Spot the human?

I have proof that David Cameron is in league with...

OK, let's look at the facts.

The image on the left was taken from a campaign poster. The image on the right, just a regular photograph. Spot the difference?

The one on the left, so smooth, almost plasticy. It's an auton replica!!

David Cameron is in league with the autons and is using at least one of them to help him out with his campaigning. Must be.

Or it's the result of over done make-up, or even a photoshop job.

Nah.

This. Has got. To Stop.

We seem to be becoming increasingly paranoid about photographers. People taking photographs are being frequently challenged by police. We have increasingly weird ideas of image rights and what permission is needed to take photographs in public spaces.

This is just the latest case.

It is often argued that people taking photographs of things some people don't think are interesting should expect to have to justify themselves. This is a bad and small minded argument, however it doesn't even apply here. He was photographing a church. An actual architectural landmark. Surely that point could be appreciated by even the most unimaginative of idiots?

Apparently not.

Austin Mitchell MP raised an early day motion about police intimidation of photographers. It hasn't seemed to work so follwing this case he has submitted a new one.

Petitions about photography on the Number 10 website have been met with the response that photography in public places is not illegal. This misses the point- it needs to be made clear to the police that it's not illegal and a greater degree of suspision is required before challenging people who photograph in public places. ACPO have in the past issued guidance on what the legal position of Police Officers challenging photographers is. The message appeared not to be getting through to the officers on the ground. Now worried by reports of misconduct in the press, ACPO are issuing their members with a warning. I hope it gets through to beat officers this time.

I'm wondering whether the mistrust of photographers is a problem with police culture, or one in society as a whole which is affecting some individual officers conduct. Either way- the paranoia must stop.

Being watchful and careful in public will make us safer as a nation. But this must be done calmly and intelligently. Fear, paranoia and mistrust do not make us safer.

Further reading:

LibDem Voice:

Tis the Season to be Wary - Lib Dem Voice

Warning: Do not take this picture - The Independent

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws - The Independent

Is Photography the new Crime? - Andrew Reeves

News in Links

A couple of weeks back Professor David Nutt, an advisor on the subject of drugs, was in the media because some things he said contradicted the government's position on the reclassification of cannabis.

Soon after Alan Johnson sacked Professor Nutt claiming that he had campaigned against government policy.

I thought there was something fishy about this, it didn't seem to me like the statements were campaigning, even with the media leaping on them in the way they did. But with work and family I didn't have time to look beyond the headlines. Turns out my feeling was right. Dr Evan Harris, (the Lib Dem MP for Oxford West) covers this in his blog, systematically taking apart the sacking and then Alan Johnson's response to criticism.

I'm not sure whether the campaigning line, that Johnson is still sticking to is his own misunderstanding of the situation, or whether it is an interpretation that he keeps restating in the hope people believe it.

I think one of the funniest lines on this was spoken by Danielle Ward on the news quiz. The moral of the story being if you want people to go along with your ill-thought out policy, you need to pay them, or at least give them a peerage.

Who's platform

I agree that it achieves nothing to censor Nick Griffin and the BNP. Banning his party from question time would have been counter productive, making them cause celebres. I don't believe that anyone watching will get the idea that the BNP have any ideas worth voting for unless they already had racist views.

I keep hearing though that the way to defeat the BNP is to engage with them. Must I? I want to see fewer people voting BNP sure, but I don't want to have to listen to Griffin's bilge. Sorry that's how I feel. I'm not boycotting Question Time in disgust at the BBC, I just don't want to hear that idiot speak.

It may seem undemocratic, or prejudiced, but freedom of speach does not mean people have to listen.

Same old tories?

This is going to be one of those emotional political statements that I disapprove of myself, but I hope you can forgive me.

Listening to the headlines, I'm left with a feeling that the Tories haven't changed. Telling people that the Conservatives are bad news may not be what many people want to hear, particularly those riled to the point of rage with Brown and looking for reasons to justify it.

The overwhelming impression I got from listening to the message of "tough choices" and "all of us in it together", is that these weren't tough choices. Was it an anti-tory reaction, or are they using the post credit-crunch recession and the effect on the country's bank balance to do what they wanted to do anyway? I had the feeling that deep down they wanted to make cuts, and were scarcely suppressing the urge to rub their hands in glee at such an excuse.

Was the gamble that the electorate are so cheesed off with Labour that they'll just accept the Tory line, without any polish or presentation. They won't even be able to shout "liars" when they get what they voted for as its been given to them straight.


Edit: Well it appears my Lib Dem PPC Nader has a similar impression

Mr Pot MP?

There's been so much in my head over the past few months I've wanted to blog about. Facebook and twitter have taken care of much of the personal stuff, that I've ground to a halt.

Do I blog philosophically about the gap between expectations of school leavers and cultural expectations of knowledge of science, maths and technology in adults? Do I talk about attitudes to environmental issues? Do I blog about the worrying trend for rational, evidence based argument to be treated with suspision?

And then... Nigel Farage announces he's stepping down as UKIP leader to symbolically stand against John Bercow. I do hope that more than a politically motivated minority are boggling at this idea.

Transparently Farage is trying to take advantage of the general feeling of rage against MPs to opportunistically go up against the speaker, labelling Bercow as representative of the mainstream that every one is fed up with. Even accepting that the expelled Tom Wise is not representative of the party group, the idea that UKIP are somehow more honourable than the three major parties and the two nationalist ones is a bit of a joke to my mind.

Farage has been a bit vague as to what precisely it is that Bercow is doing wrong as speaker. On the Today programme expenses weren’t mentioned even. This slight of hand can’t surely take many people in, blind anti-MP rage or not.

Daniel Hannan

OK it's a bit cheap but "eccentric" conservative MEP Danniel Hannan has form.

Here he is on Iceland back in 2004 before, er, you know.

Hat tip to Mark C.

Links Update

I've updated the sidebar. James C has moved his blog to a new domain name, and tactfully reminded me on Wednesday. I had already updated the SAGGA Blogs Digest, and my own digest page on bloglines, but forgot to update the sidebar.

Also, given it's been in the news recently, I've included a link to the Lib Dem page about the BAe bribes scandal. You can still catch Monday's Panorama on the subject at the BBC Panorama website.

And I commend these lupins to the house...

The budget today illustrated all that is wrong with the politics of taxation.
The fairest way of reducing taxes would be simply to raise the tax free threshold, so that the benefit is the same for rich and poor alike. But tax thresholds mean nothing to many people fixated on how many "pee in the pound" they pay. Where I work we're all above average when it comes to numeracy, so we soon worked out what tosh this was.

The Conservatives did similar things in the 80s and 90s, they cut allowances and other tax benefits that don't appear on many peoples radars. They could do that because people were misdirected towards the fact they were paying "fewer pee in the pound." Brown has effectively done the same. The 10% and 22% tax bands have been rationalized into one 20% band. So, yes, on the portion of income that was in the old 22% tax band, you are paying less tax. But on the portion of your income in the 10% band your income tax has doubled. Yes the band isn't very wide, but those on less than £18605 (thanks Ryan) will be losing more on the tax increase than they gain on the decrease.

Those on low incomes will not be the only ones to lose out. Unless I missed anything, the restructuring will mean charities will be only be able to claim 25% in gift aid instead of 28%. This means if the amount giftaided remains the same in real terms, the amount charities receive from the Inland Revenue will reduce by 10%. People will have to increase their donations by more than the 2% tax reduction to make up for this.

Gordon Brown is beginning to resemble Monty Python's Dennis Moore as played by John Cleese. To start with Moore robs the rich at gunpoint, and steels useless things like lupins in order to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In the end he gets so confused he ends up taking from the poor in order to give to the rich.

My worry here is threefold. One that those of us who see through the Chancellor's prestidigitation and speak out will be seen as pedants, geeks and weirdos by those who don't realise they are worse off. The second is that many of the people aware of how taxation works will be earning enough to make them better off, and be keeping quietly smug. The third being that this state of affairs was the intention of chancellor Moore.

Reflecting Britain?

A while back, I added my name to a campaign aimed at trying to get more women and ethnic minorities elected to parliament. The reasoning was simple, rather than mess around with complicated and undemocratic short lists, if we simply have enough strong female and ethnic minority candidates putting themselves forward, then more will get selected, and more will get elected, and the Lib Dems will have done our bit in making the running of our country that bit better.

As it was (and possibly still is) few women were putting themselves forward. Fewer women than men have the competitive traits that drive people in politics, and many feel daunted by the whole process of getting elected, quite sensibly not wanting to put themselves through the wringer. There are plenty of people who have the qualities to make good politicians, but not the brass neck to get them there. And having thought through all that, it worries me. While we have so many white, middle class, men representing us in parliament who got there through their own ambition and bloodymindedness, do we have the right men representing us? OK that one is perhaps for another day.

Anyway, the Reflecting Britain solution was yet another that was so simple it was brilliant.
Actively encourage people from underrepresented sectors to put themselves forward. Seek out potential candidates and tell them they can succeed. Then give them training to give them the confidence and skills to get through selection. They proposed proper funding of the existing party organizations focussed on these areas. (I know of three women who would make great diamonds, but none of them are party political, unfortunately). I remember reading a letter from a Mr Hale of St Albans (no relation I presume) pointing out the biggest problem in appointing more female candidates is getting potential female candidates to chose, and these observations resonate with me.

So what happened? There appears to have been some success, with many women selected in winnable seats, but it also seems there is a bit of putting the cart before the horse. My understanding is that there are resources for constituencies that select candidates from underrepresented groups to fight the subsequent elections, but little help in getting the candidates to come forward in the first place. This seems to me to be putting the cart above the horse.

I'm also concerned that with the mixture of ambition, drive, slickness, and thickness of skin needed to get on in politics, that the white middle-class males we get in parliament may not necessarily be the best white middle-class males for the job. But we have more important things to worry about before we tackle that proble,

Lazy Blogging

Well I could be original, but why just rehash what everyone else has said.

So I enjoyed reading this post, think there is some good thinking going on here, and I found this post interesting.

UK government funds peace conference

Well sort of. Good news! Ed Milliband has promised nearly £1,500,000 towards the World Jamboree in Chelmsford this year. The jamboree is a meeting of around 40,000 young people from just about every country, culture, race and religion on the planet, and just what the world needs in these times of misunderstandings.

I hope though that the Government does more to recognise the great role the Scout movement has played in the world over the past century, and the tremendous worth of the work of volunteers in this country. There's a petition over on the number 10 website which says throwing money at us simply isn't enough we need senior politicians making big statements as to how much Scouting means to the UK and the world.

Ideological cross contamination

I may come up with a less psuedy title if I can think of one.

Most of the people or organisations I am involved with are interested in people being nice to each other in some way. The Lib Dems believe in a society where we balance the values of liberty, equality and community, and where no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity. [1] Which basically boils down to lets all get along and be nice to one another and encourage people to improve and grow. The Scout Association believes in encouraging the physical, spiritual and mental development of young people [2], and the ways it does this is by encouraging them to help others, be aware of the world around them, and to understand other cultures. This seems to boil down to more or less the same thing.

Sometimes I wonder though, whether I’m reading my own values into the stated values of both organisations and imagining stuff that isn't there. It is true to say that there are many in both who don’t fully subscribe to the values of the organisations they are members of. Some Lib Dems who are really socialists not liberals, or indeed join the party because it's nicer than the others. Some Scout Leaders are just in it for the outdoor activities and look down at those who provide a broader programme at the expense of the summer expedition to Mount Everest. In Scouting I will sometimes see leaders with a severe right wing outlook and wonder how they get on with the whole "helping others" ethos behind the movement that takes up most of their free time. And I wonder if my own view of what the association stands for is filtered by my own values.

A notable deviation from the official line of the Scout Association's message of inclusiveness is that it doesn’t quite stretch to atheists, although it includes just about everyone else. And given this I’m sure that Britain being Britain there are one or two Scout Leaders and Commissioners who are culturally Christian, but are really closet atheists. Indeed there are probably many members of the association who told the right kind of truth in the warrant interview.

Because of my beliefs I often find I’m the one pushing the global and environmental side of the Scout Programme to make sure they are adequately represented. This has been dismissed as “hippy cr*p”[3] by some of the leaders I have worked with. Recently a quick review of the unit programmes locally showed that the programme our unit was running was a lot closer to the values and ideals of Scouting as promoted in the literature and training materials, than the programmes of the ambitious types in the district. And yet these ambitious types, with their unbalanced programmes, were the ones sneering at the quality of ours.

I tend to look on politics as service to community through other channels, and feel that gaining control of any public office is no good if you make no effort to help others through it. It does worry me to see people who lose focus on why they want to win in order to concentrate on winning. It jars with me when more extreme political types have bad things to say about Scouting when fundamentally it is trying to achieve similar ideals through different means. Yes, I can see that it’s fair that some have an image of Scouting as a white middle-class Christian club, even though that is not accurate. The truth is one in three members of the world Scout Movement is Muslim, and the representation in this country fares well when compared to the population as a whole. As a liberal I don’t believe there should be any law against having such prejudices, it’s what you do about them that really matters.

I often question whether I am confusing my sets of values when I hear an argument from a member of the movement beginning “I’m not racist, because…” or speak to Lib Dems who would rather take pictures of piles of litter to shame their opponents, than put on some gloves and clear it up.

It could be that for all the waffle the fundamental values of both organisations are quite generic Good Things that most people would subscribe to, and that many of us see more than is actually there. Both organistaions are in their own way a broad Church in which the members do their best to make the world a better place.

Oh hang it all I’ll just try and do the right thing.

[1] Preamble to the federal constitution
[2] Not a direct quote of POR
[3] The leader who said this is now a born again Christian. That's probably not relevant.

A late laugh

Looking for something else entirely I ended up on YouTube, and remembered a blog entry by Will a couple of weeks back on his spoof of David Cameron's webcasts. So in I typed "webcameron". I was actually quite impressed, they are quite funny. Especially number 5, I probably missed most of the jokes in that because of the initial sight gag

OK probably less funny if you haven't heard of David Cameron's jumping on the politicians doing webcasts bandwagon started by the Lib Dems.

Also there's a very good message from Stephen Tall about the whole thing on his blog. More serious, but still very good.

However it's plain some less talented Internet users take a funny idea too far. Rob sums this latest development up in a nutshell.

On Politics

Stephen Fry is a genius.

He was on "This Week" last night. This is what he had to say.

You may find some of the words distasteful, or a slight hint that he is an apologist for the government, but I doubt many sensible people would fail to be chastened by his words. (OK not many sensible intelligent people).

It's a put down to those who view political types as a separate alien species. Why do politicians do so many bigoted, knee jerk things, well because so many of us, the people, are stupid and ignorant and rant on about things without thinking. And we see things that are our own responsibility as SEPs. Of course Stephen included himself as one of the ignorant masses. We don't as a whole, try and do something about the state of the world, we just sit in our armchairs and complain.

Actually this is slightly unfair to my readership, 99.9% of whom do do a lot to make the world a better place, whether it be preaching peace and tolerance and sensible policies through the Lib Dems, providing a much needed provision to society through Scouting and Guiding, giving over half their garage[1] to food for the homeless, or helping refugees lost in a country only slightly less hostile than the rest of the world. I am as it were preaching to the choir here.

However while actors and comedians like Stephen and Jeremy Hardy can tell it like it is, politicians can't, witness the upset when Chris Davies MEP used some unwise remarks to describe a somewhat unpleasant constituent. And we are back to Stephen's polemic. As the late Linda Smith might put it, there are some unpleasant people, who "shouldn't be given the oxygen of oxygen". But the system, ie you and me, won't allow the policymakers to come out and say it, because scarily enough there's a lot of them and they all have the vote. And while some of us recognise the limitations of polite society, nay even demand they be enforced, to others this makes our representatives look shallow mealy mouthed and wishy-washy.

This passage particularly impressed me:

Take this week, for example. Suppose you're prime minister, you've got all these illegal immigrants. What are you supposed to do? Are you supposed to hide the true facts?

That's hardly something the public would accept, so you campaign and you say "we don't know how many there are - let's do something about it", and then you're accused of incompetence.

Well, of course you don't know how many there are: they're illegal immigrants. Do we expect magic from our politicians? We're not going to get it. They're just human beings like you and me.

The whole illegal immigrant furore is based on two things, ignorance and hysteria, and it doesn't help that the papers Stephens polemic cuts like a knife through the lie that illegal immigration is a situation that is dangerously out of control. How are you supposed to know how many illegal immigrants there are? By nature we don't know they're here as otherwise they wouldn't be here. That's one piece of ignorance. The other is that immigrants, and by association aslyum seekers are a dangerous problem. That is our hysteria, growing on a feedback loop via the press, and broadcast loud to our representatives in westminster. Who mistakenly think the good people in Britain are worried about it and want something draconian and stupid done. So they try and do the least stupid thing and still get it wrong.

While I give a lot of my time to politicians, (I have written letters to nearly the MPs who have represented me and given time and money to the Lib Dems) I am glad I am not one. It would take a sick mind not to be chastened by Stephen 's words. Thank you for reading, I feel better now, and thank you Stephen for your well considered and cathartic piece.

[1]Actually that's relatives not readers.

The times they are a'changin

I missed this, as there's always been chatter about changing the clocks. But this time it appears a Peer has actually tabled a bill. It appears to have support from everyone except the cabinet, and some farmers, too.

For me it makes sense for us to be more in line with the rest of Europe, but that is just one thing that makes the bill unpopular to raving right wingers.

With 24 hour supermarkets, I do however wonder why if we need to be getting to and leaving work earlier for the sake of safty that we don't just do it, clocks or no clocks. Currently with the flexibility allowed in my working day I appear stuck on GMT. Which will be quite unpopular this time next week.

Knowledge

The Today programme, asking Hunter Davis what "4000 holes in Blackburn Lancashire" was about brought me back to the subject of general knowledge. It struck me as an odd question, for surely it is common knowledge that it was taken from a newspaper article, and anyone who doesn't know, probably doesn't care. Hunter skillfully turned this inane question into one about which particular newspaper article inspired the verse.

This reminded me of the weakest Link, in particular an edition when all the men had been voted off with 3 female contestants left. Before I get accused of sexism, I will say that was probably a coincidence. Anyway, they were asked several general knowledge questions, about song lyrics, TV shows and politics as I recall. After getting each one wrong, the contestants would roll their eyes as if to say "how do you expect me to know a stupid bit of trivia like that." It seems knowing things has ceased to be something to be proud of. Or even expected. Heaven forefend that on a quiz programme your ability to remember facts is tested. It also reminded me of an episode of the Golden Girls, where Bea Arthur's character failed a game show audition for being bright. I've heard this about UK game shows too, which is surely a sad indictment of human attitudes.

This also reminded me of a conversation I had with someone who was giving me a lift once, about the Reflecting Britain project. My chaufeuse (one of two people I would nominate for a diamond but for the fact neither is a member of the Lib Dems), opined that few women went into Engineering because few kids knew what it really was, and few women go into politics, because they don't feel the need to be right. *

Anyway, I am firmly of the opinion that knowledge and intelligence is to be respected, certainly more than surgically enhanced looks or a forceful personality.

* I was writing an article about gender balance in Engineering and politics, but it's trapped on the hard drive of my old PC.

And the winner is...

Ming Campbell.

Yes I know I'm late to react, but what with my leg and everything I've been out of the loop. To be honest I would have been happy with any of the three, even though Ming was my number 3 vote.

The weekend just gone was the party conference, of which I have been blissfully unaware, but surfing the blogs of those in attendance, seems that people had a good time.

What a coincidence.

My, just as the nomination deadline for the Liberal Democrat leadership contest looms, Adrian Graves, a former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate announces, that he has signed up to Cameron's New Liberal Conservatives (OK I meant this link) as part of his LibDems 4 Cameron squeeze message.

You'd almost think, given he'd made his decision before Christmas, it was planned that way as a spoiler or something. With the announcement of his departure, Graves mentioned rumours of similar feelings at Westminster. You can't disprove the existance of a rumour, the mere fact you've mentioned it means the rumour exists. However I'm sure we can treat these rumours with a pinch of salt.

Oh Dave, Dave Dave, how I wish I could believe the new you. I would dearly love to believe you and your brethren had had an epithany and decided to join the human race, and that the New Conservative party would run the country in a fair and compassionate way. If it were in any way true I too would be looking at joining the fight against a common enemy. But given the support you're giving New Labour on certain issues I'm afraid the front is all too transparent.

Meanwhile back on the main news of the day I'm still not declaring on my first choice for Lib Dem Leader (it is a fair election by single transferable vote after all). Although this is mainly due to waiting to see the candidates in person, than anything else.

In other news recently there was this tiny story about a worrying possible invasion of privacy and how we're having to rely on corporate America to stand up to it. Andy H has more to say about it. On the other hand Google have announced co-operation with the Chinese government on censosrhip.

Oh and finally, I've been having a lot of hits from Google users looking for Mark Oaten Gossip, however I'm sorry to have to tell them I have none.

Declaring an Interest

Many online Liberal Democrats are nailing their colours to the mast regarding the leadership contest. While I am inclined to put higher numbers against some candidates, and lower against others, how precisely I will vote will probably not be fixed until I see the ballot paper in front of me.

I will be waiting to see what the contenders have to say for themselves, which is difficult as given only Chris Huhne has put up a campaign website, everything I hear is filtered through the media. OK this is not a new situation, but I am sort of used to living in the 21st Century and associating with people that are more intelligent and forward thinking than the other lot.

One comment on the election though, regarding the pronunciation of Menzies. My mother seems to be in the minority of people who doesn't think of Ming The Merciless when the name of the deputy leader of the Lib Dems is mentioned. In fact she thinks of "mingers".

Though some can take the Flash Gordon thing too far.

Edit: Great minds think alike, when I was writing this, other bloggers were putting up their "Not declaring yet" messages.

ID Cards

(Edited 13/06/2005, to reflect new pledgebank url that supercedes the last one).

I think in posting the link to the No to Id cards pledge I fell into a trap that many do, in that I was assuming it was obvious why ID cards are a Bad Thing(TM). ID cards are back with avengence, give the ID card bill is back taking into account few of the concerns raised on its initial form.

I'm not particularly against having a small piece of plastic with which you can identify yourself. I myself have a new-style driving license, and while I'm not required to do so, I keep it in my wallet which is rarely far from my person. So I have no objection to having a card with which I can identify myself.

Now many of my readers will be confused, and bewildered, and perhaps a little bored. If I have no objection to having a card with which I can prove my identity, what's my problem with ID cards? And this is the problem anti-ID card campaigners have; the issues aren’t as obvious as they seem to interested parties. The arguments against ID cards can be broadly put into two categories; civil liberties, and practical issues.

The civil liberties arguments surrounding ID Cards are immensely important and far reaching, but unfortunately to many people they are dog whistle politics. Most people can't see the difference between the proposed ID card scheme and owning a passport or photo card driving licence. Go to any depth into the civil liberties debate and their eyes glaze over. Mine do, and I'm politically active.

But (at Amy’s insistence) I’ll have a go. We are assured that these ID cards won’t hold much more data than your typical supermarket loyalty card. Well that’s an inaccuracy for a start. My supermarket loyalty card just holds my ID number in the loyalty scheme. The woman at the checkout at Tesco in Ilkley needs know nothing about me other that I’ve shopped at Tesco before. And she knows that anyway, because she served me last week. If I want there to be no record of any purchase I wish to make I either withhold my loyalty card, or shop elsewhere. What’s more Tesco don’t have any evidence that I also shop at Asda and Morrisons (but not Sainsburys, Waitrose or Safeway because I’m not stuck up, like).

The proposed ID cards will hold a lot more information on you than a supermarket loyalty card. Just how much will the person who just needs to know you are who you say you are? We are assured “not much” but such assurances are pretty hollow. Some may say, “You can’t really object unless you have something to hide” with the unspoken implication that anyone that has anything to hide must be a bit dodgy. I’m afraid I have to point out, some people are just utter utter morons. Are all the people with ex-directory telephone numbers dodgy people? Most people have some things they’d rather keep private, that they’d rather other people not knowing. I doubt that the scheme as proposed will be sophisticated enough to hold a plot of your DNA as part of the biometrics, and if it does I doubt we will have the ability to decode physical characteristics from it, but it is probable that through an ID card scheme all and sundry may know Amy dyes her hair. OK all and sundry do know that, but that was her choice.

Then there’s the centralised database. For ID cards to work there will need to be a centralised database. Yes government departments do already have information on us. The DVLA have records on me, but all they know is where I live, what I can drive, and what vehicles I own. Well a bit more than that, but not much. The Inland Revenue know how much I earn, and what benefits I get from my company, but little more than that. Each department knows as much as it needs to and no more, with a centralised database your privacy is decreased. And going back to the supermarket loyalty card analogy so thoughtfully handed to the no2ID crowd, it will be possible for a government to build up a profile on it’s electorate, through the monitoring of who checks your ID card.

A better bet are the practical concerns. The proposed ID cards are going to be expensive. It is amazing how overwhelming the opposition to ID cards becomes when surveys are up-front about the potential cost to the individual on £80-£100 a throw. On top of the individual costs are the expense of setting up the underlying infrastructure.

Yes we’re back to the centralised database. This is going to be an IT project so massive it’s going to put all others into the shade. The partnership of industry and government really don’t have a good record of delivering big national IT projects on time, on budget and to an acceptable standard.

My main objection to ID cards are more fundamental: they won't do what they say on the tin. They won’t make this country more secure. They won’t prevent terrorism. They will do little to help prevent identity theft. The costs, in both the erosion of civil liberties and monetary terms, far outweigh the benefits.

This is not solely an issue which excites liberals. Rabid right-winger Peter Hitchens is pretty scathing about ID cards in his book The Abolition of Liberty. And recently the official line from the Conservative party has flip-flopped back to being against them, albeit mainly for the pragmatic economic reasons of "they’re a huge waste of tax-payers money".

As during the run up to the Iraq war, the most convincing arguments against are the arguments for. All the arguments presented come across as lame excuses, tacked on after the fact. We were told we needed them to prevent terrorism, but the Madrid train bombers all had valid ID. The latest bogyman that ID cards are going to combat is identity fraud, however the figures we are being quoted with which to convince us are dubious to say the least. The way the excuse shifts from week to week is evidence of how little substance there is to it.

We are assured there will be limits to this scheme, but a system as proposed ought to be easily scalable if it is any good. The scheme may be initially voluntary, but how difficult will it become to avoid it how quickly.

An old uni friend Murky, Welsh Assembly member Peter Black and all round bright guy Jonathan Calder are amongst those who have also bloged about ID cards recently.

Taken to extremes

Simon Titley has come up with a funny spoof of BNP Policy.

To paraphrase, Simon is suggesting that the BNP have policies of reintroducing national service, and then arming the general population with assault rifles so that they can shoot burglars.

What a card!

Er... hang on though he refers to this BBC News article about the launch of the BNPs manifesto. So... it's not a joke. And therefore only grimly funny. Eek.

And we're off.

Get on your leafletting shoes, the election's been called.

For some of the Scouty people reading this I'd like to draw your attention to this:

Blair sets 5 May as election date: "Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has visited Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds and Edinburgh on a whistle-stop tour of key seats to begin his campaign. "

For Leeds read Bramhope, the village in Leeds North West, home of the Scout Campsite of the same name.

A month is a long time...

Autumn is relentless with politics, even though no actual work is going on. First the Lib Dems, then Labour, now the Conservatives are heading for the cost for their conference. And in the mean time there were smaller parties like UKIP and Health concern (who had their conference in a large back garden).

After Hartlepool the Conservatives seem to be getting increasingly desperate with shriller and shriller claims, and rash statements that don’t quite amount to anything. "We aim to reduce taxes," they say, "but aren’t making any promises."

Actually oddly enough under the extreme surface some of what they propose is reasonable for them. There is talk of cutting stealth taxes, which I can only take to mean reopening tax loopholes. However instead of silly swipes at the tax system, the headline policies are tame enough like having a bit of a look at inheritance tax, council tax, and stamp duty. All things that affect the haves, more than the have nots, but due for a tinker nonetheless, most of it is already Lib Dem policy. It is usually the case that politicians of an extreme position like the Tories hide their extreme policies in a sensible headline, but unless it’s a double bluff we have the opposite here. What gives?

The main tactic of the Conservatives seems to be to try and inflate a misplaced public sense of fear and persecution. Motorists are, we are told, a case in point. But according to John Redwood one of the things the Conservatives would do to stop this "persecution" would be to roll back the proliferation of speed cameras. While this is not a new tactic it is still as misleading as it is misguided. It is simply pandering to popular prejudice to say speed cameras are persecuting the ordinary "law-abiding" motorist as anyone who is caught by a correctly functioning camera has clearly broken the law. Even if we misrepresent fines as a revenue stream, is it not just that wrong doers, to use rightwing parlance, should pay more to the upkeep of society than the careful amongst us?

Meanwhile elsewhere the Swivel Eyed Loons (aka UKIP) appear to be suffering from a bit of a hangover from their recent conference and post Hartlepool celebrations. Their main benefactor, Paul Sykes, has had what can possibly described as a bit of a think in light of their deciding to try and take on the Conservatives en masse, rather than ignoring the more euro-phobic MPs. Paul thinks that this was tantamount to the Europhobic movement shooting itself in the foot, and has withdrawn his support. Robert Killroy-Silk’s comments about killing the Tory party are said to have been the final straw. Sykes claims that he has just been listening to the Conservatives’ message on Europe, while John Redwood (yes him again) claims to have had more direct contact. Mr Sykes has not yet formally pledged any money to the Conservative Party.
Nigel Farage, UKIP MEP, seems to have admitted UKIP have made a mistake and need to re-think taking on the Tories, and seems to think the party can tempt Sykes back. Anything can happen in politics it seems.

Hartlepool

No I didn't stay up to hear the result as it happened but caught it on the Radio this morning. What a result! Jody did well for the Lib Dems, but admittedly disappointingly, not quite well enough to see the Labour vote completely collapse and a victory for the Lib Dems and Hartlepool. The strong second place shows we are now the main challengers to labour in much of the country.

The big story of the night is however the disaterous result for the Conservatives. Coming in 4th behind UKIP. This is surely a measure of how weak their credibility is and bodes well for the forthcoming general election, whenever that may be. The idea that we may be seeing the death throes of the Tory party is a nice one, but the UKIP rising to replace them, even in as a third or fourth party in parliament leaves a bitter taste. And here's why (Thanks to Steve Guy for the link.) UKIP supporters however don't seem to like being shown the reality of what they've voted for, possibly because they mistakenly assume the writer is having a go at them as well, so for that reason I wouldn't want to be thought as lumping UKIP voters in with the party. Hopefully UKIP may well kill off the Tories just before imploding themselves.

Unfortunately it seems win or loose, some aren't any good at either. Ian Wright was said to have given an unfortunately graceless acceptance speech, which typified his behaviour throughout the campaign. Fathers 4 justice candidate Paul Watson (who was the one who called me and Simon D from York Uni "d*******s" last Saturday) was the bad looser in that during Jody Dunn's speech he assaulted her with some sort of purple powder. Apparently Fathers 4 Justice were demonising her during the campaign because she is a barrister in the family courts. Guacamoleville has a picture of the incident with some valid comment of its own.

It's not all free lunches

Gez Smith clarifies his points on free food people don’t just ply you with food, they try to drown you with leaflets as well. The BBC seem to be rubbing it in with their captions, on Gez's diary it says "He parties, so you don’t have to." He also observes, "Why are journalists always so interested in the bar?" It's one of those eternal questions isn't it.

Gez, along with Vivienne Raper prove me wrong about the Orange Book, as they mention it, if only in passing. I still think the writers and the media are overplaying the importance.

Vivienne goes on to show that there are fringes and training sessions on practical subjects, including one on stress management, which must unfortunately be a key skill for anyone these days, let alone those involved in politics.

Conference ends today with a speech from Charles Kennedy today, and then people will be making their way home. I’m sure I'll hear all about what went on later on.

Possibly on Saturday. I have decided to visit Hartlepool at the weekend. Won’t be staying over for a couple of reasons, firstly the Explorers are entering the Six Dales on Sunday, and secondly due to the proximity of the Great North Run and by-election day all the hotel rooms are likely to be booked up. Needless to say, if any local readers want a lift...

Speaking of Hartlepool, Comical Tommy has a new entry.

It's all go.

Everyone seems to be having a busy time at conference, so much so that the bloggers down there aren't making many entries. Those that have managed to find their way to a computer are saying the time is flying by. Others seem to be admitting to having so much fun, they're burning the candle at both ends. According to Gez Smith on his BBC diary there is lots of freebie food and drink to be had to offset the cost of entry and accommodation. He does seem to have a lot to say about the freebies.

We seem to have some people rattled. Both the Mirror (as read by Steve Guy) and the Sun came out against us yesterday for opposing reasons. The Sun, in a bizarre nonsensical piece of polemic, reckoning we are too left wing and that we are going to wreck the economy, and the Mirror claiming we are just Tories in disguise. But perhaps it's no bad thing, as both start from the assumption that we are a major political party and worth bothering with. According to Charles Kennedy, "The Sun attack alongside the Mirror attack, where one thinks we are ludicrously right wing and the other ludicrously left wing, show we are probably getting it about right."

Yesterday's agenda was all about the Environment, and Welfare, continuing our position of being the most environmentally aware of the three main parties with a carrot and stick approach to environmental taxation, and transportation measures including the building of a new North-South high speed rail link. The issue of the rights of Ghurkha soldiers was discussed with, (according to Martyn Hencher) a Ghurha speaking really passionatly about his situation.

Today’s main issues are Law and Order, Health, and Pensions. Mark Oaten, was on the Today programme promoting tough Liberalism, which is really just saying the inelegant and liberal options to punishing offenders. Instead of mindlessly locking people up, community panels will have the power to issue constructive punishments that fit the crime, say hard graft replanting trees for vandals that wreck parks, rather than putting their feet up in a cell. Other policies up for debate include the draft manifesto pledges of free healthcare for the elderly and improved pensions for the over 75s.

The Today Programme keeps mentioning The Orange Book, claiming everyone is talking about it, however I havn't seen or heard any evidence to support that claim beyond BBC Radio 4.

The feeling I get from the news, and from what I do hear from my friends and fellow bloggers down there, is that everyone is really upbeat.

Politics is just bizarre

Alan Milburn, he who wanted to spend more time with his family, is back in the cabinet. He must have got fed up of them after 15 months.

Because of various behind the scenes stuff with Ian McCartney, who looks like an owl, Alan could not be appointed Chairman of the Labour party. So Alan's been appointed Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster. What?

People seem to think this is a non-job as an excuse of paying Milburn a Cabinet Salary for doing Labour party business. Personally I just think it's bizarre.

Update 10/9: John Prescott was on the Today programme this morning, it all went well until the presenters raised the issue as to whether Alan Milburn was being paid by the taxpayer mainly to work on internal party issues. Then Prezzer got ratty!

TV & Politics

Coverage of the Democratic Party Convention has been virtually wall-to-wall over here in the past few days. All aspects of the convention seem to be covered, including a small piece on CNN about the blog media’s role in the event. CNN also covered the occasional piece on the Republicans proving they can be sycophantic to everyone in US politics, no matter what the party.

At 8:30pm last night, prime time for American TV, the major event for 5 of the main TV channels was Vice Presidential candidate nominee John Edwards’ speech. It’s hard to imagine a conference speech from Charles Kennedy or Michael Howard getting so much attention even, let alone their assistants or at primetime. As expected for such a speech it was pretty broad brush, a rousing speech heavy on emotion, light on policy. But there was enough in there for people to disagree, some think it was a good speech, some felt it was tough on the war, some felt it laid out the gifts that the Americans can expect from the Kerry administration should they vote for it.

But, lightweight that I am, I watched for 2 minutes, then turned over to WB and watched Smallville.

Local local politics

Over the hills in Tameside some people are not happy. In Audenshaw, where my parents live, many residents were so fed up with the council intent on paving over any green space available in the name of development, that the entire ward turned Lib Dem. Unfortunately this is just 3 Lib Dems, with hardly more Tories against almost an entire council of Labour councilors.

As per national instructions of a few years ago Tameside council has been streamlined to a cabinet with several local assemblies. Audenshaw has been lumped together with Denton to form the Denton and Audenshaw district assembly. And according to my father's experience things have got a bit childish.
Denton is, in terms of council wards at least, three times larger than Audenshaw. Denton is represented by 9 Labour councilors, Audenshaw by 3 Lib Dems. The mentality of the Labour councilors is such that they will automatically vote against anything that the Lib Dem councilors support, no matter how sensible. If there is any issue relating solely to Audenshaw, the Elected representatives for Audenshaw are outnumbered, and so the affairs of Audenshaw are in the hands of the electorate of Denton.
It seems that the Labour councilors of Denton are trying to punish the residents of Audenshaw for having the temerity of voting for a party other than Labour.

Very sad.

Oh what a night

Last night the Lib dems took Leicester South and nearly took Birmingham Hodge Hill as well. No I didn't stay up till the early hours, but was woken pleasantly by Radio 4 with the news this morning.

Two victories would have been nice, but one and one near miss was still excellent, may be technically a score draw but what a score draw!

Two things spring out for comment today.

The first is the creeping tide of racism. The media seems to be making racism, hate and discrimination OK again, with any objections being described as anti free speech, or "PC".

Michael Howard put out a self-contradictory message yesterday, condemning the BNP as a stain on Britain's character, before going on to spout the kind of myths and hyperbole about asylum seekers that tell people it's OK to be racist and vote BNP.
And his cronies at Cathartical Bleed Worm call the Lib Dems "Januslike"? Sheesh.

What ever became of

Tim "and bring back hanging" Metcalfe, www.conservatives.com doesn't seem to think this PPC exists.

Service to the community?

It's why I do a lot of what I do. What makes me want to is a mystery. However.

As readers who skipped across to my now defunct plog may know people were trying to persuade me to stand for a seat on Leeds City Council. Not a particularly winnable seat, but one where we stand a chance if we put the work in, next year.

Unfortunately this came in the run up to my problems in November and I was persuaded by family that certain elements of society give elected officials a bad time, and even if I was the best councillor ever (I flatter myself I could do the job better than my current Labour representatives) I would have my life made difficult.

This has been brought home by the hounding one young person has been given for one ill-judged comment on a private Young Lib Dems mailing list. She has since apologised for any misunderstanding, but remains a target. I'm not going to give the website, who you could call Calibrated Camel Wroth, any publicity by naming it, but they would be down for my loonies of the day. But thye won't for the fact it would only encourage them.

It's not just politics, but people are out to take pot-shots at Scout leaders too. There is a suspicion of anyone who wants to do something for others.

Who are they kidding?

You’ve got to hand it to Michael Howard’s Conservatives. (Well you don’t but that won’t stop them.) Jumping on the bandwagon by joining the Lib Dems’ calls for an inquiry into the intelligence and decision making leading to the Iraq war. Are they trying to convince us that they aren't in it up to their necks alongside Labour? Are they trying to make us forget they egged the government on at every step of the way, while the Lib Dems' urged care and caution.

As empty a piece of rhetoric as Michael Howard’s “beliefs”.

US Politics Explained by Google.

It all comes down to who's unelectable and who's electable.

It's nearly safe to come out...

Thankfully the subject of the Conservative leadership is rapidly becoming moot. My concern is the same as over questions of deception over Iraq; that people will be taken in with a re-arranging of the furniture.

All the Conservative MPs appear to have fallen into line, each potential contender agreeing in turn to back one candidate. I'm unsure as to what this to achieve, all this talk of how the newly crowned King Michael of Conservative Party is so wonderful strong and moderate, and will lead them to new heights. Perhaps I'm not exactly the sort of person that will be turned on by Michael Howard, but I don't see how he'll make them any more attractive to the general public than IDS. Perhaps it's the old media paradigm of saying something often enough until it becomes true.

There is the question of democracy here. I've been in Scouting for many years, and served on several committees, so know how difficult it is to get people to stand for some positions of responsibility. Sometimes the only candidate for a post is the one person warped enough to stand, or weak enough not to bear the arm twisting. I’m not so naive as to believe that is the case here. I have seen situations where the only serious candidate has been challenged by a “joke” candidate to force people to make a choice, which is not a situation anyone would want to see in serious politics.

However there could be situations where committees have sought to pre-select their successors by doing deals behind the scene, and this "election" smacks of that. In both SAGGA and mainstream Scouting I am concerned all members should be treated equally without special privilege, so I'm not impressed with the attitudes shown towards the ordinary members of the Conservative party. Just as well I'm not a member.

Michael Howard seems to be distancing himself from some of the more extreme elements of his party claiming to be leading from the centre.* However given IDS's comments, and comparison to my (formeToryory father-in-laws perspective, the modern Conservative party seems to have an odd idea where the centre of politics lies.

But surely no-one would forget what Michael Howard has stood for?

Who am I kidding? People do have short memories. But luckily a friend of Paul Richards (aka The Thinker) is concerned we might, in all this revisionism, forget who Michael Howard really is and Paul has posted the article to remind us.

* Actually another example of bad media paraphrasing, he was talking about the centre of his party.

It's been said elsewhere I'm sure...

But if Michael Howard is the answer- what on earth is the question?

If any of you are haing difficulty telling one tory from another, there's an interview in
this article that should refresh your memory.

We're here again. The slightest inkling fuel prices have to rise and we get fuel protests. Except we don't. Petrol prices have gone down in real terms so a rise of a penny for the first time in years is not that significant, hey even with the new rise prices are still going down in real terms.

Or maybe todays squib is because the protesters have fatally overestimated their poteential support: with no evidence of a hike at the pump the sort of people who join fuel protests won't notice that there's anything to protest about.

I've always been a Lib Dem deep down. But the fuel protests of 2000 were the catalyst for me finally getting off my bum and joining. Because they weren't being opportunistic yobs, needlesly tough, but having somthing sensible to say. And I could see if sensible people like me didn't make an effort to make the sensible view heard in politics, yobs like the fuel protesters would.

Factsheets, Friends and Flares

I didn’t go to the Tav in the end; decided that it would have been too much of a rush for an hour or so in the pub. In the end I packed Thursday night, and headed off to help the Lib Dems with the by-election leaflets in Brent East on Friday morning.

I made the mistake of venturing into London with just a printed out fragment of A-Z for my guide. Anyway I eventually found Willesden, and the office and spent a few hours pushing leaflets through the letterboxes around the North Circular in Neasden. It’s very different to anywhere I know in Leeds.

Did this until about 6:30 when I headed off to Gilwell, finding very little difficulty in navigating out of London! Ate in the on-site canteen for £2.50, as the IST were assumed to be eating en route on Friday.

I treated Gilwell Reunion as just that- a Reunion. I camped with 50 or so former members of the 20th World Jamboree IST. I was presented with my “Random IST” T-Shirt (a natty affair in Bright orange) and wore it in rotation with my GaSCiT 2003 T-Shirt. There could have been a mini GaSCiT reunion; I counted at least 3 other GaSCiT T-Shirts plus several more staff and participating leaders.
Ann Haseler was on the Adult Scout & Guide Alliance stand, and was wondering why SAGGA weren’t represented, as were a few people. Well I would have helped with that but I don’t feel we’re quite there yet with the publicity material- next year they won’t know what’s hit them!

In the morning I went round the bases, and was recognised by more people that I expected. In the afternoon I went out and bought some trimmings for the suit and some red hair spray- because I couldn’t find a wig. I must have looked like a cross between Ziggy Stardust and a game show host.
It has been said the Randomists were noticeable in their fancy dress- we weren’t the only ones were we? Anyway it was a storming evening in the bar, the disco, and then the Karaoke tent.

I was pulled out of the hat for the “last song of the night”. I’d chosen “Twist and Shout” but not expected to be rounding off the evening. But I just got on stage and went for it. The verdicts range from “You did all right” (some one off the CoC) to “That was brave” (Raff).

Sunday was a quiet time, looking round various potential activities. The training field was dominated by a huge hot air balloon, and elsewhere on site were hovercraft. The queues were long so I didn’t go in any of these. I gave Raff a lift to the station after the Scouts own.

All in all a great weekend. Credits for Happy Bunny & Southern Stars for the food, and all the ISTers for just being there and being a laugh.