Tag Archives: security
Data retention debate: The lies they tell to steal your rights
Posted by Mike Sivier in Conservative Party, Corruption, Crime, Defence, Democracy, Human rights, Justice, Law, People, Police, Politics, Terrorism, UK
Coalition, communication, Conservative, consultation, correspondence, criminal, Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, European Court of Justice, freedom, government, intercept, internet, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, people, police, politics, privacy, private, restrict, security, service, snoopers charter, telephone, terrorist, Theresa May, Tories, Tory, Vox Political
Haggard: Theresa May looked distinctly ruffled as she responded to criticism of her government's undemocratic actions. Some of you may wish to abbreviate the first word in this caption to three letters.
It is ironically appropriate that an Act of Parliament guaranteeing government the right to invade the private communications of every single citizen in the UK, ostensibly in the interests of justice, should be justified by a web of dishonesty.
This is what an indecisive British electorate gets: A government that can lose every major debate in the chamber – and look shambolic while doing so – and still win the vote because all its members have been whipped into place.
We all knew the government's case for providing itself with a legal ability to snoop on your telephone and Internet communications was paper-thin, and by failing to produce any new justification, the government confirmed our suspicions.
Introducing the Data Retention and Investigatory Bill earlier today, Minister for Security and Immigration James Brokenshire said the three-month delay since the European Court of Justice judgement that allegedly necessitated the legislation was because the Coalition had "sought clarity" on it.
He went on to say that "There is a risk in relation to co-operation on the use of the powers; indeed, there may be legal challenge. The House must face up to the prospect that the powers we use—they are constantly used by our law enforcement agencies—are at potential risk, and we are seeking to address that risk."
Michael Meacher suggested a more persuasive reason for the three-month delay: "Panic or a deliberate attempt to blackmail the House into undiscriminating compliance."
He said the argument that foreign phone and Internet firms were about to refuse UK warrants, demanding the contents of individual communications, was another red herring: "It has been reported that communications service providers have said that they did not know of any companies that had warned the UK Government that they would start deleting data in the light of legal uncertainty. Indeed, the Home Office, according to the Financial Times, instructed companies to disregard the ECJ ruling and to carry on harvesting data while it put together a new legal framework."
So Brokenshire was lying to the House about the potential effect of inaction. That will be no surprise to anyone familiar with the workings of the Coalition government. At risk of boring you, dear reader, you will recall that the Health and Social Care Act was based on a tissue of lies; now your privacy has been compromised – perhaps irrevocably – on the basis of a lie.
MPs could not limit the extension of the government's powers until the autumn, Brokenshire said, because a review of the power to intercept communications had been commissioned and would not be ready by then.
According to Labour's David Hanson, the main Opposition party supported the Bill because "investigations into online child sex abuse, major investigations into terrorism and into organised crime, the prevention of young people from travelling to Syria and many issues relating to attempted terrorist activity have depended on and will continue to depend on the type of access that we need through the Bill".
Mr Hanson's colleague David Winnick disagreed. "I consider this to be an outright abuse of Parliamentary procedure… Even if one is in favour of what the Home Secretary intends to do, to do it in this manner—to pass all the stages in one day—surely makes a farce of our responsibilities as Members of Parliament."
He pointed out – rightly – that there has been no pre-legislative scrutiny by the select committees – a matter that could have been carried out while the government sought the clarification it said delayed the Bill. "This is the sort of issue that the Home Affairs Committee and other Select Committees that consider human rights should look at in detail," said Mr Winnick. "None of that has been done."
The Bill did not even have the support of all Conservative MPs. David Davis – a very senior backbencher – said: "Parliament has three roles: to scrutinise legislation, to prevent unintended consequences and to defend the freedom and liberty of our constituents. The motion undermines all three and we should oppose it."
Labour's Tom Watson, who broke the news last Thursday that the Coalition intended to rush through this invasive Bill, was more scathing still: "Parliament has been insulted by the cavalier way in which a secret deal has been used to ensure that elected representatives are curtailed in their ability to consider, scrutinise, debate and amend the Bill. It is democratic banditry, resonant of a rogue state. The people who put this shady deal together should be ashamed."
Plaid Cymru's Elfyn Llwyd said Parliament was being "ridden over roughshod".
Labour's Diane Abbott made two important points. Firstly, she called the Bill an insult to the intelligence of the House. "We have had a Session with a light legislative programme, and for Ministers to come to the House and say, 'We've only got a day to debate it', when weeks have passed when we could have given it ample time is, I repeat, an insult to the intelligence of MPs."
Then she turned on her own front bench: "I believe… that those on the Opposition Front Bench have been 'rolled' [one must presume she meant this in the sense of being drunken, sleeping or otherwise helpless people who were robbed]. All Ministers had to do was to raise in front of them the spectre of being an irresponsible Opposition, and that children will die if they do not vote for the Bill on this timetable, and they succumbed."
Despite this opposition – not just to the way the Bill had been tabled, but to its timetable and its content – MPs voted it through, after a derisory nine hours of debate, by a majority of 416.
So much for democracy.
So much for MPs being elected to protect their constituents.
When Hansard publishes details of the vote, I'll put them up here so that you can see which way your own MP voted and use that information to inform your actions during the general election next May.
See if YOUR objection is mentioned in the Surveillance Bill debate!
civil society, Coalition, communication, Conservative, consultation, correspondence, criminal, Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, European Court of Justice, freedom, government, intercept, internet, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, people, police, politics, privacy, private, restrict, security, service, snoopers charter, telephone, terrorist, Theresa May, Tories, Tory, Vox Political
It seems Parliament's discussion of the Data Retention and Investigatory Bill, also known as the Surveillance Bill, will now take place tomorrow (Tuesday) rather than today (Monday).
This works better for Yr Obdt Srvt, who has carer-related business today and would not have been able to watch the debate.
Hopefully, many Vox Political readers – if not all – have emailed or tweeted MPs, calling on them to speak and vote against the Bill which, while only reinstating powers the government has already been using, is a totally unacceptable infringement of our freedom that is being imposed in a totally unacceptable timeframe.
As has been discussed here previously, the Bill enshrines in law Theresa May's 'Snooper's Charter', requiring telecommunications companies to keep a complete record of all your telephone and Internet communications for examination by politicians.
The information to be kept includes the location of people you call, the date and time of the call, and the telephone number called.
It seems the Bill is intended to be a response to a European ruling in April, making the valid point that the government's current behaviour is an invasion of citizens' privacy. Clearly, therefore, the Coalition government is determined to continue invading your privacy.
The judgement of the European Court of Justice is being overridden and the Conservative-led Coalition is making no attempt to find a reasonable compromise between the need for security and the right of privacy.
The fact that David Cameron has waited more than three months before putting this on the Parliamentary timetable, during a time when MPs have had very little to discuss, indicates that he wanted to offer no opportunity for civil society to be consulted on the proposed law or consider it in any way.
Cameron wanted to restrict our freedom to question this restriction of our freedoms.
Another reason given for the haste is that foreign-based Internet and phone companies were about to stop handing over the content of communications requested by British warrants – but service providers have confirmed that this was a lie. No companies had indicated they would delete data or reject a UK interception warrant.
Ignoring the fact that this does nothing to support your privacy, at least it does completely undermine Mr Cameron's case for rushing through the legislation.
He is offering concessions – but they are not convincing and nobody should be fooled into thinking that they make this Bill acceptable. However:
A possibility of restrictions on retention notices is not clarified in the text of the Bill, and is therefore meaningless; and
The 'sunset clause' for the Bill's provisions does not come into effect for two and a half years, by which time (we can assume) the government is hoping everybody will have forgotten about it and it can be renewed with a minimum of fuss. This is how your freedoms are taken away – behind your back.
If you have not yet contacted your MP, you are advised to do so.
If you lose your right to privacy – especially to this government – you won't get it back.
The security services are already snooping on us – why aren't we out in the streets about it?
child abuse, civil society, Coalition, communication, Conservative, consultation, correspondence, criminal, Customs, Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, Department, DWP, employee, European Court of Justice, file, freedom, government, hmrc, intercept, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Official Secrets Act, Pensions, people, police, politics, privacy, private, restrict, Revenue, security, service, snoopers charter, telephone, terrorist, Theresa May, threaten, Tories, Tory, Vox Political, work, Zombie Parliament
A Snooper: This woman has been allowing police and security services to monitor your phone and Internet communications – illegally. Now her government wants to rush through a law to make it legal, without proper scrutiny.
No matter what Nick Clegg might say, the Coalition government will be reintroducing – and rushing into effect – Theresa May's long-cherished Snooper's Charter on Monday.
This is her plan to ride roughshod over your right to privacy by requiring telecommunications companies to keep a complete record of all of your telephone and Internet communications. While the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill does not include the content of the calls or messages, it does include the location of the people called, the date and time of the call and the telephone number called.
Theresa May's Snooper's Charter would have called on telecoms firms to record the time, duration, originator and recipient of every communication and the location of the device from which it was made.
Anybody who cannot see the similarities between these two would have to be blind and stupid.
Apparently the move has been necessitated by a European Court of Justice ruling in April saying current laws invaded individual privacy.
This means that the government has been doing, already, what it proposes to enshrine in law now.
But hang on a moment – this court ruling was made in April. In April? And they're just getting round to dealing with it now?
Perhaps they were busy. But no! This is the Zombie Parliament, that has been criticised for muddling along with nothing to do, so it can't be that.
It seems far more likely that this Bill has been timed to be pushed through without any consideration by, or consultation with, civil society – in order to restrict our ability to question what is nothing less than an attack on our freedom.
Cameron is desperate to justify his government monitoring everything you do: "The ability to access information about communications and intercept the communications of dangerous individuals is essential to fight the threat from criminals and terrorists targeting the UK."
It isn't about fighting any threat from criminals or terrorists, though, is it? It's about threatening you.
Has anybody here forgotten the disabled lady who received a midnight visit from the police, at her home, in relation to comments she had posted on Facebook about the Department for Work and Pensions' cuts?
She told Pride's Purge: "They told me they had come to investigate criminal activity that I was involved in on Facebook… They said complaints had been made about posts I'd made on Facebook."
Facebook is an internet communication, not a telephone communication – so you know that the security services have already been overstepping their mark. This was in 2012.
There's always the good old postal service, embodied in the recently-privatised Royal Mail – which has been examining your correspondence for decades. You will, of course, have heard that all your correspondence with HM Revenue and Customs about taxes, and all your correspondence with the DWP about benefits, is opened and read by employees of a private company before it gets anywhere near a government employee who may (or may not) have signed the Official Secrets Act. No? Apparently some secrets are better-kept then others.
If you want proof about the monitoring of letters, I'll repeat my story about a young man who was enjoying a play-by-mail game with other like-minded people. A war game, as it happens. They all had codenames, and made their moves by writing letters and putting them in the post (this was, clearly, before the internet).
One day, this young fellow arrived home from work (or wherever) to find his street cordoned off and a ring of armed police around it.
"What's going on?" he asked a burly uniformed man who was armed to the teeth.
"Oh you can't come through," he was told. "We've identified a terrorist group in one of these houses and we have to get them out."
"But I live on this street," said our hero, innocently. "Which house is it?"
The constable told him.
"But that's my house!" he said.
And suddenly all the guns were pointing at him.
They had reacted to a message he had sent, innocently, as part of the game. They'd had no reason to open the letter, but had done it anyway and, despite the fact that it was perfectly clear that it was part of a game, over-reacted.
What was the message?
"Ajax to Achilles: Bomb Liverpool!"
Neither of these two incidents should have taken place but many more are inevitable if this legislation goes the distance and allows the government to legitimise its current – illegal – actions.
One last point: It should be remembered that this is a government composed mainly of a political party with one member, still active, who managed to lose (or should that be 'lose') no less than 114 files on child abuse – files that could have put hugely dangerous people behind bars 30 years ago. Instead, with the files lost, it seems these individuals were permitted to continue perpetrating these heinous crimes.
Now, this government is launching an inquiry into historic child abuse by high-profile people, headed by a woman who is herself tainted by association with some of the accused, and by some of the attitudes she has expressed.
It is a government that should put its own House in order before it asks us to give up our privacy and let it look inside ours.
Or, as Frankie Boyle tweeted:
G4S – Securing More Fraud!
Posted by Mike Sivier in Business, Conservative Party, Corruption, Crime, Justice, Politics, Public services, UK
Coalition, Conservative, criminal, electronic, financial irregularity, francis maude, fraud, G4S, games, government, London, Maria Miller, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Olympic, Securing Your World, security, Serious Fraud Office, tag, Tories, Tory, Vox Political
You would think that, in the week of the Maria Miller scandal, the Conservative-led Coalition would spurn any contact with people or organisations responsible for financial irregularity in connection with the government – right?
Wrong: Here's G4S.
(You really need to be playing the Soundcloud clip – above – to get the full effect of this article. The song is the G4S anthem 'Securing Your World'; it is sub-Bon Jovi cheese that sets you up perfectly for the facts about the firm.)
G4S is the company that famously failed to meet the terms of a contract to provide security guards for the 2012 Olympic Games in London. This was a brutal embarrassment to our privatise-everything Government because it had to call in public servants – the Army – to do the work instead.
Not content with that cock-up, in July last year the Serious Fraud Office launched an investigation into G4S after it was alleged that the company was overcharging for the electronic 'tagging' of criminals in England and Wales. It was claimed that the company was charging for people who were in prison, outside the UK, and also for people who were dead.
It seems highly unlikely that there was any danger of this last group absconding.
The company agreed to pay £109 million back to the Treasury, which is as good an admission of guilt as any. G4S breached its contract; in fairness it should have paid back all monies provided to it by the UK government.
That was last November. Now – less than six months later – Francis Maude wants us to believe G4S has cleaned up its act and is worthy of our trust once again. Seriously.
For this reason alone it is worth checking whether Mr Maude has shares in the company.
Our government of crooks couldn't wait to get back into cahoots with this company of crooks, could they? Delaying new contract bids until the start of the 2014-15 financial year was as much as they could manage.
If you ran a firm that behaved in this manner, you would face civil action for breach of contract and possibly criminal action for fraud – profiting from false claims. You would most likely be barred from ever bidding for such contracts again, and possibly even from working in the same industry for the rest of your career.
Yet here's G4S, Securing More… well, you can read the headline.
It all bodes well for Maria Miller. Accepting her resignation, we are to understand, David Cameron made it perfectly clear that he would have the fraudster back in his Cabinet just as soon as he possibly could.
Villainy loves company.
Vox Political works hard to expose criminality in government
… but we need YOUR help to do so.
Sleepwalking further into Police State Britain as law offers new powers of repression
Posted by Mike Sivier in Conservative Party, Corruption, Crime, Justice, Law, Liberal Democrats, People, Police, Politics, UK
abuse, abusive, alarm, annoy, annoyance, Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Bill, ASBO, assembly, Coalition, company, Conservative, council, criminal, Democrat, Department, Department for Work and Pensions, disorder, distress, DWP, firm, free speech, freedom, government, harassment, insulting, IPNA, Liberal, Liberal Democrat, local authority, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, nuisance, Parliament, Pensions, people, petition, police, politics, power, private, public order act, public space, repress, Rowan Atkinson, Scriptonite Daily, security, state, threat, Tories, Tory, totalitarian, Vox Political, work
Scriptonite Daily has published a piece that everyone should read. It begins:
"The UK Government is about to pass legislation which will make any behaviour perceived to potentially 'cause nuisance or annoyance' a criminal offence. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill also grants local authorities, police and even private security firms sweeping powers to bar citizens from assembling lawfully in public spaces. The Bill has successfully passed through the House of Commons without issue, and is now in the latter stages of review by the House of Lords, after which it will receive Royal Assent and become Law. Those who refuse orders under the new rules will face arrest, fines and even prison time."
It seems to me that this legislation is being made partly to deal with concerns about section five of the Public Order Act. This, as stated in Vox Political's article last year, states, "(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he: (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby" – but only applies if a person has been the victim.
It could not be used if an organisation had been subjected to abuse – as was claimed, in this case of the Department for Work and Pensions. Now, it seems, a law is coming into force that can.
This is entirely unwarranted. Abuses of the Public Order Act have clearly demonstrated that the law needs to be relaxed, rather than tightened. Your freedom is being taken away from you, including your right to free speech.
It's no surprise that this is going on even after this blog, and Scriptonite, and others (I'm sure) have pointed out the problem. We are tiny islands on the media map; most people only ever visit the continents that are the TV news and newspapers, which are happy to pander to their prejudices.
The Public Order Act, as Rowan Atkinson stated in his (should be) legendary Reform Section 5 speech, has led to several alarming exercises of power, "like the man arrested in Oxford for calling a police horse 'gay'."
The new Bill introduces Injunctions to Prevent Nuisance and Annoyance (IPNAs) to replace ASBOs, which were also widely abused. Scriptonite quotes some of these abuses, including:
Stuart Hunt of Loch Ness brought to court 100 times since 2007 for breaching an ASBO preventing him from laughing, staring or slow hand clapping.
Homeless, alcoholic and mentally ill Michael Gilligan given a 99 year ASBO rather than the welfare support that might have made a difference
A profoundly deaf 17 year old girl given an ASBO and a jail sentence for spitting in the street
A 13 year old banned from using the word 'grass' in England or Wales
Manchester Council applied an ASBO to prevent a mobile soup kitchen from feeding the homeless
Councils placing ASBOs on homeless people resulting in prison sentences for begging 'earnestly and humbly'
An 87 year old man was given an ASBO threatening a prison sentence if he was sarcastic to his neighbours.
"The ASBO has allowed the line between criminal behaviour and annoying behaviour to become hopelessly blurred – and the IPNAs will only serve to increase the problem," says Scriptonite. "We have seen the abuses permitted under ASBO legislation, the test for which included wording to the effect that ASBOs could only be issued where an actual act of 'harassment, alarm or distress' had occurred. IPNAs have a much weaker test, applicable where on the 'balance of probabilities' a person has or might engage in behaviour 'capable of causing annoyance' to another person. How many times a day could this legislation apply to any of us? Eating with our mouths open, talking too loudly into our phones in a public space, walking too slowly or quickly or belching without saying 'pardon me'. All of this may very well cause annoyance – but soon it might well also be illegal."
More to the point: If you had a complaint against a government department – no matter whether it was justified – and you publicised it… wouldn't that cause annoyance to them? Would it not cause them a nuisance?
And, considering the reaction to one woman's complaint outlined in the VP article mentioned above, would this legislation not give ministers the power to lock you up for it?
This is not a law that should be passed. It is an attack on your freedom, and mine. It is a badge of repression, to be worn by our police as they continue their metamorphosis into symbols of the totalitarianism into which the UK is falling.
There is a petition against this. Please sign it before the law is passed and this document itself becomes a nuisance or annoyance.
I can find no better way to end this article than by paraphrasing what I said before: Police intimidation of those who speak out against injustice is not only an attack on free speech; it is an attack on the entire philosophy on which our society is based.
Next article: Bedroom Tax Tories: What they said and why they were wrong – covering the debate on the Bedroom Tax (or state under-occupation charge, but never spare room subsidy) in the House of Commons on November 12.
If you have enjoyed this article, you may wish to consider picking up the book, Vox Political: Strong Words and Hard Times. The site is not professional and receipts from the book are its only means of support. Its 350 pages contain a great deal of information that should be just as useful as this article, and it may be bought here, here, here, here and here – depending on the format in which you wish to receive it.
'Barefoot banking' to support people on the edge
Posted by Mike Sivier in Business, People, Poverty, UK
affordable, archbishop, bank, barefoot banking, canterbury, Church, competence, credit card, credit union, default, doorstep, England, financial, guarantor, Interest, lender, loan shark, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, money management, payday lender, saving, school, security, shareholder, usury, Vox Political, Wonga, youngster
This is a piece I wrote for the local credit union in my part of Powys, following on from the Archbishop of Canterbury's vow that the Church of England would fight payday lenders. Quite right – usury is an evil that religious organisations traditionally oppose. I'm publishing it here because the main information is relevant nationwide (and also because today appears to be quite slow for political news).
Credit unions must rise to the challenge created by the Archbishop of Canterbury's stand against payday lenders, according to a leading figure in a Mid Wales organisation.
Richard Bramhall of Red Kite Credit Union said the main issue facing credit unions was how to bring affordable credit to "people on the edge".
Last month, the Most Reverend Justin Welby announced that he planned to help community-based credit unions by allowing them to use Church of England premises as bases, to put firms like Wonga.com, which charge huge amounts of interest for their loans, out of business.
"His idea is very constructive," said Mr Bramhall.
"Instant credit is a difficult sector to service because of high rates of defaulting. Payday lenders, door-step lenders and loan sharks – and to a lesser extent banks and credit card companies – answer the threat of bad debt by charging monstrous interest rates.
The Credit Union approach is responsible lending, careful interviews, getting guarantors where possible and working with the member to develop financial competence.
"The ethos always was to save; build a relationship with the credit union through saving – becoming a shareholder – and borrowing using the shareholding as security. They pay low interest and benefit by keeping and growing their shares.
"We do not want to lend at high rates," he said. "Our standard rate is 12.68 per cent, or one per cent per month. If you borrowed £100 over a year and paid it back without interruptions, it would cost you £6.60 in interest, with no extra charges and no penalty for early repayment."
But he warned: "The population density here is so low and the conceivable number of members so small that, even if everyone joined, our income from loan interest would not be enough to pay for bank-type premises or employees."
The Credit Union's solution is what Mr Bramhall calls 'barefoot banking'. He said "The Herb Garden Café, in Llandrindod Wells, is an example. You can access credit union services six days a week, 12 hours a day – not just when we're open but any time we're in the building. People can pick up leaflets, ask about the credit union, leave messages, make payments and collect cheques. It costs the café nothing.
"If people want to help, they could develop the sort of access point we have here. Our greatest need is for self-motivating volunteers and casual drop-in service points in shops, churches, cafes and even private homes all over Radnorshire and north Brecknock."
He added that credit unions also needed to establish themselves in schools, teaching responsible money management to youngsters.
History Repeats Itself, or The Decline and Fall of the Tory Empire
Posted by Mike Sivier in Conservative Party, Corruption, Education, People, Politics, Public services, Tax, UK
avoidance, civil, Conservative, corporation, David Cameron, economy, fall, George Osborne, government, haven, Justice, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, multinational, NHS, people, police, politics, prison, public services, Roman Empire, Rome, security, sell, service, sold, tax, Tories, Tory, Vox Political
A possible future: The city of London is sacked by barbarian hordes. As a priest watches from the steps of St Paul's, a burly Brixtonian drags David Cameron away from his wife Samantha. Or is it the fall of Rome?
My brother phoned up to inform me that he has passed his PHd and is now a Doctor. This is a terrific achievement for a man who has been on incapacity benefits, of one form or another, for much of his adult life, and will open many doors for him.
During the conversation, he mentioned some very interesting facts.
Did you know that the fall of the Roman Empire began when its richest citizens decided not to pay their taxes anymore and withdrew to their private estates? Public services were divided up and sold off, and the bulk of the tax burden was placed on the poor, who were in no position to pay up.
Isn't that similar, though, to the situation in the UK right now? Never mind all the nonsense George Osborne and David Cameron have been talking about getting tough on tax avoidance; the fact is that the richest corporations – the multinationals and those with the ability to follow their example – have been paying far less than their due for many years, sequestering the rest of their money away in foreign tax havens, well away from prying tax inspectors' eyes.
And David Cameron made it clear as early as 2011 that he wanted to sell of as much of Britain's public services as he possibly could, retaining only justice and the security services (although we can see that justice is also being broken up, with plans to get lawyers to bid for the privilege of providing "adequate" service to defendants). The NHS is already being carved up; parts of some police forces have been privatised; we have some private prisons. Parts of the civil service are to be sold into private ownership. The list is growing.
The whole situation mirrors that of the Fall of Rome, and begs the question: Is David Cameron trying to engineer the end of British civilisation as we know it?
The Queen's Speech (translated) – brief words signifying so much harm
Posted by Mike Sivier in Benefits, Business, Conservative Party, Crime, Defence, Economy, Education, Health, Housing, Immigration, Liberal Democrats, People, Police, Politics, UK
apprentice, armed forces, asbestos, audit commission, benefit, cancer, care, child, climate change, consumer, crime, curriculum, defence, deficit, devolve, economy, education, elect, energy, exam, high speed two, immigration, Interest, internet, job, line, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, mortgage, open, Parliament, pay, pension, prison, private sector, Queen, railway, regulation, retirement, right, security, sex, speech, tax evasion, teacher, terrorism, trade, train, university, Vox Political, water, work
A true pro: It is a testament to the Queen's professionalism that she is able to get through her speech at the annual opening of Parliament without either laughing at the stupidities or choking in horror at the implied threats to her citizens.
Today the Queen made her speech at the official opening of Parliament. Her words were, as always, written by the government of the day, and therefore it seems appropriate to provide a translation, as follows:
"My government's legislative programme will continue to focus on building a stronger economy so that the United Kingdom can compete and succeed in the world." Focus on it, but do nothing about it.
"It will also work to promote a fairer society that rewards people who work hard." If you haven't got a job, you're shafted.
"My government's first priority is to strengthen Britain's economic competitiveness. To this end, it will support the growth of the private sector and the creation of more jobs and opportunities." There is no intention to take any action in this regard; the government will simply applaud actions taken by others.
"My ministers will continue to prioritise measures that reduce the deficit – ensuring interest rates are kept low for homeowners and businesses." Interest rates are nothing to do with the government. It is easy to make promises when no action is required.
"My government is committed to building an economy where people who work hard are properly rewarded. It will therefore continue to reform the benefits system, helping people move from welfare to work." My government is committed to building a low-wage economy where people have to work hard simply to keep what they've got. It will therefore continue to erode the benefits system, forcing people to move from welfare to destitution as a warning to those who've got jobs, that this will happen to them if they make a fuss.
"Measures will be brought forward to introduce a new employment allowance to support jobs and help small businesses." A bung for our friends.
"A bill will be introduced to reduce the burden of excessive regulation on businesses. A further bill will make it easier for businesses to protect their intellectual property." Deregulation worked so well with the banks in 2007, we thought we'd give other businesses a chance to ruin the economy. And it's not enough that Facebook now owns everybody's photographs – corporations want everything else as well.
"A draft bill will be published establishing a simple set of consumer rights to promote competitive markets and growth." The rights of the consumer will be restricted to what we say they're allowed, to protect corporate freedoms.
"My government will introduce a bill that closes the Audit Commission." We don't want the public to know the facts about our spending and where it goes (into our pockets).
"My government will continue to invest in infrastructure to deliver jobs and growth for the economy." But we're not saying where the money will go (into our pockets).
"Legislation will be introduced to enable the building of the High Speed Two railway line, providing further opportunities for economic growth in many of Britain's cities." Future economic growth, of course – we won't see the benefit for many, many years.
"My government will continue with legislation to update energy infrastructure and to improve the water industry." At huge cost to everybody who has to pay the bills.
"My government is committed to a fairer society where aspiration and responsibility are rewarded." This is meaningless.
"To make sure that every child has the best start in life, regardless of background, further measures will be taken to improve the quality of education for young people." This is meaningless.
"Plans will be developed to help working parents with childcare, increasing its availability and helping with its cost." Private childcare organisations, starting cheaply but costing more as they get a grip on parents.
"My government will also take forward plans for a new national curriculum, a world-class exam system and greater flexibility in pay for teachers." We're going to stamp on teachers hard. And the new national curriculum means nobody from state education will be able to compete with our children at Eton.
"My government will also take steps to ensure that it becomes typical for those leaving school to start a traineeship or an apprenticeship, or to go to university." We'll shoehorn the state-school mob into something under threat of destitution, and save university for people who can pay for it (like us).
"New arrangements will be put in place to help more people own their own home, with government support provided for mortgages and deposits." More second homes for Tory voters, as set out in the Chancellor's Budget speech in March.
"My government is committed to supporting people who have saved for retirement." If they have savings, they won't need the national pension and can give it back, like Iain Duncan Smith suggested.
"Legislation will be introduced to reform the way long-term care is paid for, to ensure the elderly do not have to sell their homes to meet their care bills." They can die there instead.
"My government will bring forward legislation to create a simpler state pension system that encourages saving and provides more help to those who have spent years caring for children." It'll encourage saving because it won't be enough; and carers can have the kids taken away from them.
"Legislation will be introduced to ensure sufferers of a certain asbestos-related cancer receive payments where no liable employer or insurer can be traced." Otherwise we'll get the blame for abandoning them.
"My government will bring forward a bill that further reforms Britain's immigration system. The bill will ensure that this country attracts people who will contribute and deters those who will not." We're scared that UKIP is taking our voters away.
"My government will continue to reduce crime and protect national security." We will privatise the police, MI5 and MI6.
"Legislation will be introduced to reform the way in which offenders are rehabilitated in England and Wales." If you thought our prisons were schools for criminals before, we're turning them into universities.
"Legislation will be brought forward to introduce new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, cut crime and further reform the police." We will privatise the police and introduce curfews.
"In relation to the problem of matching internet protocol addresses, my government will bring forward proposals to enable the protection of the public and the investigation of crime in cyberspace." We want to know how it works so we can make money off the internet.
"Measures will be brought forward to improve the way this country procures defence equipment, as well as strengthening the reserve forces." We'll buy the cheapest equipment we can find and ask the reservists to do it for no pay.
"My ministers will continue to work in co-operation with the devolved administrations." Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will get even less cash.
"A bill will be introduced to give effect to a number of institutional improvements in Northern Ireland." It's too peaceful over there and we need something to distract the plebs from the mess we're making in the rest of the country.
"Draft legislation will be published concerning the electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales." If we give the sheep the vote, they might vote Tory.
"My government will continue to make the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom." We want their money; we want their oil.
"Members of the House of Commons, estimates for the public services will be laid before you." Prior to privatisation.
"My government will work to prevent conflict and reduce terrorism. It will support countries in transition in the Middle East and north Africa, and the opening of a peace process in Afghanistan." We want their money; we want their oil.
"My government will work to prevent sexual violence in conflict worldwide." We can't even stop it here.
"My government will ensure the security, good governance and development of the overseas territories, including by protecting the Falkland Islanders' and Gibraltarians' right to determine their political futures." They're strategically important so we'll rattle the sabre for them.
"In assuming the presidency of the G8, my government will promote economic growth, support free trade, tackle tax evasion, encourage greater transparency and accountability while continuing to make progress in tackling climate change." We'll blame the other nations when none of these things happen.
"Other measures will be laid before you."
That's not a promise; it's a threat.
GDP figures due – will Gideon have anything to show for his austerity idiocy?
Posted by Mike Sivier in Benefits, Business, Conservative Party, Economy, Liberal Democrats, People, Politics, Tax, UK
austerity, bank, benefit, benefits, business, Chancellor, Coalition, Conservative, debt, deficit, Department for Work and Pensions, dip, down, DWP, economy, Ed Balls, effect, fiscal, fund, George, George Osborne, Gideon, government, haven, Iain Duncan Smith, IMF, infrastructure, international, investment, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Monetary, multiplier, national insurance, offshore, Osborne, people, politics, public, recession, Revenue, security, social, social security, spending, tax, Tories, Tory, trickle, triple, unemployment, VAT, Vox Political, wages, welfare
Triple-dip breakfast: Will we all be dining on the sour cereal of recession again, when GDP figures are published on Thursday morning?
Thursday will be another 'crunch' day for our part-time Chancellor of the Exchequer – he's having quite a lot of those lately, isn't he?
Only last week, the academic justification for his austerity policy was disproven by an American student (oh, the shame!), and then his former allies at the International Monetary Fund distanced themselves from him (oh, the betrayal!) saying he should calm down a bit.
That's the best advice this columnist has ever heard the IMF provide; if not for his own health, then for the nation's.
Thursday, though, is a really big day. On Thursday, GDP figures for the first quarter of 2013 will be published.
It is a sign of how low expectations have fallen, that all the economic commentators are saying the best we can expect is to have kept out of a triple-dip recession – with falls in output due to the weather, among other things, making that unprecedented outcome more likely.
There is a problem with all of these predictions, which should be obvious to those of us living in the real world: Short-termism.
It's all about how the UK managed in the last quarter, how it will manage in the next; what the situation is today. What about six months from now? What about next year? What about 2015, when we're all expecting an election and the chance to banish this nightmare? What about 2017-18, when 0sborne still reckons he'll have eliminated the budget deficit (fat chance)?
The fact is that the only options open to a Chancellor in the current climate are unpalatable to the Boy.
He could boost investment in infrastructure, in a bid to make this country a better place to open – and carry out – business. The trouble is, this tends to be a long-term project and he no longer has the time. His chances would have been better if he had started this in 2010, but his government cancelled as many such projects as they could back then, claiming it was more important to cut public spending in order to balance the books.
That was a vain hope. Without new investment, the country has lost revenue.
But if that is unpalatable, the other alternative is likely to make him choke on his pate de foie gras (or whatever it is these posh boys ingest): Increase the spending power of the poor.
It is known that the 'trickle-down effect' is a myth – giving all of a country's money to the very rich, in the belief that they will spend it, boosting the economy and the income of the poor, is nonsense. What they actually do is bank it – in offshore tax havens, most likely. That is what 0sborne has been doing; it is another reason the economy has bombed.
It is also a rock-solid fact that poor people do spend their money – or as much as they can get their hands on. When you are constantly struggling to make ends meet, it's very hard to keep cash in the bank – you have to spend it on food, clothes, rent, heat, light, water… the list is endless, because it constantly repeats.
When you don't have much cash, as Edmund Blackadder once said, you feel like a pelican. Everywhere you turn, there's a large bill in front of you.
That money does work for society. It reinvigorates the economy as it filters through different hands. And it brings with it the extra joy of fiscal multipliers – every pound that gets put into the economy is worth more after it has been through.
The trouble is, Gideon shut off that money supply. He raised VAT, making it harder for working-class people and those on benefits to buy certain economy-boosting products, and then he and Iain Duncan Smith spent the last few years on their project to depress wages.
(For clarity, it goes like this: The DWP makes the benefit system so difficult to navigate that people in receipt have to do their utmost to get off-benefit as soon as possible. This means they are constantly looking for jobs, which in turn makes it possible for employers to refuse pay rises for their workforce, with the classic line that "there are plenty of other people who'd be happy to have your job, you know!" You didn't really think the benefit cap was about making work pay, did you?)
Say what you like about Labour, but they've got the right idea when it comes to the money supply. Ed Balls wants to cut VAT; he wants to bring back the 10 per cent tax rate for the lowest-paid; he wants to bring in a National Insurance holiday for companies that agree to take on new employees.
These are measures that will help.
What is Gideon going to do?
It's time Osborne provided evidence for his disastrous economic course
Posted by Mike Sivier in Conservative Party, Economy, Liberal Democrats, Politics, Tax, UK
allowance, Atos, austerity, benefit, benefits, blanchard, carmen, Chancellor, christine, Coalition, Conservative, contraction, corporation, cut, David Cameron, debt, deficit, Department, Department for Work and Pensions, disability, Disability Living Allowance, disabled, DLA, domestic, DWP, economic, economy, employment, Employment and Support Allowance, ESA, expansionary, fiscal, fund, GDP, George Osborne, government, gross, growth, Iain Duncan Smith, IMF, Incapacity Benefit, income, insurance, international, Jobseeker's Allowance, ken, lagarde, Liberal, Liberal Democrat, Mike Sivier, mikesivier, Monetary, olivier, Pensions, people, PIP, politics, product, reinhart, rogoff, security, sick, social, social security, support, tax, Tories, Tory, Treasury, unemployment, unum, Vox Political, WCA, welfare, work, work capability assessment
Gideon needs to put his house in order, pronto.
That's the message I'm taking from the fact that the previous article on this blog – Austerity programme proved to be nonsense based on a spreadsheet mistake – has become the most popular ever to appear here. More than 10,000 of you read it within 24 hours of publication.
Clearly, the fact that a principal pillar of his faith – the work by Harvard economists Reinhart and Rogoff – has been disproved, and by a student at a rival university, should have shaken his confidence. It is also ironic for a member of the Conservative Party to realise that they would have got their sums right, if they had done them the old-fashioned way.
But we've had no expressions of apology or acts of contrition from the Treasury. It seems Mr Osborne is determined to keep going, no matter what damage this causes.
I don't reckon that's good enough. I think he should be brought to account. So I have written him a letter, asking him to justify his position.
I reproduce it below. If you agree that it is time Mr Osborne put his cards on the table, you might wish to consider using it as a template for a letter of your own.
The Right Honourable George Osborne MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Horse Guards Road
London SW1A 2HQ
Dear Chancellor,
Following the revelation that a fundamental justification for your austerity policy has been disproved – the paper by Reinhart and Rogoff that was based on a mistake on a spreadsheet – I am writing to ask: What other documentary evidence do you have that supports your policy of economic austerity?
I am mindful of the fact that one of your aides is quoted in The Guardian newspaper as saying "the suggestion that the case for dealing with fiscal deficits and debt rests on one paper is patently absurd" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/18/uncovered-error-george-osborne-austerity), but this person did not provide any other examples.
It should also be noted that this aide added, "It remains the case that the majority of economists still back the government's strategy." I await proof to justify this statement as well. Perhaps it is worthwhile to remind you that, of the 20 economists who publicly backed the Osborne Austerity plan in 2010, only one was willing to publicly back it in August last year. Nine publicly disavowed you, and the other 10 had no comment or went on holiday (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/exclusive-osbornes-supporters-turn-him).
Be advised that it will not be enough for you to discount the quotations above because they come from left-wing sources. As it stands at the moment, the situation is that your policy has no evidence to support it, nor does it have the support of expert opinion that is being claimed for it. Bear in mind that even the International Monetary Fund is criticising your policy, despite having been a staunch support in 2010.
You will recall that the Coalition came into being, nearly three years ago, for the specific purpose of bringing the economy under control. Your policy is the instrument with which this was to be done.
If you do not provide evidence to support its continuation, then what are we, the public, to think? That you are inflicting austerity on us – primarily upon the poorest of us – purely to shrink the state? To sell off the profitable parts to private industry, for the good of private bank balances rather than for the benefit of the nation as a whole? For spite?
If I were in that position, honour would demand an admission of the mistake and either an alteration of policy to one that is more likely to support economic growth (I understand alternatives are available) or – considering this government that was formed to fix the economy has spent three years doing the exact opposite – the dissolution of this administration and election of one that is better-equipped to make the best decisions, in the interest of the nation as a whole.
I look forward to your response.