I don’t have the time today to do a complete, detailed response to Philip Pullman’s silly piece in the Times a few weeks ago, which has just come to my attention. But let me just quickly tee up the most obvious objections. The piece invokes William Blake to argue that civil liberties are so under threat in today’s UK that democract is effectively a sham.

The nation dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream.

You are not to be trusted with laws

So we shall put ourselves out of your reach

We shall put ourselves beyond your amendment or abolition

You do not need to argue about any changes we make, or to debate them, or to send your representatives to vote against them

You do not need to hold us to account

You think you will get what you want from an inquiry?

Who do you think you are?

What sort of fools do you think we are?

This is a kind of ad hominem argument: that is to say, it doesn’t put forward an argument at all, but simply presents a widely admired author as being on one side of an issue and expects its readers to follow suit out of sheer admiration. It’s the trick every politician pulls when invoking Lincoln, Reagan or Churchill in their speeches: somebody you admire once believed something similar to what I believe in superficially similar circumstances, so you should agree with me. There’s not one sentence - in a 1100-word article - of actual argument against the slew of liberty-infringing laws the article rails against. The effect - the removal of the article’s rhetoric from the reality of the issues at stake - is deepened by the fact that the figure invoked is not even a politician, philosopher, or moralist. He’s a writer - a gifted one, certainly, and one whose writings touched on issues of morality and the role of the state. But not a true political thinker of any stature. There’s not a philosophy being invoked, to which many people nowadays subscribe, which this writer invented or embodied. This simply tells us that a great poet disliked tyranny. Should the fact that Blake diagnosed and condemned sham democracy give us pause today? Well, let’s see what else he advocated. A proto-socialist, he railed against the excesses of capitalism at least as surely as those of government. Do the Times readers enjoying this article subscribe to those aspects of his views, too?

Not that Pullman ought to be concerned with any of this: he is himself, after all, an author. An author, to be precise, of children’s books - highly enjoyable ones, admittedly, with some interesting, if jumbled, religious allusions. But children’s books nonetheless. For him to look to other writers for inspiration in constructing his view of the world, and of politics, is perfectly natural.

But for a serious national newspaper to print it is not. This is a complex issue, deserving of a detailed, nuanced analysis. The list of allegedly freedom-restricting statutes Pullman reels off at the end of the article is just that, a list, and each individual bill contains its own balance between the needs of security and those of liberty. You might well think the government has got that balance consistently wrong. Let’s have a look, citing examples, providing evidence. This is the debate that’s needed; this is the debate it’s a newspaper’s job to provide. Not to give a platform to an author delivering what amounts to a rallying cry for the converted - not intended to win over doubters, but to inspire true believers with the faith that a poet they like would be with them.

Assuming, of course, that Blake would be with them. For an argument could easily be constructed that to compare the democratic situation in Blake’s time with ours now is so callously unfair as to border on the offensive. How can the lines “You are not to be trusted with laws / So we shall put ourselves out of your reach” not mean something utterly different in an age of universal suffrage? No-one can know for sure how Blake would have responded to the threats - both to security and to liberty - that we face today. Even detailed, clear philosophies like those provided by Locke or Marx are hard to apply usefully a century or more on from their writing.

And if this article ignores the immense progress in freedom made in recent centuries, the modern liberty movement also takes a disastrously narrow view of freedom in the context of the present. What about the many positive steps in the last decade? The adoption of the Human Rights Act? The loosening of alcohol licensing is probably a more regular source of joy in the lives of many britons than the presence of CCTV is a worry. What about my freedom to marry my boyfriend? The freedom to travel easily across Europe? The freedom of women and men to work part-time? Blake’s vision of liberty was broad enough to econompass practical, as well as legal, freedom. Why isn’t Pullman’s?

For me to pull out the old caricature of latte-sipping Islington liberals as the only people worried about these things would be engage in an ad hominem argument of my own. But like most stereotypes, it containts a kernel of truth. Only those whose lives are free of discrimination and material want can afford to take  such a narrow view of freedom.