds to section the lot of them. Business as usual it seems...

At the end of the day an example and deterrent needs to be set. They've caused hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage so should pay a heavy price..

Oh what irony, liberalism is in fact a mental disorder ,and they are calling the idea that rioting and looting scum being severely punished 'bonkers' suggests we have grounds to section the lot of them. Business as usual it seems...

Anyway, enough about the bankers...

I swear - if an meteoroid fell on London, some people would still find a way to blame it on the bankers.

What makes you say that? Do you deny that the banking bailout is the main cause of the austerity measures?

... Of which the austerity measures (which aren't mostly in place yet) had very little to do with the London riots.

You haven't answered my question.

Because it's irrelevant and woefully simplistic?

Actually proper Liberalism would be heavily against rioting as it harms other people and interferes with the victims freedoms.

Because it's irrelevant and woefully simplistic?

I've said the same of Islam, Christianity and Communism; what is "proper" liberalism?

Actually proper Liberalism would be heavily against rioting as it harms other people and interferes with the victims freedoms.

Go Google Classic liberalism, Mill and shiz

I always wonder why they named themselves liberal democrats when they do not follow classic Millian Liberalism.