It's tough worrying about civil liberties in the UK.
Obviously it's a lot harder in other countries. I mean, worrying about civil liberties in Russia, where journalists are being murdered to shut them up, is a lot tougher, to say the least. Or in China, where those who complain are whisked away and imprisoned, never to be seen again.
Granted, it's not that tough. But it is kind of tough - because no-one needs to put pressure on you to be quiet. You feel it all on your own. You bite your own tongue. Or at least I do.
I mean, let's look at this sensibly. I see a report of behaviour by the state that seems to infringe civil liberties, such as the police surveilling political protesters and journalists, and I think to myself "This is terrible! They are treating people going about lawful activities, such as political protest, or reporting upon it, as potential criminals. Worse, they are being overt and aggressive in their filming, which surely can only be to try to intimidate the public."
Well, generally I don't think in quite such clearly defined sentence structure, but you get my point. On the whole, I think This Is A Bad Thing, and that Something Should Be Done.
But then some other thought processes kick in. Thought processes that are part of me because I am a polite, middle-class Englishman. Those thought processes which instinctively try to damp down rebellious instincts.
For example, I think to myself "Well, these police officers are just doing their jobs. They don't get to choose whether they follow their superior's instructions or not." And I think "After all, they're not doing anything illegal - I mean, taking photographs in a public place is perfectly allowed, and something I should be glad about." And I think "Surely they wouldn't be doing this if they didn't have a good reason? Maybe there really are ne'er-do-wells in these groups, people we should be keeping an eye on."
And by these steps, I start to dampen down my initial outrage, blanketing it in a cloak of possible justifications, or polite evasions of the unpleasant reality. All I am left with is a sense of disquiet at the events, a slight sense of disappointment in myself, and a rather bitter taste in the back of my mouth.
But, of course, that sense of disquiet never quite goes away. It lingers.
Which means that when I hear of another event, such as the police using 'psychological operations' against protesters it becomes that little bit harder to deaden the outrage. The disquiet grows that little bit greater.
This is all very odd for me. Because, well, how can I really worry about civil liberties in the UK? It's far too embarrassing. I mean, this is England, for heaven's sake. We have a long tradition of enlightenment about rights. Don't we? Surely I'm being foolish for worrying.
And I desperately want to believe that. I want to believe that the good old fashioned sense of British fair play will stop all these attacks on liberty. I want to believe that there is no chance a government could get in which would use all these new laws brought in to 'fight terror' to fight whoever opposes them.
I want to believe it, but I'd be foolish indeed to do so.
The UK isn't somehow immune from oppression. Bad people have used bad laws to silence their critics before. Hell, good people who passionately believed something we now think is abhorrent used bad laws to silence their critics. Unions were put down. Workers were abused. Millions were denied the vote, and threatened with violence for demanding it.
My golden vision of a UK filled with fair play is concocted from films and books that ignore those who weren't the right sort. I think of good, upright English chaps, doing the right thing because it is the right thing. But this sort of cosy image was pushed by an Establishment already fighting a losing battle - so they project an image of their sort as the right sort, who can always be trusted to act in the best interests of all of us.
Because that's the thing - I don't think Labour are really trying to put in place all the tools an oppressive government would need. I don't even think the Tories would do much different. They're just politicians, making the best decisions they can, given the information and guidance they are offered.
And the guidance they are offered comes from a group who are part of what we nebulously call the Establishment. High up civil servants, advisers, career politicians, they all end up working to maintain their control over the country, over society. Oh, not because they're a comic book evil villain, scheming to subjugate us all. No, because they really believe they know best how to run the country, how to make sure we all benefit in some way.
But this is where they're wrong. We live in a democracy - imperfect and flawed in many ways, yes, but one in which each of us has at least some say in the way our country is run. And over the years, we have become more sophisticated, more knowledgeable, we have learned more. We have earned the right to be trusted to make decisions for ourselves.
Which means that, actually, they don't have the right to keep tabs on us for our political activity. They don't get to tell us inquests can be held in secret, because a minister or a judge says so. They don't get to tell us we have to tell them before we travel abroad. They don't get to tell us we have to give them all the information on us they want, forever, and to buy a card confirming it. They don't get to decide what is best for us.
There never was a golden age of liberty in the UK. Things have often been worse than now, but it wasn't that long ago that they were better, either. So let's work to try and make some more progress, let's work to keep traveling along the road towards greater freedom, greater liberty. Let's stop trying to justify the actions of the state for them, imagine ways in which what they are doing could be right.
In my case, let's stop being quite so... British about it.
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Monday, 23 March 2009
Monday, 9 February 2009
On Crossing The Line
I want to talk about a news story regarding the construction of a database to store the details of all passenger movements in and out of the UK. Every time you go abroad, your name, address, telephone number, travel itinerary, etc. will be collected. The data will be stored for up to 10 years.
As the Times report says:
I am continually amazed at the lengths the government goes to to gather ever more information about what we get up to. I am also amazed at the lengths they will go to to not tell us what they are up to.
Just like the issue yesterday, this is a question of balance - what are we prepared to give up for what gain?
The travel database tells us that, in the opinion of the government, we are prepared to give up our privacy with regards to where and when and with whom we travel, because in return we gain a tool we are told will assist in the fight against various forms of criminality.
Have we got the balance right here? As I said yesterday:
In addition to this, at least for me, the ability to raise public grievances should be added - without the ability for the general population to agitate, protest, and complain, Parliament's right to "inquire into, and obtain redress of" public grievances becomes pointless.
I am not arguing that the travel database in and of itself damages the ability of the populus to protest. However, I would argue that it is another symptom of the growing tendency of government to see the population as a many numbered beast to be monitored, catalogued, observed and controlled. Taken in conjunction with the (to be charitable) unintended effects of some laws, a lack of effective redress against the police when they overstep their bounds, and mass surveillance that "risks undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and citizens", I believe it does have the effect of further dissuading people from protesting in a state with a steadily increasing and pervasive surveillance culture.
So have we, and has the government, got the balance right?
In the case of the various databases and monitoring of the population, we appear to have crossed a threshold, one which has a bearing on the relationship between the citizen and the Executive (the government of a State). The Executive has an obvious need and right to gather information to carry out services for the people of that state. This includes, to an extent, the gathering of information to fight crime. However, the unwilling and automatic gathering of data (as opposed to that handed over willingly, such as for the receipt of services) for the purposes of crime prevention or detection should be kept to a minimum.
Is it not better to require there to be suspicion of criminality before data can be gathered this way? Consider it as analogous to a system of requiring warrants for searches and communication intercepts. A reasonable level of suspicion (this level would obviously vary depending on the data that is being sought) must surely be reached before data is taken without agreement? Instead, we have a system where all must provide information, either as a consequence of wishing to pursue a lawful act, or by inappropriately sharing data provided for one purpose (such as receiving a service) without consent.
This is purely a land-grab for data. And once your personal data is in the hands of others, you cease to have control over what use it is put to - now, and in the future.
Because you need to be happy not only to have the current government have this information about you, about what you do, where you live, who you travel with, but also to be happy to have every possible government afterwards holding this data about you.
And I'm just not that trusting.
As the Times report says:
Some immigration officials with knowledge of the plans admit there is likely to be public concern. “A lot of this stuff will have a legitimate use in the fight against crime and terrorism, but it’s what else it could be used for that presents a problem,” said one.
“It will be able to detect whether parents are taking their children abroad during school holidays. It could be useful to the tax authorities because it will tell them how long non-UK domiciled people are spending in the UK.”
I am continually amazed at the lengths the government goes to to gather ever more information about what we get up to. I am also amazed at the lengths they will go to to not tell us what they are up to.
Just like the issue yesterday, this is a question of balance - what are we prepared to give up for what gain?
The travel database tells us that, in the opinion of the government, we are prepared to give up our privacy with regards to where and when and with whom we travel, because in return we gain a tool we are told will assist in the fight against various forms of criminality.
Have we got the balance right here? As I said yesterday:
The question is not an idle one. If we or the government have got the balance wrong, ultimately our society will suffer. The judges in the Binyam Mohamed case quoted Henry Hallam:“Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees; the open administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted, and fair constructions of evidence; and the right of Parliament, without let or interruption, to inquire into, and obtain redress of, public grievances. Of these, the first is by far the most indispensable; nor can the subjects of any State be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom, where this condition is not found both in its judicial institutions and in their constant exercise.”
In addition to this, at least for me, the ability to raise public grievances should be added - without the ability for the general population to agitate, protest, and complain, Parliament's right to "inquire into, and obtain redress of" public grievances becomes pointless.
I am not arguing that the travel database in and of itself damages the ability of the populus to protest. However, I would argue that it is another symptom of the growing tendency of government to see the population as a many numbered beast to be monitored, catalogued, observed and controlled. Taken in conjunction with the (to be charitable) unintended effects of some laws, a lack of effective redress against the police when they overstep their bounds, and mass surveillance that "risks undermining the fundamental relationship between the state and citizens", I believe it does have the effect of further dissuading people from protesting in a state with a steadily increasing and pervasive surveillance culture.
So have we, and has the government, got the balance right?
In the case of the various databases and monitoring of the population, we appear to have crossed a threshold, one which has a bearing on the relationship between the citizen and the Executive (the government of a State). The Executive has an obvious need and right to gather information to carry out services for the people of that state. This includes, to an extent, the gathering of information to fight crime. However, the unwilling and automatic gathering of data (as opposed to that handed over willingly, such as for the receipt of services) for the purposes of crime prevention or detection should be kept to a minimum.
Is it not better to require there to be suspicion of criminality before data can be gathered this way? Consider it as analogous to a system of requiring warrants for searches and communication intercepts. A reasonable level of suspicion (this level would obviously vary depending on the data that is being sought) must surely be reached before data is taken without agreement? Instead, we have a system where all must provide information, either as a consequence of wishing to pursue a lawful act, or by inappropriately sharing data provided for one purpose (such as receiving a service) without consent.
This is purely a land-grab for data. And once your personal data is in the hands of others, you cease to have control over what use it is put to - now, and in the future.
Because you need to be happy not only to have the current government have this information about you, about what you do, where you live, who you travel with, but also to be happy to have every possible government afterwards holding this data about you.
And I'm just not that trusting.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Torture, Openness, and Balancing Acts
This weekend I want to talk about the furore surrounding the treatment of Binyam Mohamed.
Binyam Mohamed is an Ethiopian-born UK resident. In 1994, aged 15, he came to the UK with his father, who was seeking asylum. After obtaining five GCSEs and an engineering diploma at the City of Westminster College in Paddington, he decided to stay in Britain when his father returned, and was given indefinite leave to remain. He lived in the UK for seven years, during which time he converted to Islam. He travelled to Afghanistan, via Pakistan, in June 2001. He returned to Pakistan sometime after 9/11.
In April 2002, he was arrested at Karachi airport. He was attempting to fly to Zurich, but was not using his own passport.
What happened next is murky. Binyam alleges he was held at two prisons in Pakistan over three months, where he was hung from leather straps, beaten, and threatened with a gun. He further alleges that he was questioned by men he believed to be FBI agents. The torture stopped after he was visited by two Britons, who he believes were MI6 officers. Instead, he was told he was to be tortured by Arabs.
Binyam alleges he was flown in a US aircraft to Morocco, and taken to a jail near Rabat. Here, he says he was tortured for the next 18 months. 18 months of beatings, noise, being slashed with scalpels in his chest and genitals. During this time, he was accused of being an al-Qaida terrorist. Binyam denies the allegations, but he does say he would say anything to try and get the torture to stop. He signed a statement about a dirty bomb plot.
Binyam says that after this 18 months in Morocco, he was flown back to Afghanistan, escorted by masked US soldiers who seemed shocked by his physical condition. When he arrived back in Afghanistan, he says he was kept in a darkened cell in Kabul, chained up, and subjected to loud music for 5 months, while being questioned by Americans. Only after this time was he moved to the Bagram air base, and shown to the Red Cross. Four months later, he was in Guantanamo.
More than a year later, over three and a half years since he was arrested, Binyam was charged with a crime.
On 28th July 2008, an attempt to make the facts clearer, for use in his defence in the US Military Tribunal, was made by Binyam's UK lawyers, who filed a petition that the Foreign Office should be compelled to turn over the evidence of Binyam's abuse. The judges agreed, saying the information was "not only necessary but essential for his defence". The classified US documents were turned over to Binyam's US counsel, for use in his attempts to be set free.
Soon afterwards, all charges against Binyam were dropped, "without prejudice". His lawyers were told new charges would be forthcoming. None have done so.
The question that the UK judges were now asked to look at was if there was a public interest in allowing the publication of seven paragraphs in their original judgement, in which they "provided a summary of reports by the United States Government to the [Security Service] and the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) on the circumstances of [Binyam Mohamed]’s incommunicado and unlawful detention in Pakistan and of the treatment accorded to him by or on behalf of the United States Government as referred to in paragraph 87(iv) of our judgment." Essentially, these paragraphs are believed to say what the UK government knew about Binyam's treatment, and when - did they know he had been tortured? Were they complicit?
The Foreign Secretary blocked them being made public. The government argued that the US had threatened to suspend intelligence cooperation with the UK if the paragraphs were released, and therefore national security required them to remain secret.
As with all cases of national security, this is a balancing act. We have to decide what we are prepared to give up on the one hand, in return for something else on the other.
The case of Binyam Mohamed tells us that, in the opinion of the government, we must give up a desire to examine what has been done, with the knowledge and complicity of the UK government, to one man, because in return we gain, or retain, the benefit of intelligence sharing, and therefore enhanced security for us all.
The question for me, is whether the opinion of the government is right - have they got the balance right? Have we got the balance right?
The question is not an idle one. If we or the government have got the balance wrong, ultimately our society will suffer. The judges in the Binyam Mohamed case quoted Henry Hallam:
So have we, and has the government, got the balance right?
I'd argue we haven't.
As the judges said in their ruling, "[i]t is a novel issue which requires balancing the public interest in national security and the public interest in open justice, the rule of law and democratic accountability."
Binyam's lawyers argued that there was an absolute bar to granting a public interest immunity in the release of information pertaining to Binyam's alleged torture:
The judges rejected this argument, because a public interest immunity certificate is there to protect the interests of the entire state, whereas the claim of criminality is against the Executive of the State - the government. In which case, they judged, it may still be in the public interest to block publication of information pertaining to an illegal act by the Executive, if to release that information would damage the interests of the wider State.
Essentially, because bad things could happen to the population, or their interests, it should be possible for the government to stop the release of information showing they or their agents acted in an illegal manner.
In this case, the 'bad thing' would be the reduction in intelligence sharing by the US, and thus placing the UK at greater risk of a successful attack. This is the crucial claim on which the whole judgement pivots. And, importantly, what is in the interests of national security is decided only by the Executive, by the Foreign Secretary, not by the judges.
This is where I think the balance is wrong. While I am sure the judges have made a sound judgement in law, I disagree about the protection of the State. It is incredibly damaging to the State as a whole to allow an Executive to get away with a criminal act, especially an act of the seriousness of torture. It is damaging to allow the suspicion that the Executive is getting away with a criminal act to linger. It is, in my opinion, more damaging to the State than the possible risks caused by the damaging of national security.
For that reason, I would argue that allowing the nebulous argument of national security to trump that of open justice in fact damages the State, and in a pervasive and insidious manner. In the balancing act between potential physical harm, and actual harm to society's accepted mores of justice, the judges have got it legally right, and morally wrong.
However, judges are not there to make the laws we want. That is what Parliament is for. That means we need to make Parliament bring government to account, if necessary by placing an absolute bar to public interest immunity being used in cases of allegations of serious criminality by the government. And if that is what we want Parliament to do, that is what we must make the Members of Parliament to do, by making the matter a "public grievance", and holding them to account over it.
Because sometimes we need our government to do the right thing, regardless of the cost.
(I encourage you all to have a look at the Binyam Mohamed ruling. It is fascinating, and illustrates the balancing act the judges have had to try and decide on.)
Binyam Mohamed is an Ethiopian-born UK resident. In 1994, aged 15, he came to the UK with his father, who was seeking asylum. After obtaining five GCSEs and an engineering diploma at the City of Westminster College in Paddington, he decided to stay in Britain when his father returned, and was given indefinite leave to remain. He lived in the UK for seven years, during which time he converted to Islam. He travelled to Afghanistan, via Pakistan, in June 2001. He returned to Pakistan sometime after 9/11.
In April 2002, he was arrested at Karachi airport. He was attempting to fly to Zurich, but was not using his own passport.
What happened next is murky. Binyam alleges he was held at two prisons in Pakistan over three months, where he was hung from leather straps, beaten, and threatened with a gun. He further alleges that he was questioned by men he believed to be FBI agents. The torture stopped after he was visited by two Britons, who he believes were MI6 officers. Instead, he was told he was to be tortured by Arabs.
Binyam alleges he was flown in a US aircraft to Morocco, and taken to a jail near Rabat. Here, he says he was tortured for the next 18 months. 18 months of beatings, noise, being slashed with scalpels in his chest and genitals. During this time, he was accused of being an al-Qaida terrorist. Binyam denies the allegations, but he does say he would say anything to try and get the torture to stop. He signed a statement about a dirty bomb plot.
Binyam says that after this 18 months in Morocco, he was flown back to Afghanistan, escorted by masked US soldiers who seemed shocked by his physical condition. When he arrived back in Afghanistan, he says he was kept in a darkened cell in Kabul, chained up, and subjected to loud music for 5 months, while being questioned by Americans. Only after this time was he moved to the Bagram air base, and shown to the Red Cross. Four months later, he was in Guantanamo.
More than a year later, over three and a half years since he was arrested, Binyam was charged with a crime.
On 28th July 2008, an attempt to make the facts clearer, for use in his defence in the US Military Tribunal, was made by Binyam's UK lawyers, who filed a petition that the Foreign Office should be compelled to turn over the evidence of Binyam's abuse. The judges agreed, saying the information was "not only necessary but essential for his defence". The classified US documents were turned over to Binyam's US counsel, for use in his attempts to be set free.
Soon afterwards, all charges against Binyam were dropped, "without prejudice". His lawyers were told new charges would be forthcoming. None have done so.
The question that the UK judges were now asked to look at was if there was a public interest in allowing the publication of seven paragraphs in their original judgement, in which they "provided a summary of reports by the United States Government to the [Security Service] and the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) on the circumstances of [Binyam Mohamed]’s incommunicado and unlawful detention in Pakistan and of the treatment accorded to him by or on behalf of the United States Government as referred to in paragraph 87(iv) of our judgment." Essentially, these paragraphs are believed to say what the UK government knew about Binyam's treatment, and when - did they know he had been tortured? Were they complicit?
The Foreign Secretary blocked them being made public. The government argued that the US had threatened to suspend intelligence cooperation with the UK if the paragraphs were released, and therefore national security required them to remain secret.
As with all cases of national security, this is a balancing act. We have to decide what we are prepared to give up on the one hand, in return for something else on the other.
The case of Binyam Mohamed tells us that, in the opinion of the government, we must give up a desire to examine what has been done, with the knowledge and complicity of the UK government, to one man, because in return we gain, or retain, the benefit of intelligence sharing, and therefore enhanced security for us all.
The question for me, is whether the opinion of the government is right - have they got the balance right? Have we got the balance right?
The question is not an idle one. If we or the government have got the balance wrong, ultimately our society will suffer. The judges in the Binyam Mohamed case quoted Henry Hallam:
“Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees; the open administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted, and fair constructions of evidence; and the right of Parliament, without let or interruption, to inquire into, and obtain redress of, public grievances. Of these, the first is by far the most indispensable; nor can the subjects of any State be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom, where this condition is not found both in its judicial institutions and in their constant exercise.”
So have we, and has the government, got the balance right?
I'd argue we haven't.
As the judges said in their ruling, "[i]t is a novel issue which requires balancing the public interest in national security and the public interest in open justice, the rule of law and democratic accountability."
Binyam's lawyers argued that there was an absolute bar to granting a public interest immunity in the release of information pertaining to Binyam's alleged torture:
There was a general public interest in the exposure of evidence of any serious criminality by the State. It would therefore be contrary to the public interest to claim public interest immunity to conceal evidence of such criminality, as the rule of law demanded the investigation of such wrongdoing and the open and public adjudication of it.
The judges rejected this argument, because a public interest immunity certificate is there to protect the interests of the entire state, whereas the claim of criminality is against the Executive of the State - the government. In which case, they judged, it may still be in the public interest to block publication of information pertaining to an illegal act by the Executive, if to release that information would damage the interests of the wider State.
Essentially, because bad things could happen to the population, or their interests, it should be possible for the government to stop the release of information showing they or their agents acted in an illegal manner.
In this case, the 'bad thing' would be the reduction in intelligence sharing by the US, and thus placing the UK at greater risk of a successful attack. This is the crucial claim on which the whole judgement pivots. And, importantly, what is in the interests of national security is decided only by the Executive, by the Foreign Secretary, not by the judges.
This is where I think the balance is wrong. While I am sure the judges have made a sound judgement in law, I disagree about the protection of the State. It is incredibly damaging to the State as a whole to allow an Executive to get away with a criminal act, especially an act of the seriousness of torture. It is damaging to allow the suspicion that the Executive is getting away with a criminal act to linger. It is, in my opinion, more damaging to the State than the possible risks caused by the damaging of national security.
For that reason, I would argue that allowing the nebulous argument of national security to trump that of open justice in fact damages the State, and in a pervasive and insidious manner. In the balancing act between potential physical harm, and actual harm to society's accepted mores of justice, the judges have got it legally right, and morally wrong.
However, judges are not there to make the laws we want. That is what Parliament is for. That means we need to make Parliament bring government to account, if necessary by placing an absolute bar to public interest immunity being used in cases of allegations of serious criminality by the government. And if that is what we want Parliament to do, that is what we must make the Members of Parliament to do, by making the matter a "public grievance", and holding them to account over it.
Because sometimes we need our government to do the right thing, regardless of the cost.
(I encourage you all to have a look at the Binyam Mohamed ruling. It is fascinating, and illustrates the balancing act the judges have had to try and decide on.)
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Gordon Brown backs move to block full publication of MPs' expenses
Gordon Brown backs move to block full publication of MPs' expenses - Times Online
Breathtaking.
UPDATE:
Gordon Brown withdraws plan to keep details of MPs' expenses secret
Hurrah! Looks like an internet campaign had an effect, for once...
Breathtaking.
UPDATE:
Gordon Brown withdraws plan to keep details of MPs' expenses secret
Hurrah! Looks like an internet campaign had an effect, for once...
Friday, 4 July 2008
The big Brown mess we're in - Part 1
This is a personal view of the past year, coloured by emotion. This is from memory, so the timelines may be mixed and confused, and facts may be completely wrong. I don't care. This one is about the visceral side of politics, about my emotional response to all this.
A year ago, I wrote a lament for socialism. Brown had secured the leadership of the Labour Party without an election, and so became Prime Minister. I predicted he would be the same as Blair, only with different presentation skills. Well, I suppose he tried to be the same as Blair, but his lack of presentation skills of any sort scuppered that.
And yet it all started so well, for him, if not the country. We were beset by repeated floodings, the re-emergence of foot and mouth disease and attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow. But Brown seemed to be the right man to keep the ship on course. His response to the floods was seen as good, he cut short his holiday to co-ordinate the response to foot and mouth, and his presence was reassuring following the attempted bombings. Brown was riding high, his popularity enormous, his poll ratings stratospheric.
But... he also managed to alienate the left of the Labour Party, some of whom had been clinging desperately to the hope his premiership would signal a return to 'traditional' Labour values, with one simple act. He received Thatcher at Downing Street, in the full glare of publicity, praising her as a "conviction politician". Now, the visit may very well have been a kindness to the 81 year-old widow, but for Brown, the supposed more left-wing of the Brown-Blair partnership, to welcome her, praise her, appear with her in full publicity was, I believe, a terrible mistake for him. Oh yes, it enabled him to score some short term cheap points against the Conservatives (who were trying to portray themselves as more, well, fluffy than the Thatcher years), but it damaged his relationship with the core of his own party, those who had been hanging on for him for years. It revealed an obsession with student style politics, cheap point scoring, and not the kind of conviction politics he was supposedly praising.
From that point on, it all started to go wrong. The polls were so good that some within the government started to press Brown to hold a snap general election. This was not necessarily a bad idea, but whichever decision was to be made, it had to be made quickly. As it was, Brown dithered, and the inheritance tax issue suddenly exploded.
I'm still amazed that this issue was as big as it was. Inheritance tax is, frankly, a non-issue to the overwhelming majority of voters. 96% of estates are unaffected by it. And yet, somehow, working and middle class voters, who would never have to deal with it, suddenly saw it as a major problem. This 'tax on death' as it was dubbed was used by the Tories was used as an example of 'stealth taxes', of a cunning and devious administration pinching pennies from the public. I even heard one columnist claiming inheritance tax was causing a reduction in first-time house buyers, as they had to pay up on money inherited, rather than buy a house...
This was a chance for Brown to show himself as a conviction politician. Inheritance tax catches only the very largest estates. It helps to stop the accumulation of vast family fortunes, dynastic money and privilege. And yet... he was running scared from Tory attacks. They had, frankly, left him alone over the summer, his honeymoon period. To have attacked him while the country was reeling from various calamities would have seemed churlish. But now the gloves were off, and Brown had to deal with attacks on him for the first time. And he failed the test.
Instead of going out and defending the whole concept of the tax, he crumbled, and got his puppet chancellor to announce a rapid change. The change in itself was minor - a combining of spousal allowances, meaning instead of two allowances of £300,000, there was one of £600,000 - and achieved little - anyone in a position to worry about the tax had already arranged their affairs to achieve the same effect. But the perception was that Brown had finally been 'found out' on a stealth tax, and had backed down. Suddenly the Tories were able to go back to their old mantra of claiming Labour were a high tax, high spend party, and questions on their economic competence were back on the table, where they hadn't been for more than a decade.
In light of this, and the damaging effect on the polls, Brown finally quashed the rumours of a snap election. If he'd quashed the rumours immediately, it wouldn't have been a problem for him. But because he allowed the speculation to drag on for weeks, he was seen to be running from the issue. Personally, I have some sympathy with him on this issue. I take forever to make a decision - and when I do make it, it is almost always the same as I would have made long before. I have issues with making a final decision until I absolutely must - it seems foolish to do so before then. I acknowledge this as a failing in myself, and I recognise the same flaw in Brown. I don't think it means the decisions he makes are wrong, possibly quite the opposite. But unfortunately, these days it is better for a prime minister to make a quick decision, any decision, and stick with it, than it is for him to be seem as 'dithering'. 'Ditherer Brown' was another label the Tories were going to use over and over again in the months to come. Better to be quick and wrong than slow and right.
And, of course, we mustn't forget Northern Rock.
Full disclosure: I've had an account with Northern Rock since the days it was a building society. I think it's got about £50 in it, just as it has for the last decade. I also voted for it to stay a building society. I think there may be one other person out there who voted the same way, but I have yet to find them.
Northern Rock was a strange one. Its business model was perfect while credit was cheap. It even had some contingency for when credit became more expensive. What it didn't have was contingency for when credit became impossible to find. Northern Rock was like a desperate young house-holder, borrowing money on 0% credit cards to pay the mortgage. But when the 0% deals ended, they had nowhere to turn. Like the young house-holder, they had a lender of last resort - not their mum and dad, but the Bank of England. But like gossipy parents, the BoE couldn't keep its mouth shut, and let everyone know what was happening. (To be fair, it is entirely possible it would have fallen foul of EU competition rules if it hadn't.) Whatever the reasons, this loquacity revealed the BoE's complete inability to deal with members of the public. They told everyone that Northern Rock had come to them cap in hand, but that everything was going to be fine. Honest.
The next day, there was a run on Northern Rock.
Queues stretched along streets. News reporters searched desperately for signs of wild and frantic panic, but were met with taciturn northerners. "Why are you panicking?" asked the reporters. "I'm not, I'm being rational. I am removing money to put it somewhere safer." The reporters went elsewhere to search for scenes of chaos. They should have been looking in Whitehall.
Northern Rock was now doomed. Cash being removed from accounts made its reliance on credit more extreme, meaning they needed more help from the BoE, meaning more people felt they had to get their money out. Their shares plummeted to become junk. As a result of their demutualisation, there were hordes of small investors, those given shares when it converted to a bank who had never sold them, never owned any other shares. The meaning of a shareholder economy suddenly became clear to them.
And all the while, the chancellor and BoE dillied and dallied over the right response. After a couple of days, they guaranteed all deposits in the bank, but it was too little too late. Desperate to avoid nationalisation and all the echoes off the 1970s that word brought, the government allowed the bank to limp along, the funds provided by the BoE growing ever greater. Finally, months into the crisis, the government bit the bullet and took the bank into 'temporary public ownership'. None in the government mentioned the n-word.
There were claims the BoE had provided the money to Northern Rock only because it was a big player in the north-east off England, a Labour heartland, that they were protecting their vote at the expense of the rest of the country. The north-east were bemused, both at the idea Northern Rock was that important to them, and at the idea this Labour government would do anything to protect them. They had already lost their belief.
Northern Rock was a victim of the global credit crunch, which, as we all know, is all the fault of the Americans. (The fact no-one was forced to buy these bizarre credit vehicles is handily ignored in that nice view, but never-mind.) It was a victim of a global event, which hammered banks around the globe. Northern Rock's mistake was that it had never really expanded its traditional banking arm, relying on mortgages to increase their profits without bringing in more depositors to help with liquidity. It wasn't a bad plan for many years, but when the perfect storm came, it couldn't weather it.
Regardless of the causes of its failure, it, fairly or not, was used as a symbol of economic mismanagement by the government, by Gordon Brown specifically. He had built his name and reputation by being the Iron Chancellor, on economic competence, on years of quite stunning performance of the UK economy. Now, finally, the opposition had a way of attacking that. They seized on it gleefully, the Tories believing they now had a magic combination - they could accuse Brown of cruel and unfair taxation, and of squandering the money in economic mismanagement. It was like the 1980s all over again.
But it was worse than that. Everyone knew Brown had been desperate to avoid nationalisation. And yet, after months and months, he has been forced to allow it. This portrayed him as both being forced into doing something, and being a ditherer. His reputation, his image, his character seemed to be falling apart more and more every day.
And then came the biggie.
Unlike his other problems, the 10p tax row was something Brown should have seen coming a mile off. He has no-one to blame but himself for this one. It was a taxation policy he created and announced as chancellor. Essentially, there used to be a starting rate of tax of 10% on the first £2,000 above your personal allowance, followed by the basic rate of 22%. In his last budget, Brown reduced the basic rate of income tax to 20%, and completely abolished the 10% tax rate - replacing it with the basic rate. What this meant was that for that first £2,000 above your personal allowance, your tax rate was doubled. Now, the more you earned that was in the basic rate band, the better off you would be - the 2% cut quickly compensated. But, of course, if you didn't earn much, you lost out a lot.
Of course, it wasn't as simple as this, it rarely is. Various tax credits, allowances, and benefits changes meant many people weren't affected at all. But there was a core of people who were badly hit, mainly young single childless people with low incomes. (Incidentally, a group who have very low voting rates, but I am sure this had no input into the calculations.)
In simple terms: some of the poorest people were paying more tax, while the better off were paying less.
If the economy had been doing well, I doubt this would have been the issue it was. But while people were starting to suffer with rapidly rising food and petrol prices, this added tax was too much. Labour MPs, who had presumably not been paying attention when this was announced the previous year, suddenly started screaming for this tax change to be stopped. The government remained firm - you couldn't go changing any of the tax plans on a whim, the whole worked as a package or not at all. It was just too complex to fiddle with.
This was too good an opportunity for the Tories to pass up. They were able to attack a Labour prime minister for taxing the poor to give to the rich. Their audacity was breathtaking. The resonance with the public incredible. And, sadly, the logic was unarguable. It was precisely what a Labour government had done.
This row rumbled on. Ultimately, the government was forced into a climb-down, again. The possible revolt by Labour MPs, who would have voted against the finance bill, had every chance of success, leaving the government in an impossible position. Emergency changes were made, allegedly in response to the changed economic environment. Brown had said nothing would change, and been forced to back down. He was seen as weak, as a ditherer, and as attempting to get away with an unfair tax.
It still amazes me how many people in the government still don't seem to understand what a huge issue this was. They have put in place a package which compensates almost all those who would have lost out, and more. But this one wasn't about the money. This one was about perception. Labour's supporters and voters had forgiven many of the government's excesses. There was anger over wars, over the friendliness to business, their attitude to the US, many, many things. But through it all was a belief that, fundamentally, the party would protect the worst off in society. That, ultimately, they would make things better for them.
That illusion was shattered, and no amount of back-pedalling can bring it back. Some members of the government seem to believe that the changes they made solved the issue, but the real issue was the loss of trust from their most committed voters. Trust takes a long time to build, and can be destroyed in an instant. And once you have lost it, it is almost impossible to get it back.
The cross-section of society that has kept Labour in power lost their trust. The traditional core vote has seen the Labour government attacking them. The 'middle Britain' voters have had it rubbed in their face that they are being bought at the expense of others.
And worst of all, because of a peculiarity of the British character, the whole farrago was exacerbated by one simple fact: the taxation changes were seen as unfair. For a government to be seen as unfair is the kiss of death.
This, to me, was the key point. Before this, Brown could have recovered. Some astute handling of the economy, guiding Britain through the bad times, could have saved him. Being seen to ameliorate the worst of the global problems would have been enough. But after this, he had no chance. The mood of the country changed against Brown, against the Labour government. It's just a matter of time.
The farce of the change to 42 days of detention without trial was just a footnote. By this point, everyone knew that the government would cave and offer inducements to MPs to get them to back it. Deny it as they might, no-one now believes the rebels didn't get paid off in some way. And worse for the government is their own backbenchers now know the leadership will back down, that they can be bullied into giving in. Brown has lost control of his own party - subtly, because the outcome of internecine strife of the Conservatives is still remembered, but he has lost control all the same.
And so we are left with a prime minister who was portrayed as an Iron Chancellor, a man who kept control with a tight grip, a man who would not be swayed, now being perceived as a weak, vacillating leader, who has lost control of his party. What a difference a year makes.
Where do we go from here?
A year ago, I wrote a lament for socialism. Brown had secured the leadership of the Labour Party without an election, and so became Prime Minister. I predicted he would be the same as Blair, only with different presentation skills. Well, I suppose he tried to be the same as Blair, but his lack of presentation skills of any sort scuppered that.
And yet it all started so well, for him, if not the country. We were beset by repeated floodings, the re-emergence of foot and mouth disease and attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow. But Brown seemed to be the right man to keep the ship on course. His response to the floods was seen as good, he cut short his holiday to co-ordinate the response to foot and mouth, and his presence was reassuring following the attempted bombings. Brown was riding high, his popularity enormous, his poll ratings stratospheric.
But... he also managed to alienate the left of the Labour Party, some of whom had been clinging desperately to the hope his premiership would signal a return to 'traditional' Labour values, with one simple act. He received Thatcher at Downing Street, in the full glare of publicity, praising her as a "conviction politician". Now, the visit may very well have been a kindness to the 81 year-old widow, but for Brown, the supposed more left-wing of the Brown-Blair partnership, to welcome her, praise her, appear with her in full publicity was, I believe, a terrible mistake for him. Oh yes, it enabled him to score some short term cheap points against the Conservatives (who were trying to portray themselves as more, well, fluffy than the Thatcher years), but it damaged his relationship with the core of his own party, those who had been hanging on for him for years. It revealed an obsession with student style politics, cheap point scoring, and not the kind of conviction politics he was supposedly praising.
From that point on, it all started to go wrong. The polls were so good that some within the government started to press Brown to hold a snap general election. This was not necessarily a bad idea, but whichever decision was to be made, it had to be made quickly. As it was, Brown dithered, and the inheritance tax issue suddenly exploded.
I'm still amazed that this issue was as big as it was. Inheritance tax is, frankly, a non-issue to the overwhelming majority of voters. 96% of estates are unaffected by it. And yet, somehow, working and middle class voters, who would never have to deal with it, suddenly saw it as a major problem. This 'tax on death' as it was dubbed was used by the Tories was used as an example of 'stealth taxes', of a cunning and devious administration pinching pennies from the public. I even heard one columnist claiming inheritance tax was causing a reduction in first-time house buyers, as they had to pay up on money inherited, rather than buy a house...
This was a chance for Brown to show himself as a conviction politician. Inheritance tax catches only the very largest estates. It helps to stop the accumulation of vast family fortunes, dynastic money and privilege. And yet... he was running scared from Tory attacks. They had, frankly, left him alone over the summer, his honeymoon period. To have attacked him while the country was reeling from various calamities would have seemed churlish. But now the gloves were off, and Brown had to deal with attacks on him for the first time. And he failed the test.
Instead of going out and defending the whole concept of the tax, he crumbled, and got his puppet chancellor to announce a rapid change. The change in itself was minor - a combining of spousal allowances, meaning instead of two allowances of £300,000, there was one of £600,000 - and achieved little - anyone in a position to worry about the tax had already arranged their affairs to achieve the same effect. But the perception was that Brown had finally been 'found out' on a stealth tax, and had backed down. Suddenly the Tories were able to go back to their old mantra of claiming Labour were a high tax, high spend party, and questions on their economic competence were back on the table, where they hadn't been for more than a decade.
In light of this, and the damaging effect on the polls, Brown finally quashed the rumours of a snap election. If he'd quashed the rumours immediately, it wouldn't have been a problem for him. But because he allowed the speculation to drag on for weeks, he was seen to be running from the issue. Personally, I have some sympathy with him on this issue. I take forever to make a decision - and when I do make it, it is almost always the same as I would have made long before. I have issues with making a final decision until I absolutely must - it seems foolish to do so before then. I acknowledge this as a failing in myself, and I recognise the same flaw in Brown. I don't think it means the decisions he makes are wrong, possibly quite the opposite. But unfortunately, these days it is better for a prime minister to make a quick decision, any decision, and stick with it, than it is for him to be seem as 'dithering'. 'Ditherer Brown' was another label the Tories were going to use over and over again in the months to come. Better to be quick and wrong than slow and right.
And, of course, we mustn't forget Northern Rock.
Full disclosure: I've had an account with Northern Rock since the days it was a building society. I think it's got about £50 in it, just as it has for the last decade. I also voted for it to stay a building society. I think there may be one other person out there who voted the same way, but I have yet to find them.
Northern Rock was a strange one. Its business model was perfect while credit was cheap. It even had some contingency for when credit became more expensive. What it didn't have was contingency for when credit became impossible to find. Northern Rock was like a desperate young house-holder, borrowing money on 0% credit cards to pay the mortgage. But when the 0% deals ended, they had nowhere to turn. Like the young house-holder, they had a lender of last resort - not their mum and dad, but the Bank of England. But like gossipy parents, the BoE couldn't keep its mouth shut, and let everyone know what was happening. (To be fair, it is entirely possible it would have fallen foul of EU competition rules if it hadn't.) Whatever the reasons, this loquacity revealed the BoE's complete inability to deal with members of the public. They told everyone that Northern Rock had come to them cap in hand, but that everything was going to be fine. Honest.
The next day, there was a run on Northern Rock.
Queues stretched along streets. News reporters searched desperately for signs of wild and frantic panic, but were met with taciturn northerners. "Why are you panicking?" asked the reporters. "I'm not, I'm being rational. I am removing money to put it somewhere safer." The reporters went elsewhere to search for scenes of chaos. They should have been looking in Whitehall.
Northern Rock was now doomed. Cash being removed from accounts made its reliance on credit more extreme, meaning they needed more help from the BoE, meaning more people felt they had to get their money out. Their shares plummeted to become junk. As a result of their demutualisation, there were hordes of small investors, those given shares when it converted to a bank who had never sold them, never owned any other shares. The meaning of a shareholder economy suddenly became clear to them.
And all the while, the chancellor and BoE dillied and dallied over the right response. After a couple of days, they guaranteed all deposits in the bank, but it was too little too late. Desperate to avoid nationalisation and all the echoes off the 1970s that word brought, the government allowed the bank to limp along, the funds provided by the BoE growing ever greater. Finally, months into the crisis, the government bit the bullet and took the bank into 'temporary public ownership'. None in the government mentioned the n-word.
There were claims the BoE had provided the money to Northern Rock only because it was a big player in the north-east off England, a Labour heartland, that they were protecting their vote at the expense of the rest of the country. The north-east were bemused, both at the idea Northern Rock was that important to them, and at the idea this Labour government would do anything to protect them. They had already lost their belief.
Northern Rock was a victim of the global credit crunch, which, as we all know, is all the fault of the Americans. (The fact no-one was forced to buy these bizarre credit vehicles is handily ignored in that nice view, but never-mind.) It was a victim of a global event, which hammered banks around the globe. Northern Rock's mistake was that it had never really expanded its traditional banking arm, relying on mortgages to increase their profits without bringing in more depositors to help with liquidity. It wasn't a bad plan for many years, but when the perfect storm came, it couldn't weather it.
Regardless of the causes of its failure, it, fairly or not, was used as a symbol of economic mismanagement by the government, by Gordon Brown specifically. He had built his name and reputation by being the Iron Chancellor, on economic competence, on years of quite stunning performance of the UK economy. Now, finally, the opposition had a way of attacking that. They seized on it gleefully, the Tories believing they now had a magic combination - they could accuse Brown of cruel and unfair taxation, and of squandering the money in economic mismanagement. It was like the 1980s all over again.
But it was worse than that. Everyone knew Brown had been desperate to avoid nationalisation. And yet, after months and months, he has been forced to allow it. This portrayed him as both being forced into doing something, and being a ditherer. His reputation, his image, his character seemed to be falling apart more and more every day.
And then came the biggie.
Unlike his other problems, the 10p tax row was something Brown should have seen coming a mile off. He has no-one to blame but himself for this one. It was a taxation policy he created and announced as chancellor. Essentially, there used to be a starting rate of tax of 10% on the first £2,000 above your personal allowance, followed by the basic rate of 22%. In his last budget, Brown reduced the basic rate of income tax to 20%, and completely abolished the 10% tax rate - replacing it with the basic rate. What this meant was that for that first £2,000 above your personal allowance, your tax rate was doubled. Now, the more you earned that was in the basic rate band, the better off you would be - the 2% cut quickly compensated. But, of course, if you didn't earn much, you lost out a lot.
Of course, it wasn't as simple as this, it rarely is. Various tax credits, allowances, and benefits changes meant many people weren't affected at all. But there was a core of people who were badly hit, mainly young single childless people with low incomes. (Incidentally, a group who have very low voting rates, but I am sure this had no input into the calculations.)
In simple terms: some of the poorest people were paying more tax, while the better off were paying less.
If the economy had been doing well, I doubt this would have been the issue it was. But while people were starting to suffer with rapidly rising food and petrol prices, this added tax was too much. Labour MPs, who had presumably not been paying attention when this was announced the previous year, suddenly started screaming for this tax change to be stopped. The government remained firm - you couldn't go changing any of the tax plans on a whim, the whole worked as a package or not at all. It was just too complex to fiddle with.
This was too good an opportunity for the Tories to pass up. They were able to attack a Labour prime minister for taxing the poor to give to the rich. Their audacity was breathtaking. The resonance with the public incredible. And, sadly, the logic was unarguable. It was precisely what a Labour government had done.
This row rumbled on. Ultimately, the government was forced into a climb-down, again. The possible revolt by Labour MPs, who would have voted against the finance bill, had every chance of success, leaving the government in an impossible position. Emergency changes were made, allegedly in response to the changed economic environment. Brown had said nothing would change, and been forced to back down. He was seen as weak, as a ditherer, and as attempting to get away with an unfair tax.
It still amazes me how many people in the government still don't seem to understand what a huge issue this was. They have put in place a package which compensates almost all those who would have lost out, and more. But this one wasn't about the money. This one was about perception. Labour's supporters and voters had forgiven many of the government's excesses. There was anger over wars, over the friendliness to business, their attitude to the US, many, many things. But through it all was a belief that, fundamentally, the party would protect the worst off in society. That, ultimately, they would make things better for them.
That illusion was shattered, and no amount of back-pedalling can bring it back. Some members of the government seem to believe that the changes they made solved the issue, but the real issue was the loss of trust from their most committed voters. Trust takes a long time to build, and can be destroyed in an instant. And once you have lost it, it is almost impossible to get it back.
The cross-section of society that has kept Labour in power lost their trust. The traditional core vote has seen the Labour government attacking them. The 'middle Britain' voters have had it rubbed in their face that they are being bought at the expense of others.
And worst of all, because of a peculiarity of the British character, the whole farrago was exacerbated by one simple fact: the taxation changes were seen as unfair. For a government to be seen as unfair is the kiss of death.
This, to me, was the key point. Before this, Brown could have recovered. Some astute handling of the economy, guiding Britain through the bad times, could have saved him. Being seen to ameliorate the worst of the global problems would have been enough. But after this, he had no chance. The mood of the country changed against Brown, against the Labour government. It's just a matter of time.
The farce of the change to 42 days of detention without trial was just a footnote. By this point, everyone knew that the government would cave and offer inducements to MPs to get them to back it. Deny it as they might, no-one now believes the rebels didn't get paid off in some way. And worse for the government is their own backbenchers now know the leadership will back down, that they can be bullied into giving in. Brown has lost control of his own party - subtly, because the outcome of internecine strife of the Conservatives is still remembered, but he has lost control all the same.
And so we are left with a prime minister who was portrayed as an Iron Chancellor, a man who kept control with a tight grip, a man who would not be swayed, now being perceived as a weak, vacillating leader, who has lost control of his party. What a difference a year makes.
Where do we go from here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)