Comments on: Communications interception — dazed half-memories of a conference call with @julianhuppert

By: zoeimogen

zoeimogen — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:14:35 +0000

Yup, that pretty much matches my recollections of the call too. Only nitpick: “The bill will be going in front of a Parliamentary Committee, which Huppert is on”. He’s on the Home Affairs Select Committee, but it might go in front of another committee specially formed to look at this particular Bill, the membership of which has not been decided. I’d be amazed if he wasn’t on it though.

By: Andrew Hickey

Andrew Hickey — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:27:19 +0000

Absolutely. Unfortunately, people seem far too keen to think in terms of ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’, and we have an electoral system which encourages that. If we’d got AV in the referendum, things would have become very different.
Still, there’s the possibility of getting STV for the Lords, if the two right-wing parties don’t block it, and that will allow decent representation not only for us but for a lot of smaller parties, too. We desperately need electoral reform to get the system changed so other voices can be heard, but apparently the electorate thought “giving Clegg (who’s never really shown the slightest interest in voting reform — his areas of interest are foreign policy, primary education and health policy) a kicking” for choosing the “wrong” one of two interchangeable options was more important than getting a functioning democracy.

By: Hal

Hal — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:15:31 +0000

Great firebreathing stuff, Andrew, nice to see you have the courage of your convictions. Regardless of my own beliefs (some of which you can probably guess) I found it incomprehensible that the Liberal Democrats didn’t do better at the last general election, it seems that even if you have the best policies and seem the greatest opportunity for something fresh too few people have the courage to vote for you as if there can *only* ever be *two* real choices, surely non-partisan people can’t think this good? As part of the coalition you are characterized by some as begging for scraps from the big table -even as you do your best to restrain the more bonkers Tories those who would vote for you are alienated from doing so because of the conditions of the coalition. So we’re back to what is basically a two-party system, who does this serve? From an observer it seems as if you just can’t win no matter what you do, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Having three choices is surely better than two or one but that viewpoint seems unpopular. Absurd.

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:43:31 +0000

That all seems to agree with my understanding of what we were told last night.

One thing you don’t mention is the impression I got that there is a sense that Julian wants the Home Office to have to come up with this (bad) draft bill as an exercise in forcing them to reveal their hand. They have apparently been extraordinarily shy of doing this, even when asked by the Select Committee.

(Theresa May is meant to have written a reply to the Select Committee’s written questions – something worth looking out for as it should be published.)

Much (though far from all) of the badness in RIPA and various Terrorism Acts comes from enacting legislation that is written in vague and hand-wavy fashion, give extraordinarily wide powers of interpretation when it comes to doing unpleasant things to people at the business end. (Something that was easier to slide past the House when Labour were ramming through upwards of forty Acts of Parliament a year.) By forcing the Home Office to say what they want and then making them justify it line by line, there is some hope of actually provoking a “hang on a moment” response from MPs.

By: Andrew Hickey

Andrew Hickey — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:26:43 +0000

Agreed that it’s depressing, but that’s what happens when parliament is dominated by two right-wing authoritarian parties. I think the bill, when finalised, will be two steps forward to one step back, so progress in the right direction, of a sort.
As for the porn stuff, it’s not going to happen, it’s just a way of shoring up the Tory base.

I’m sure that it’s true that Cameron would be more Conservative if the Tories were in government on their own, just like the Lib Dems would be far more Liberal were we in power without the Tories. If Cameron wants to ‘blame’ us for stuff like equal marriage, Lords reform and not killing anyone on sight if they’re suspected of being foreign, then let him. I just wish our leadership were more willing to blame the Tories for things like the NHS bill, the compromise on control orders, tuition fees and all the other things *our* supporters hate, rather than pretending that Cameron is our bestest friend ever.

By: Hal

Hal — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:03:54 +0000

Even with your caveats this is depressing, both these new elements and the powers already in place.
As an aside this whole “Think Of The Children!” porn thing seems like the classic “Don’t Look At That, Look At This, Instead” move and lo! And Behold! There’s the Daily Mail squatting on it like a malevolent toad. Have you read the book Flat Earth News? I got that from the library, now *that* is a frightening tome.
What do you think about a story appearing in the Mail which basically said that without the Liberal Democrats David Cameron would be able to behave like a “Real Tory”? That sounds rather suspiciously like a way of blaming the Lib Dems for any of the things that Cameron and the Tories have done that hardline right-wing small-c conservative people don’t think conservative or Conservative enough. The Lib Dems as scapegoats, of course they are presupposing that the Conservatives lost votes because they were “too liberal” rather than *too conservative* though it is the Mail so taking that point of view shouldn’t be a surprise. It’s a paper that rarely surprises after all.