Via D-Notice I see that this afternoon is another registration day for one of Mark Thomas‘ Mass Lone Protests, forms to be handed in at the Police Station on Agar Street, just up from Charing Cross station. As I’m in London (flat, then job, hunting), might as well register my presence.
If anyone else cares to join us, I’ll probably be in a pub for a bit afterwards as well (no idea which pub, naturally, I’m not, yet, a Londoner)…
When I started writing at NLE, I wasn’t a member of any particular party; I was fairly disillusioned with the whole process of party politics generally and partizan sniping as a specific. Far too often, politics and politicians seemed to be about what you were opposed to, not what you were in favour of. The more I wrote, and read the thoughts and opinions of others, the more my views and opinions were refined.
(more…)
Well, Mark Thomas’ demo seems to have gone ok, shame I couldn’t make it. I’m so looking forward to moving to London. Anyway, how about this as a reaction?
But the protest has had its critics, with Tory London Assembly member Brian Coleman calling them “sad, mad and bad”.“Is this really the image we want to give of London - tourists whose income we rely on for the jobs and prosperity of our city?”
Well no you fool. That’s the whole damned point!
Ye gods, this sort of thing is bad for the image of London because it highlights the absurdity of the laws that affect London. Remove the stupid law and you’re fine. Gah!
As Liadnan puts it:
“Bugger civil liberties, think of the tourist trade?” And in what universe would the tourist trade be adversely affected?What a tedious cock.
Still busy, distracted and not in the mood for serious blogging. Week off next week, might, hopefully, clear my head. In the meantime, I await the reports of the event from those that were able to attend.
Terry Waite (of kidnapped and held as hostage fame) in Wednesdays Independent (not online):
I wish more people would take notice of…
The gradual and insidious restriction of personal liberties in this country as a result of the hype about terrorism. There is a tendency in this government to be reactive without thinking deeply. We’re letting a lot of things slip by. If we allow that to happen, terrorism has won because it’s deprived us of hard-fought liberties.
(my emphasis)
I have been talking to Agnes Callamard, who leads a free speech charity called Article 19, and she tells me that wherever she now goes on her missions, she finds a shocking new phenomenon. She has just been to the Maldives, where the government is engaged in active repression of the press, shutting down radio stations and locking up journalists if they even carry quotations from the opposing MDP. When she remonstrated, she was told that any criticism was a bit rich coming from a British organisation, given that the British Government has just passed draconian new measures against incitement in the Terrorism Bill.It was the same story in Nepal, where torture has been used regularly against opponents of the regime, and where there are similar restrictions on free speech. “A senior government official told us that they were only cracking down on terrorists, in the way that they do in the UK,” said Callamard.
picking the exerpt to quote on that one was hard, go read the whole article; when I disagree with him, I respect Boris’s writing style. When I agree with him (as in this case)? Brilliance.
It’s reading Boris and similar that has led me to conclude that not all the Tories are evil bastards. That’s still hard for a part of me to accept. But I’d rather have Boris in Govt than the current shower, at least he values the principles we’re supposedly fighting the war on terror to defend.
Final word:
Of course these analogies are opportunistic and false, and of course there is no real comparison between Britain and Malaysia, let alone Zimbabwe. Thanks to the goodness of the editor of this paper, I can say more or less whatever I want, provided it is not too catastrophic for circulation. But what Blair fails to understand, when he promulgates this endless succession of new and ineffective Criminal Justice Bills, and when he curtails trial by jury and freedom of speech, and when he enacts all the other potential erosions of liberty that we have seen over the past nine years, is that he is handing a perfect pretext to the despots of the world.
OK, it came into force. As Garry observes, that means it’s now illegal to say nice things about, for example, this guy. In addition, Peter Hain will now have problems writing his memoirs (if/when he finally leaves office), as he’s also guilty of acts now defined as terrorist under laws he voted for.
Of course, Hain’s an arse anyway, his current wheeze is an attack on the idea of Regional top-up AMs in Wales. Well, yes Peter, we know they’re a crap idea. We told you that at the time. We said use a system that kept a constituency link, but oh no, NuLab had to adopt a system that (supposedly) gave it the advantage. Create a system, then decide it’s not working, so blame those that were forced to work within it instead of the system itself. Useless terrorist fool. Peter Black has more; he doesn’t like how he was elected, but you do what’s needed, right?
On the subject of Governments changing electoral systems in an attempt to give their own party an advantage, isn’t Italy watching fun? At least, it would be, if the media were actually covering the story properly. The best coverage I’ve found hasn’t been the BBC, nor any boradsheets, but blogs. The media is simply regurgitating cliches, and lying (or, to be charitable, simply not understanding) the way Italians vote. There’s an excellent description, including regional breakdown, here. Silvio tried to rig the system, owns most of the broadcast media, controlled a lot of the rest via the Govt, and still they voted him out (just).
The Italian electoral system, now I’ve read about it, is even more crazy than the Israeli system. It says something when two countries have system that are actually as bad, if not worse, than ours. Or, are they?
I’d have said yes, but look at those turnout numbers in Italy. Everyone voted, everyone took it seriously, it mattered. More parties than I can count, but everyone gets to vote for what they care about. You most certainly can’t say that all Italian politicians are the same. It’s still a daft system, but it does show how the “western malaise” supposedly affectig democracy doesn’t, necessarily, apply. Friend of mine was at a big trade fair show in Bologna over the weekend. Major stall holders were shutting up and leaving early, from their biggest annual event, in order to get home and vote.
Would us Brits bother doing that? The Italian electoral system (especially the new one that Berlusconi created) is unstable, and no one is seriously suggesting it for the UK. Instead, we want a reformed constituency system. I’ve gone on about it before, plenty of times, but Peter Blacks post above gives another good series of reasons why list systems are wrong.
Life is busy, I’m busy, and light blogging mode is on. New project in the works, we’ll be moving soon, details to follow when I’ve got everything sorted out. In the meantime, on the subject of revamped blogs, take a good look at the new Liberal Review. I’ve been asked to write a bit onconstitutional refor (sorry Rob, swamped), in the meantime, it’s taken onboard the Apollo Project team, and taking guest columns, including a pretty good one from Tim.
Bastards. I believe, given that the deputy to the sweaty baboon has answered in Parliament that we can renew at any time, that they’d have a hard job of changing the rules now. So the plan to renew next year proceeds apace.
I went to the pub this evening, met up with Chris and also the local No2ID organiser. Get involved. Even if it’s just to give up a morning leafletting instead of shopping. If you can’t see a local organiser? Any reason why you couldn’t get together with friends and become one? This needs to be a campaign on two fronts, one is civil disobediance; renew your passport early, don’t register, refuse to register, get fined, refuse to pay, get headlines and the rest.
The second is electoral. I repeat the earlier statement; at the next General Election, ask every candidate:
If they don’t promise to do so, make sure they’re not elected.
Between now and then? Councils across the country have passed resolutions on the issue. Local elections are coming up in much of the country. Make it an issue. Some people (and I’m one of them) have a bit of a problem with national issues effecting local campaigns. But this really does affect everything.
Big picture? I repeat my call. At the next General election, we’ll need to ensure we have a strong tactical voting campaign against any candidates that refuse to repeal this Act. Other issues, such as Leg/Reg, etc also matter. But this one, to me, is the big one.
We have to get them out.
In the meantime?
There’s still much, much talk of a ‘coronation’. The Labour party has a strong tradition as a democratic party. I’ve voted Labour in the past FFS. Don’t let the give Brown a coronation; make sure there’s a leadership campaign, make NIR an issue.
We cannot (and will not) submit to a database state. To arms my friends, to arms.
Remember when I said this?
on 80% of the issues that matter to me, I’m pretty close to the Lib Dems
Well, some people took that to mean I agreed with the LibDems 80% of the time. Not true. On the ‘big’ issues (is the ones I write about here), the Lib Dems are the most sound. On others? Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear: (more…)
The bill got passed. We are all to be numbered and categorised. I will not submit. So, we have some heroes, some villains, and some dodgy characters. Heroes (more…)
I just don’t get it. First off, the government tries to say that passports wont be compulsory because people don’t ‘need’ to have passports. The opposition see it for the lie that it is, and rightly oppose it. Charles Clarke gets laughed at in the house of commons for uttering such a barefaced lie.
Fast forward a couple of weeks. Same situation, the government is now trying to convince everyone that everything about the ID card system is fine, because it will be delayed by four years. This time though, the opposition buys it, hook, line and sinker.
Why? Why, after opposing the bill for so long and forcing the government into ever increasing ridiculousness, after laughing at this country’s Home Secretary for the length to which he was willing to lie for Tony and his bill, after it has been proven time and time again that ID card wont help to stop terrorism, wont reduce crime, will be abused by the police and the government, why did they cave in just like that?
I honestly thought this was going to go all the way to the Parliament Act, and at least to some extent I can hold my head up high and say that my party of choice did try their best to ensure this happened. I completely agree with the comments on Spyblog about the lack of trust over civil liberties from the Tories; slim chance though it was, David Cameron has just lost any chance of getting my vote.
I honestly do not think that I have ever got this riled up about any act or bill or law ever introduced, and that includes the fox hunting ban which I campaigned to be introduced quite passionately. This system will not only destroy a good deal of our ‘civil liberties’ and ‘personal privacy’, but it will almost certainly be a huge failure will gaping security holes which will compromise individuals across the whole country.
I will not carry an ID card, and I will not allow my personal information to be held on any register. I would urge everyone to follow Mat’s ideas below and refuse to vote for any candidate in an upcoming election that will not vote to do away with the national identity register.
So, how long before I need to renew my passport then?
The Lord have caved in with a compromise that makes it worse, not better. You’ll still be stamped and categorised, they’ll still put your data on a centralised “secure” register, but you can have the sop of believing that you don’t need a card.
Central pledge required from all candidates at the next General Election:
If they don’t sign up to it, campaign against them. Regardless of party affiliation. I refuse to be ‘registered’.
Henry Porter at Comment is Free:
The failure to register will be punished by a maximum fine of £2,500. The failure to apply in a manner prescribed (whatever that means) to renew your ID, or to inform the national identity register of a change of your details, or to surrender the ID card, or to notify the register of an invalid card, will all incur a maximum fine of £1,000.
Read that through again. £2,500 fine if you forget to tell them you’ve changed your details?
As someone who perpetually forgets to file paperwork, whose drivers licence is still the one I was first issued 13 years ago registered at my parents address (perfectly legally I add), this scares the shit out of me. Why do they need a £2,500 fine for what they’re selling as an ‘entitlement’ card?
The Lords have fallen for it. After a heroic, drawn-out defence they’ve been conned into believing it’s the cards, rather than the database that backs up the cards, that’s the problem.
To describe any part of the ID card mess as ‘absolutely clear’ is either laughably delusional or grossly dishonest. The problem with Burnham is that it’s hard to decide which applies.
More able to control access to my identity? What is this rubbish? How does an identity database protect my fingerprints, date of birth, iris pattern etc. etc. from being stolen? Doesn’t it store all of those things in one handy central place? How does this stop my credit card or name being used? Answer: it doesn’t and it won’t.
Most Conservatives abstained, but 24 of them including their Home Affairs front bench spokesmen David Davis, Edward Garnier and Patrick Mercer voted with the Labour Government. Only 8 Conservatives voted against the motion with the Liberal Democrats.
It seems that David Cameron’s NuTories cannot be trusted on civil liberties issues any more than Michael Howard’s Tories could be.
People are beginning to see that ID cards are not being introduced so that they can identify themselves but rather so that the government can identify them and keep track of every important transaction in their lives.
They’re a corrupt bunch of liars as well.
I think it’s pretty much established amongst the informed bunch that read this blog that something is rotten in the state of Britain. Liberty Central is a good project aimed at working out a new way of governing the country. Hopefully, it can be used to build pressure to sort the whole mess out.
The big problem is that for many, reformers are a series of disparate, single issue campaigners. We have:
My issue with this; all of the problems are interlinked. Each feeds of each other, it’s a systemic problem within the British polity.
It has come about because a government that was initially radical and prepared to decentralise heavily has acquired cold feet and isn’t prepared to address the real issues and concerns of those that haven’t (yet) had power devolved from Westminster. Yet, ultimately, very few if any are genuinely calling for the complete break up of Britain, the Scots Nats appear to be losing, not gaining, ground in Scotland and the CEP is adament that they want parity for England within the UK (or Britain, depending on whether the person in question wants to keep the 1800 Act).
Virtually every other country of significance that has a bicameral Parliament draws its second chamber members as representatives of the next highest administrative level. US and Australian Senators are elected directly, the German Bundesrat members are sent as representatives of the Lander assemblies, etc.
I favour this approach, in part, for the Lords (or whatever we call the replacement). So, in order to solve the increasingly urgent issue that is the make up of the second chamber, we also need to figure out what level below Westminster we want as well.
It specifically encourages a two-party system, yet increasingly a market orientated society wants genuine choice at election time as well, two-party politics doesn’t cut it any more. So we have a government elected with a fairly substantial majority with much less than 40% of the vote; compare this to 1992, when John Major got the highest number of votes cast since 1945, and a higher vote share than either Maggie or Blair ever acheived, yet had a wafer thin majority.
This leads to a worried government, that plays to a perceived gallery for headline grabbing initiatives, yet one that knows, deep down, that while it has a ‘legitimate’ mandate, it does not have a popular mandate; protesters are limited and arrested as never before, yet are increasingly likely as what are viewed as traditional liberties are encroached upon as never before.
Part of the recommendations of the Power commission is a new Concordat. Essentially, they are right. As Nosemonkey points out in comments here, the Bill of Rights is effectively irrelevent. Yet any constitutional historian worth their salt can confirm that the Bill of Rights is the founding principle of the modern parliamentary system. If it’s no longer relevent, what is?
A study of the US shows that such exercises in aspic setting can, in later years, come back to bite you; the veneration of their outdated document the Americans show is worrying, let alone damaging. We need a new Bill of Rights, new Acts of Settlement. We need a British solution.
We, all of us, who are concerned with the constitution, who want to address these issues, need to work together to pressure our rulers to call a new convention. This may be a good place to start.
Andrew (whose comment I quoted here) comes on board: (more…)
Update: changed a few misleading titles, nothing deleted, for honesty’s sake.
So, James and Joe ask a very important question and raise some valid concerns; what is the campaign for. By defining it as purely against Labour, James is correct when he says:
If there is to be a “coalition of the willing” on civil liberties issues, then let it be for real civil liberties, not a handful that Conservatives have deemed electorally useful to cherry-pick. Let it concentrate on individual candidates and politicians, tactically opposing any candidate who doesn’t sign up to X, Y, Z rather than letting individuals off the hook and supporting “best fit” political parties who subsequently will be under no pressure whatsoever to carry out their reforms.
We have to be careful to be in favour of something, not just against something. We need to be campaigning for liberty and reform, not just against the current government, we need to be a positive force, not a negative force.
(more…)
OK, Unity of Talk Politics has already registered a domain, so part 2 is in progress, completely independently. Link to follow, naturally, when there’s something to link to. He’s also said he’ll post more on the subject over the weekend on his blog, so watch that space as well. Initially, I was put off the name by connotations in modern politics, but then Nosemonkey reminded us all of the title of J.S. Mill’s seminal work, On Liberty. (more…)
Well, that’s stage one complete, get peoples attention. Thanks to all the links people.
Now, stage two. Um, right. (more…)
The handy thing is, as there’s no accepted definition of terrorism, it would be entirely possible to argue (and a number of historians have) that the Glorious Revolution was a terrorist act. And please note the name. That’s right, “Glorious” - glorifying terror if ever I saw it.
Sounds reasonable to me. It’s not the first time we’ve discussed 1688 around here either.
Anyone would think Chris Huhne had been reading this blog:
The new divide in British politics is between “civil liberties” and “authoritarianism”, Chris Huhne, a Liberal Democrat leadership contender, said last night. Mr Huhne attacked Tony Blair for being “illiberal”, and the Tories for being unreliable defenders of liberty.
I know, it’s not just me saying these things, but it’s definately the sort of thing I want to hear from a candidate and potential Prime Minister.
For the record, I issued the challenge and never updated; I didn’t join the LibDems within the deadline, but I strongly suspect I will before too long. The reason I didn’t was purely personal and financial. It may only be 6 quid, but when you’re at the edge of the overdraft and the credit card is maxed out, 6 quid is a lot.
However, I do know who I want to see as Lib Dem leader, and more specifically, who I don’t. Huhne, despite his public school/journalism background, wins. Hands down. He’s a great writer, and more importantly, he takes the importance of policy and ideas seriously. I hope he does well, and I’d love to see him win. More. I’d love to see him in Number 10. He’s genuine, he believes in freedoms and liberties.
Failing that, I suspect Ming Campbell will take the spot. At first, I was opposed, too old, too Scottish, too patrician. He’s turned me around on that one, he can speak well, he can put the case, and I think he genuinely believes in what he says. He may be another two Jags, but they’re a hobby, he’s not likely to use one to drive a few hundred metres down the promenade bacause his wife’s new hairdo may get blown about a bit.
Simon? The furore over his ‘outing’ didn’t change my views. The way he handled it (badly) didn’t change my views. I like the guy. He’s honest (he Did Not Lie, if you believe he did, look up the meaning of bisexual and compare it to homosexual/gay), but, essentially, he’s an activists candidate, a doorstepper. All parties need them, and he’s one of the best. But as leader? No. Nice bloke, but not Prime Minister material. If the Lid Dems are serious, they need someone you can see on the steps of Number 10.
That’s not Simon Hughes.
So, I hope Huhne wins. If not, Campbell is pretty much a shoe in from what I can see. If Hughes wins, the party will continue, and continue to pick up Labour defectors, etc. But he’s not the leader to make the breakthrough the LibDems need. And, as the only solidly liberal/libertarian party, the country needs the Lib Dems to be strong, Huhne’s right:
He also attacked the Conservatives as “fair-weather friends” of British liberty and said as party leader he would step up the campaign to defend liberty. “If we, as Liberal Democrats, did not speak up for civil liberties,” he asked, “who would?”
The New Labour project started as a method of making Labour electable again, by bringing under control their less, shall we say, thoughtful, elements. In government, it has taken that controlling tendency further. It is taking control of our lives. (more…)