Quite the best thing I've read for ages on Civil Liberties, Snowden and the NSA

This piece from Robin Lustig, called 'When secrets mustn't be kept secret' is quite the best thing I have read on civil liberties, the NSA and the whole Snowden affair - well probably anywhere. It is a response to the speech by Sir Andrew Parker, Director General of MI5 to the United Services Institute earlier this week. I commend it to you wholeheartedly. Here are a few highlights but do go to Robins site and read the whole thing. It's absolutely worth it.

"At the centre of the mass of material that has emerged is not the allegation that the security people are monitoring everyone -- which would be patently absurd -- but that they have the capability to monitor anyone. It's not the same thing at all, as Mr Parker knows full well. He is, as you would expect, a master of the "non-denial denial", in other words, he is categorically denying something that hasn't been alleged"

"Let's pretend this discussion was taking place in a pre-internet world. Out of the woodwork comes a security service insider who tells us that MI5 have entered into a secret agreement with all the country's major key manufacturers that enables them to open the front door of any house in the land, to enter any home, and to rifle through any filing cabinet and desk drawer. No search warrant required, no oversight in place"

"I don't expect them to tell us every time they tap into the email account of a suspected jihadi bomber. I really don't need to know which websites they're monitoring, or which Google search terms set alarm bells ringing at GCHQ. What I do need to know is that someone, somewhere, outside the security bubble, does know, and has authorised the surveillance. In theory, that's what is meant to happen now. In practice, well, let's say there's room for doubt …"

 Do read the whole thing, it's great.

As a final addendum I noticed this statement from David Cameron yesterday - and tweeted my reply. here it is.

 
 

I have so many problems with this Immigration Bill, I barely know where to begin

You could do worse than pop over to see George Eaton's excellent critique of the Immigration bills flaws, but if you can't be bothered, here's a bit of a rant of my own. I'm concentrating (for now) on the NHS bits

1. Health Tourism on the NHS is estimated to cost around £12m a year or 0.01% of the total NHS budget.

The costs of administering charging folk not qualified for NHS treatment is estimated at around £500m a year.

In other words, Theresa May is costing the taxpayer a lot of money to do this. So don't do it.

2. Theresa May has refused to quantify the costs of the health tourism, presumably because of (1) - but says the money is irrelevant because its the principle that counts. This is an unusual argument for the Tories to take (you'll recall they argued the opposite about cutting the top rate of income tax, where the principle was less important than the net tax take).

I have though to disagree anyway. The principle is wrong. I don't want a sick person to be suffering and cast out from our health service even if they are here illegally. I don't resent the 0.01% of the NHS budget spent treating them. Or as one person put it...

  

3. Let's not also forget that if someone has got an illness in the UK, it may be in our best interest to  treat them. Do we really want to cast someone suffering say from TB back on the streets? 

 

4. There is also a flaw in the argument here.  The case being put forward appears to be that you can't walk into a shop and take what you want without paying - why should you be able to do that in the NHS?

The problem is - if you're here illegally and sick, the correct analogy is not with a shop. It's with a food bank. In place for emergency's when you have nowhere else to turn. Of course, currently illegal immigrants cant access the NHS anyway - but now, failing to pay up £200 at the point of delivery will exclude you from the system

Also, as David Schnieder says

 

5. Presumably if the recent situation in Italy occurred here, with hundreds of potentially illegal immigrants drowning in the sea, Theresa May would have refused to let the emergency services help them because the folk in the water won't have paid their taxes? 

 6. Apparently this is not going to make medical staff and landlords act as immigration officers. I beg to differ. And it's not just the illegal immigrants who will suffer here - will everyone arriving at A&E say have to demonstrate their right to care? Are we just another step closer to having to prove ...our identity...

7. Today its illegal immigrants and folk on temporary visas. But singling out groups and their right  to care is a slippery slope. Who is next I wonder, on the May list?

I could go on. But you get the message.

The one argument Theresa May hasn't made publicly is, I believe,  the real reason she's putting these proposals forward  - to pander to the right of the Tory Party who look towards UKIP.

We should stop this.

The Page 3 Girl, Me and Ming

As the news breaks of Ming's decision to step down from The Commons at the next election, many folk will rightly be writing tributes to the great man, and his important contribution on so many issues, most notably perhaps foreign affairs.

So I hope he will forgive me if I write about a more personal Ming experience that I think demonstrate so many of his finest qualities.

I had volunteered to help at HQ in the 2005 General Election, and so one evening found myself in the 'war room' at Cowley Street, for a session of 'media monitoring' - checking we got our fair share of the news coverage. When I arrived, I found apart from my fellow monitors, there were a few advisers in the war room - and Ming Campbell.

This was the election when Charles Kennedy had become a father, and he had gone on a few days paternity leave, and Ming was acting leader. It was already late - and shortly after I arrived, Ming announced that if there was nothing else, he was leaving for the evening.

After a pregnant pause, someone in the room ventured that in fact he did have one more thing to do - because it was the night of his dinner with the Page 3 girl.

Now, it probably seems unlikely now, but in 2005 The Sun had decided to 'award' each of the three main parties it's own Page 3 Girl, who was touring the country extolling the virtues of their party of choice.

The group explained to Ming that it had been agreed with The Sun that each of the party leaders would have dinner with 'their' Page 3 Girl - and that night was the Lib Dems turn. Charles had been due to go to dinner, but now Ming was acting leader - he was expected.

I'll always remember Ming replying to this news with the statement that he was sorry but that he had already arranged to have dinner with his wife.

Now, imagine what we going through Ming's mind at that moment, Firstly, I'm willing to bet that he's not the greatest fan of Page 3. But this was The Sun, Murdoch, and all that entailed. Plus remember why I was there - media monitoring; this was a time when we struggled to make sure we got our fair share of attention. But Ming wasn't cowtowing to them for a second.

Secondly, he was clearly genuinely horrified and disappointed at the prospect of not having dinner with his lovely wife  Elspeth. General elections are tough, and opportunities to see your nearest and dearest are few and far between as it is. Plus calling Elspeth to tell her she was being stood up for a Page 3 Girl wouldn't be much fun either.

And then, while Ming was clearly not up for this, you could see he was thinking about not wanting to let whoever he was potentially having dinner with down - the chance to spend time with any senior politician is a rare treat and he probably knows it. Plus he is a man with a huge sense of duty, and duty appeared to be calling.

You could see all this going through his mind. And oh how I felt for him.

And then the group around him all started giggling. For of course, there was no such dinner arranged. It was all a wind up - and a very well played one.

And when the penny dropped, Ming laughed like a drain.

A gentleman, a man with a great sense of duty, a family man, and great fun.

We'll miss his wisdom.

Is that a Tory Peer and former member of Thatcher cabinet starring in the opening credits of The Simpsons?

This years Halloween Special of 'The Simpsons' has opening credits directed by the wonderful Guillermo del Torro and it's utterly fantastic, and worth watching just to see how many film references you can spot.





But wait. Do my eyes deceive me?  Who is that popping up around 1.49?

It can't be? But...it's uncanny

Is that Geoffrey Howe...?

PS. While we're at it, is that a 1988 vintage Peter Mandelson on the left?

Its our very existence that makes it possible for Labour and the Tories to pursue core voter strategies

My latest in the New Statesman argues that because we exist, the main goal for both Labour and the Tories remains just to beat the other. It also contains one of my favourite jokes.

I have also taken to responding to a few of the commentators. That doesn't go down well.

Anyway, enjoy...

So according to George Eaton (who is my editor, so I’ll be careful what I say here), Labour leads polling on living standards, the Tories lead on the economy, and "the party that triumphs in 2015 will be that which seeks to address its weaknesses, rather than merely playing to its strengths". Funnily enough – it ain't necessarily so.

 

Now of course, as has been made abundantly clear by both the Labour and the Tories at their conferences, they want to win the next general election with an absolute majority. This is an easier hurdle for Labour to clear than the Tories, given the constituency boundaries, but both are clearly still dreaming of an end to the period of coalition government.

 

But they also know the trend is against them, with combined support for the two main parties falling consistently since the 1950s. Now, while it is the Lib Dems who have benefited most from this trend away from the two big parties, the current polling for the party hasn’t especially benefited Labour and the Tories, thanks mainly to the rise of UKIP.

 

This goes some way to explaining why both parties appear to be adopting core strategies to appeal to their traditional supporter base. This is, in many ways, the Reagan approach to campaigning – secure your base first, then build out from there. Both hope that, come 2015, they will have built up enough to deliver the majority they crave; but they also know they have a a fail-safe: the Lib Dems.

 

Therefore, in many ways, the target for Labour and the Tories is just to beat the other party, as provided they are the largest party – and the Lib Dem incumbency factor delivers the seats expected – that will be enough to get them over the line. It’s a bit like that joke about what to do if you’re being chased by a grizzly bear – either run very fast, or trip your friend.

 

This also explains why both parties are producing enough common ground policies for potential coalition negotiations as well as a few red lines.

 

Neither party will ever say publicly that they are 'expecting' to form a coalition. But shoring up their core support probably means that’s where they’ll end up. For currently it seems people are convinced one party stands for a stronger economy, the other for a fairer society If only there was a party that promised both….

Sort of an Exclusive: Is this why Nigel Farage is standing in Thanet South?

(See bottom for Sunday Update)

The FT has an exclusive this evening which says Nigel Farage is to stand in Thanet South in the General Election in 2015.

But then they appear to get Thanet South a little mixed up with Thanet North...

 

For Margate (though not as I originally thought Ramsgate - thanks Joseph Dance) are of course in Thanet North.

Here's a map of Thanet South

Now why in the world would Nigel Farage choose Thanet South?

Is it that the local MP is an avid supporter of wind farms (good on her)  - and Mr Farage isn't? Possibly.

Is it that UKIP took almost double its national share of the vote in the 2010 General Election? Maybe

Is it that Kent appears to be a rich potential area for UKIP to target? - look at the 2013 County Council results

 

All good reasons. But I think there may be another factor.

Thanks to the quirk of Broadstairs being in the constituency, Thanet South is the closest constituency in the UK  - to Brussels

 Oh, the irony....

SUNDAY UPDATE

Nigel Farage has been on the TV today saying the constituency he has been considering is Folkestone.

Which isn't the nearest to Brussels

Nor is it nearest to France (that's Dover and Deal)

But as far as I can see... it is the nearest constituency in the UK to Strasbourg

Spooky!

Simon Burns to step down as Minister for Transport; is this why?

So it is reported that Simon Burns, The Minister for Transport, is to step down from government, so that he can run in the election to become Deputy Speaker.

While the timing is of course dictated by the fact that a role has only just become available, I wonder if it is also connected with the fact that:

1. Simon Burns is MP for Chelmsford which has Stansted on his doorstep
2. Simon Burns is an avowed opponent ofa second runway at Stansted (and a third runway at Heathrow). Here's what he said in his constituency newsletter on those issues pre the 2010 election

3. The Davies Commission is due to report its initial conclusion in the next few months. It would be embarrassing if the Commission recommends pursuing either the Stansted or Heathrow options - and a Transport Minister comes out against.
4.  Essex County Council announced yesterday they would oppose plans to build a 4 runway superairport at Stansted - but that it had no objections to a second runway. Essex county Council is Conservative - putting the Transport Minister potentially at odds with his own local council.

I wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye...