Beware Politicians saying trust me

Below is a copy of a letter sent to the Independent 0n 13th June following an article by the Columnist Steve Richards.

Dear Sir,
             Has Steve Richards become an apologist for authoritarianism? (Whistleblowers are more often enemies of liberty than friends of it - Voices 13th June 2013). For democracy to survive the citizen should adopt a sceptical stance in relation to claims by politicians and others that NSA operations (under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) were within the law and did not monitor the on line activities of Americans. The latter was proven false within 48 hours of President Obama's assertion as the US Government confirmed that it had requested millions of phone records from Verizon to include call duration, location and the numbers of both parties on individual calls. This can only be a pre-cursor to actual monitoring so the words uttered are our old friend the distinction without a difference. The increasing use of the Act can be seen from the following numbers of approved court orders under the FISA:
2009       1329
2011       1745
2012       1856
In that 4 year period only one application was declined.
Having shown that the claim that the FISA did not apply to Americans is false then surely the wording of the Act and the requirement for court orders provide protection for the individual. However that only applies to the USA - no such protection exists elsewhere and the Act (FISA) permits the NSA to investigate any foreign country where it believes US foreign policy interests may be affected. What about the rights of UK and European citizens? Are we a lesser breed?
Steve Richards is also being disingenuous where he states that much of the information about PRISM could have been discerned from publicly available sources followed by thoughtful analysis. Yet it is also claimed that this disclosure has seriously compromised activities via NSA/GCHQ/PRISM. I do not believe that actual or potential terrorists will have missed that!!
As to unintended consequences these are inevitable as would be the case should a Communications Data Bill be enacted in this country. My experience and history show that it is the nature of these bureaucracies to deepen and broaden their activities only to be pulled back after a crisis e.g wrongful imprisonment (remember the Birmingham "bombers").
Yes we do need to be protected against terrorist activities and yes there is a great deal of apathy. That does not mean that elected politicians should simply patronise their electorate by saying leave it to us but should actively engage in a debate about the acceptable balance between security and privacy.


Resources used:
Channel 4 News 10th June interview with Casper Bowden
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-22878591
13th June 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22839609
13th June 2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/us-usa-security-eu-idUSBRE95A0K920130611
Independent 13th June 2013
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/42d8613a-d378-11e2...
p.s. See also http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story_1.html  (published 8th July 2013)

Labour Struggling with its Past

Labour Struggling with its Past

It was almost a shambles as Labour tried to re-position itself in relation to the national budget/austerity and welfare. Liam Byrne on the Sunday Politics (BBC 1 9^th June 2013) was opaque to the point of complete obscurity - he seemed not to have been fully briefed this applies to a number of other MPs when asked (McGovern [Wirral South] Daily Politics 10th June). Smacks of someone not quite sure what is being done nor why!!

Is re-positioning necessary? Given the political timescales that operate in our system the answer is very probably yes plus the pressure the media has been putting on Labour these past few weeks to come up with some concrete policies. This, in part, is a reflection of the success of the Government in portraying Labour as perennially negative as to reform and therefore not capable of dealing with the real issues of budget and austerity. In addressing the issues many would wish that an approach which drew a more complete picture rather than ad-hoc adjustments to existing positions would help. But we are where we are and now it has to be dealt with.

Dealing with the points above as to why and what. The repositioning is necessary as the General Election is less than 2 years away. Clearly the overhang of blame (partial if not wholly, depending on your personal balance of objectivity versus prejudice) has not been washed away (take note Mr Balls) else Labour's lead in the Opinion Polls would be in the upper teens not bouncing along at 5%. And it is not only the polls - just talk to people they know the score - most of them have lived through it unlike many in the shelter of Westminster and Whitehall!

What to do about the budget deficit? Despite what we might wish for there does appear to be resistance to annual public expenditure exceeding more than 40% of GDP (in normal times and in the UK {for a different take look at Sweden}). Money Lenders (for that is what the Bond Markets do) have regard to that figure although politicians can engender or destroy confidence at the slip of the tongue. I am not saying I support this way of doing things - it is the way things are and likely to be so for many years to come. So the deficit has to come down and (football chant) "We all agree reduce the deficit". However simply reducing expenditure in a random way can lead to what Civil Servants politely call un-planned for outcomes e.g. reducing some benefits will reduce income and therefore spending will decrease which in itself will hold back growth which means a greater demand for some benefits - a downward spiral. Some reductions e.g. Disability Allowances where the cost of the additional administration (greater and more rigorous assessments) exceeds expected savings by a factor of at least 50. This is of course nasty politics by the government because if anyone had to be blamed for the financial situation it is not those on disability. Not only is it nasty but it is stupid - they usually go hand in hand. So deciding what is not at all easy. All the more reason to have a growth strategy combined with deficit reduction. Which brings me to getting people to support what you might wish to do. Overwhelmingly people (when asked about benefit recipients) dislike the apparent non contribution that they make. This has to be addressed! It is the main way in which Labour can reclaim credibilty for its 'welfarism'. This principle of definite contribution means that some form of "workfare" has to be introduced. However this can only be the case where the NMW is vigorously enforced and the "Living Wage" becomes adopted widely. Many in Labour will dislike that idea in which case they will have to seek a more electorally successful policy if it exists. Additionally measures to ensure the proper payment of tax (including a Wealth Tax) by corporations and individuals have to go hand in hand with the restructuring of welfare. Labour must also make clear which parts of the welfare budget are sacrosanct and which are not.

Allowing the media to pick ad hoc which policies to discuss is (and always has been) lazy communication. Time for careful thought and much better preparation!

Resources used:

BBC 2 Daily Politics

BBC 1 Sunday Politics

Independent 8,10,11 June 2013

Sunday Telegraph 9 June 2013

www.heritage.org