An urgent threat to UK privacy rights

J.R. Hermeneut asks, apropos of this:

One is a Labour Party member… why exactly?

Now, perhaps I’m just being paranoid, but I’m going to take that as being directed to me . And since my answer won’t fit into 140 characters, I’m dusting off this slightly dormant blog in order to do so.

And my answer is: good question. Bloody good question. This sort of thing is exactly why I fell out with Labour in the first place. Watch this space.

This all relates to No2ID’s warning about clause 152 in the Coroners and Justice Bill, which is about to have its second reading in the Commons. For those who enjoy reading legislation, clause 152 is available here.

This clause, if passed into law, will allow any government minister to issue an “information sharing order” enabling any person – including commercial organisations to “share” personal data, where “necessary to secure a relevant policy objective”.

“Share” in this context has the novel meaning of “disclose” or “use for a purpose other than that for which it was obtained”. “Relevant policy objective” simply means any policy objective of the minister concerned.

It is difficult to overstate the potential implications of this provision. One of the fundamental principles undergirding data protection legislation is that individuals know (a) who is holding personal information about them, and (b) the purposes to which that information is being used. This clause allows that principle to be set aside simply for the sake of a minister’s “policy objectives”.

There is no restriction on the type of data that can be covered by an information sharing order or the persons to whom it may apply. Initially, one assumes the intention is to populate the new national ID database with information taken from tax records or electoral rolls. However, it could be used to allow medical data to be sold to private contractors (though with “appropriate safeguards”, no doubt).

No2ID describe this as being “as grave a threat to privacy as the entire ID Scheme”, and it’s hard to argue with that. As they put it:

Combine it with the index to your life formed by the planned National Identity Register and everything recorded about you anywhere could be accessible to any official body.

No2ID are urging people to write to their MPs now to ask them to vote against this measure, which has been buried in a bill which purports to be a largely administrative measure which aims to do such apparently-blameless things as improve the coroner system and “strengthen the Information Commissioner’s inspection powers and improve the sharing of information”.

I had to laugh though at these words at the start of the bill:

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Secretary Jack Straw has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:

In my view the provisions of the Coroners and Justice Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

Jack Straw considers these measures to be compatible with the Human Rights Act. Were less reassuring words ever penned?

The speech of his life?

Well, to my surprise, I was pretty impressed by Gordon Brown’s speech. Had it on in the corner of my screen while doing some work at home, and – though I blush to say it now – once or twice I even found myself applauding.

Whether it will be enough to quell all the speculation about his leadership: certainly for the moment, yes. But in the longer term, only if it represents the start of an upturn for Labour in the polls. I’m too much of a politics geek to assess how the speech would look to the “average voter”, but I’d certainly hope that people would be willing and able to listen to what Brown had to say.

He had some effective lines, such as when he said (near the start of the speech):

If people say I’m too serious, quite honestly there’s a lot to be serious about – I’m serious about doing a serious job for all the people of this country.

Some good policies mentioned on bread-and-butter issues, including:

• free nursery places for two year olds
• complete elimination of child poverty by 2020, enshrined in law
• personal catch-up tuition for children who fall behind at primary school
• a million families to be funded to get internet access
• free universal check-ups for the over 40s
• free prescriptions for cancer treatments
• equality for women in retirement
• looking at the case for an 80% cut in carbon emissions by 2050

And some good blows landed on the Tories. For example, when Brown spoke of the legacy of Labour’s “big ideas” over the past century:

You know our party so often in its history has been home to the big ideas – ideas later taken for granted, but revolutionary in their time. Just think, the vote for working men, and then for women, the NHS, legal protection from race or sex discrimination. These are no longer just Labour policies, they are established British values – they are the common sense of our age.

And we should never forget one thing – that every single blow we have struck for fairness and for the future has been opposed by the Conservatives.

And just think where our country would be if we’d listened to them. No paternity leave, no New Deal, no bank of England independence, no Sure Start, no devolution, no civil partnerships, no minimum wage, no new investment in the NHS, no new nurses, no new police, no new schools.

And so let’s hear no more from the Conservatives – we did fix the roof while the sun was shining.

That last line produced a standing ovation of its own, and quite rightly. My own spontaneous response was this tweet.

That passage also contained an interesting Gramscian touch, with Brown’s reference to “the common sense of our age”. New Labour as a “war of position”?

Some have suggested that the “same old Tories” approach is misguided. Certainly it has to be done carefully, to avoid creating the impression that we think the public are dupes for thinking the Conservatives have changed, but Brown produced some evidence to back up the claim that the Tories’ fundamental instincts remain unchanged:

I’m a man for detail and I’ve discovered some clues about what would be in store in a Conservative Britain.

They want us to believe that, like us, they now care about public services. But when Mr Cameron actually talks to his party about their spending plans he says the difference between Labour and Tory levels of public investment will be “dramatic” and “fundamental”.

They want to tell us we’re all progressives now but the day that Hazel Blears and Caroline Flint were announcing a one billion pound package to support millions of homeowners, the Conservatives were confirming that their first tax priority is to take that one billion pounds from hard working families and hand it over to the 3,000 richest estates in Britain.

So will this save his premiership? Maybe, maybe not. But this was the first time since he became prime minister that I’ve found myself genuinely enthused by Brown’s performance. If he can keep this up post-conference, then this could make a real impact on Labour’s position – and, more importantly for the country as a whole, end the sense of bewildered indirection that has been crippling the government in recent weeks.

Turbo-capitalism’s autumn of discontent

Michael Tomasky opens his latest column (on the opportunity that the economic crisis presents for Barack Obama) as follows:

The basic identities of America’s two political parties have been in place for at least 40 years and, on core economic questions, for 70, since Franklin Roosevelt’s time. Whatever so-called “low-information voters” do or don’t know about politics, they know that the Democrats are the party of working people, and the Republicans are the party of the rich.

It doesn’t end up being as positive for the Democrats as that formulation makes it sound. Since the 1980s, Republicans have been successful in shifting public opinion among America’s middle-class more towards the view that their economic fate is tied up with rich people’s. In addition, a weak union movement – just one in 14 private-sector workers is a union member today – means that class consciousness exists only on the margins.

It’s the highlighted sentence that I found particularly perceptive.The same shift has happened in the UK over the same period, of course, though to a lesser extent than in the US.

But as Larry Elliott points out in an analysis of the likely effect of this week’s events on future economic policy, the British middle classes are increasingly waking up to the idea that their interests may not, after all, be perfectly aligned with those of the rich:

One headline screamed “Don’t let the spivs destroy Britain” – not Socialist Worker, but the Daily Express. For Middle Britain, the traders who bragged about £1,000 bottles of Krug are now as loathed as the bolshie shop stewards of the 1970s. Only rarely is there a palpable public mood swing in Britain; the Winter of Discontent was one; this is another.

Elliott also argues that “having cosied up to the City for more than a decade, the prime minister has belatedly rediscovered his party’s social democratic roots”:

Labour, it seems, no longer believes that the market is king. It no longer assumes that the “masters of the universe” have all the answers. For the first time in living memory it has ceased cringeing and sent out the message that finance should be the servant of the people and not vice versa.

Well, maybe. But in any event, I thought Gordon Brown’s Guardian piece today was another step in the right direction, landing one particularly effective blow on the Tories:

Last year [the Conservatives'] even proposed to abolish mortgage regulations, saying the banks should be left to their own devices and simply “nudged” to act responsibly. You cannot “nudge” your way through a financial crisis.

Until this week, the Tories’ talk of “nudging” and so on could seem like a refreshing new perspective on how government can act in a low-key way to alter people’s behaviour. Now it looks lightweight and dilettantish – a mask for what Brown describes as “the Conservatives’ instinct … for government to walk away rather than intervene”.

Where now for capitalism?

Interesting selection of viewpoints on the BBC website from various talking-heads, in response to the question “Where now for capitalism?”

Noam Chomsky (who I don’t always see eye-to-eye with) nails it:

The unprecedented intervention of the Fed may be justified or not in narrow terms, but it reveals, once again, the profoundly undemocratic character of state capitalist institutions, designed in large measure to socialise cost and risk and privatize profit, without a public voice.

That’s exactly what we see happening in the financial sector at the moment: after years of huge private profit, it’s the taxpayer who is called upon to bear the losses.

And as Chomsky goes on to point out, this is not unique to the financial markets:

The advanced economy as a whole relies heavily on the dynamic state sector, with much the same consequences with regard to risk, cost, profit, and decisions, crucial features of the economy and political system.

The Kool-Aid begins to take effect…

Lots of discontent with Brown’s leadership on Labourhome. A lot of people working on the assumption that ditching Brown cannot make things worse, and will at least give Labour a chance of reconnecting with the electorate before the next election.

Perhaps it’s just the cognitive dissonance kicking in (see end of previous post), but I’m less and less convinced that changing leader will have a beneficial, or even neutral, effect.

Those who argue that a new leader will have a “honeymoon” or will be able to call an election to exploit Tory “disarray” are living in a dreamland. Most likely, a sudden change of leader now will earn the party the lasting (and probably deserved) contempt of the electorate.

As Martin Kettle wrote this morning:

Even before the latest financial calamities, there was always a risk that another change of leader would turn the public even more solidly against Labour than it is already, especially when there is no pre-eminent replacement candidate. Now, as banks totter and assets plummet, a challenge to Brown risks looking out of touch, irresponsible, even frivolous.

I think that’s right. I suspect most onlookers would decide the Labour Party had become terminally self-indulgent at a time of a national crisis, more interested in playing out its own internal dramas than in actually doing something useful, like governing. They’d say, “Well, if you can’t decide which of you should be in charge, then as far as we’re concerned none of you should be”.

Party atmosphere

Went to my first meeting of my local Constituency Labour Party (CLP) yesterday evening. Not sure how regular an attendee I’ll be, but wanted to show my face given that I certainly won’t be able to make it next month. As requested by D.S. Ketelby, here is my report on the proceedings.

In terms of cross-section of people attending, it reminded me of a congregational meeting in a small- to medium-sized Baptist church. Probably about 20 people in the room, slightly more women than men, a high proportion of grey/white hair, a few younger people (but no-one below 30 as far as I could tell). An elderly couple, clearly among the pillars of the community, who hold to the faith with a greater fervour than many of those around them, and recall fondly the days of the previous pastor/Clement Attlee (delete as applicable).

The main purpose of the meeting last night was to mandate the CLP’s delegate to next week’s party conference. When I arrived, the meeting was working through the six policy commission documents that are to be approved at the conference. We voted on the first couple of documents before it was pointed out that the only vote at the conference will be for or against the whole kit and caboodle, so we just voted the whole thing through in one go. Democracy in action. Ahem.

We then approved various other possible resolutions – previously known as “Contemporary Motions”, now called “Contemporary Issues”, to stop them sounding like they’re intended to achieve anything – ranging from calling for affordable public transport fares in London to support for the democratically elected governments of Bolivia and Venezuela.

Finally, we discussed and passed two motions – one proposed by the constituency secretary, the other by one of the Clement Attlee fans sat behind me – which expressed the CLP’s support for Gordon Brown and general dismay at the Blairite running-dogs who are solely responsible for questioning his leadership (ho-hum), before calling on the government to actually start behaving like a Labour government: reforming the financial system in response to the current situation, building more council houses, that sort of thing.

The support for Brown was interesting to note. I was quite surprised by how strongly supported he was, and how hostile people were to the current ructions assailing the party. But as someone pointed out, it is truly shocking that at a time when the financial system is in meltdown and the economy is nosediving into recession, the only time any Labour figures appear in the media it’s to go yakking on (mainly in code) about the leadership.

I voted for both resolutions – more for the proposals on policy than the pro-Brown sentiments – and I’ll be interested to see whether the resulting cognitive dissonance and the psychological drive towards internal self-consistency make me more supportive of Brown in the days and weeks ahead.

Name-dropping: the constituency secretary is Nigel de Gruchy, formerly a fairly well-known trade union leader (leader of the NASUWT). Well, I’d heard of him, anyway.

Looking for leadership

Shabba Goy at Harry’s Place has an excellent analysis of Martin Kettle’s Guardian column this morning.Goy’s concluding sentence is:

Labour’s number one problem, staring its supporters in the face every day, is how to resolve the absence of leadership talent in the party.

This is reinforced by Benedict Brogan’s reminder that David Miliband’s speech to the Labour conference last year bombed, and it is in fact he – rather than Brown – who needs to make the “speech of his life” in order to keep his leadership hopes alive.

This makes me wonder: is charismatic, dynamic political leadership – and, even more lacking from Labour at the moment, fresh political thinking – something which can only really arise in the context of opposition, away from the grind and mundanity of government?

Harman on equality and social class

Harriet Harman’s speech to the TUC sounds to have been pretty good. If the Conservatives are accusing her of “re-opening the class war” then that can’t be all bad, eh?

Nick Robinson has an interesting post about the speech, but I’m puzzled by his statement that Harman didn’t mention the word “class” in her speech. The report linked above quotes her as saying:

Equality matters more than ever and it is necessary for individuals, a peaceful society and a strong economy. We have made great progress on tackling inequality but we know that inequality doesn’t just come from your gender, race, sexual orientation or disability. What overarches all of these is where you live, your family background, your wealth and social class.

Perhaps the “c” word was in the written text but not actually delivered from the platform. Anyway, it’s positive to have a government minister willing to talk about equality as a desirable goal, and about “people’s life chances” are affected by “where they were born, what kind of family they were born into, where they live and their wealth”.

“Fairness” is clearly a key Labour theme for the autumn. Gordon Brown’s recent email to party members (see preceding post) majored on this topic and, as Robinson points out, its an issue that energises Labour for several reasons:

Belief - that this is what Labour is for.

Anger - that the Tories are “getting away” with presenting themselves as the party which will reduce inequality.

Hope - that this is a theme which will allow others to highlight David Cameron and George Osborne’s privileged backgrounds given that Labour’s crude attempts to exploit the “toffs in top hat” factor played so badly in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

A prime minister writes…

Here’s the text of an email sent to Labour Party members from Gordon Brown earlier this week. Some of this is fairly toe-curling (e.g. “there is nothing that is bad about Britain that cannot be overcome by what is good about Britain”), but there is some good stuff in there, particularly the emphasis on fairness and on Labour’s values (highlighted). But is anyone still listening to him?

My promise to you

Today, at our Cabinet Meeting held in the West Midlands, I am setting out to my Cabinet colleagues the current challenges as I see them and my response to them. I also wanted to write to you personally as a Labour Party member to share the following with you.

For 10 years we’ve benefited from unprecedented growth, a rapidly expanding economy and rising living standards. But the global credit crunch is forcing people across the country to change how they live their lives. Our world has changed.

While David Cameron’s Conservatives may be willing to let people fend for themselves – I will not let this happen.

I will not turn my back on those who need help.

The quest to ensure that power, wealth, and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, is fundamental to our purpose. This is why the Labour Party exists.

People want a government that is always on their side – but at their side only when they need it. They want a government that is empowering, not overpowering.

This is not about rhetoric. It’s about fairness and unfairness.

It’s about providing support to those who played by the rules but are struggling with rising prices. It’s about making sure that a fair chance is provided to all.

I will not pretend that there is a quick fix. It requires leadership, squaring up to hard truths, being open with the British people about the choices we face, and making tough decisions on priorities for public spending.

I know that there are people who feel that modern Britain has been unfair to them. Some of them are right. But there is nothing that is bad about Britain that cannot be overcome by what is good about Britain.

In the coming weeks, I will set out how I – and our party, and our government, and our country – must rise to conquer those challenges and ensure fairness for all.

Fairness is my purpose, my pride, my principle.

And my promise to you.

Gordon

Pure class

Polly Toynbee hits it out of the park with her latest column, looking at how talk of a “classless society” has masked the continuing class divisions within Britain.

After a brief sortie against idiotic so-called “Christians” who have been sending her hate-mail – hate-mail is so very Christ-like, don’t you think? – Toynbee starts with an account of how “class and misogyny fuse together” in the viciousness of right-wing attacks on middle-class left-wing women (such as Toynbee herself or the likes of Harriet Harman and Margaret Jay), and continues:

Rightwingers have long used class against any middle-class leftist, a bullying that sidesteps the real political argument. It implies anyone middle class is a traitor to their own by supporting fairer shares. The abuser never explains what’s hypocritical about those born privileged arguing on the side of those who are not.

As a result, the idea is promoted that:

Only those on low incomes are entitled to speak up for themselves – which is convenient, since almost by definition, fewer low earners have access to political platforms. If they did, they’d earn political or journalistic salaries and get the same contempt for “hypocrisy”

Meanwhile, the Tory front-bench – stuffed with Old Etonians – prepares self-interested plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £2m, tilting the tax system in favour of their own class interests while proclaiming society now to be “classless”.

Toynbee marshals a few facts to highlight the class divisions that remain:

• 50% of all employees earn less than £23,000, but “the low-paid imagine they are nearer the middle-income range than they are”.
• “Half the population has seen very little real growth in recent years, and the bottom third has suffered an absolute fall in income for five years. People feel it, yet no one says it.
• The benefits of “high GDP growth” over the past decade were enjoyed by the top 20% of the population, and mostly by the top 5%.

As Toynbee continues:

By sleight of hand, Britain abandoned class politics in a still deeply class-bound society. The illusion that anyone can make it is created by fixating on a few who do – or an older generation who did in the 50s and 60s. … Gut resentment rankles, but since Labour is silent on obscenely ostentatious wealth, there is no coherent political channel for it.

And she concludes:

The right spits venom at talk of class, except to sneer at middle-class leftists, but avoids hard facts: a working-class child is 15 times less likely to move upwards than a middle-class child is to stay put. This is no classless society, but a society whose politics conspire to deny it.