Boris Johnson plays whiff-whaff with civil liberties

I'm not particularly interested in this civil liberties stuff when it comes to these people's emails and mobile phone conversations. If they are a threat to our society then I want them properly listened to. 

I've always found the fuss made over Boris Johnson to be somewhat mystifying. I'm sure that he is highly intelligent, but then I expect that of people holding high office. But he has a tendency to act the fool, to contradict himself and to be vague on detail, and despite this, a surprising number of Conservatives appear to believe that he is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It is, perhaps, the triumph of celebrity over competence, although he has often been fortunate in his choice of opponents.

But what worries me most is that I can't really tell what he really believes in, apart from being on top. Is he in favour of civil liberties or not, for example, although on the basis of the quote above, the answer is yes, for nice people, but not for people we don't trust. Does that mean that he disagrees with the Government for, as the Tory/Lib Dem Programme for Government declared:

The [Coalition] believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties.

Personally, I suspect that Boris is playing to a very specific audience - right-wing Conservative MPs who distrust David Cameron. It is, after all, one of sufficient size to be worth pursuing, and one which is unlikely to want to back a husky-hugging, socially liberal leader any time soon. If Boris does want to be leader, he's going to have to win their support or, at the very least, have them onside.

From a liberal perspective, one could argue that the security forces are barely capable of managing the data they already have, and have been proven to have a relaxed attitude towards current legislation, in that they are willing to stretch it as far as it will go, and will always seek to have more powers.

And, ultimately, politicians like Boris Johnson, who are more interested in outcomes, and care far less about due process, are probably as big a threat to our civil liberties as terrorists are to our safety. Whilst they might not wilfully give up our freedom, they might do it by neglect or as a bargaining ploy. But the next time I hear Boris talk about liberty, I'll remember that he is, first and foremost, a bit of a fraud...

Internet: freedom, and liberalism, lies bleeding...

So, if David Cameron and the Conservatives are to be believed, we are about to have an opt-in provision for 'adult content' on the internet. Strike another blow against freedom, I fear.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly wild about some of the impacts that the internet has wrought - it has increasingly allowed the coarsening of political (and other) debate, amongst other things, and the easy availability of online pornography may well have had a negative impact on the way some people interact sexually - but in part that comes down to the way people use what is, otherwise, a tool for good, or change, or both.

The beauty of the internet is that it gives people access to information, be it frivolous or vital. It gives the vulnerable a means to discover that they are not alone, it provides a route for those who are, in their own eyes, unusual, or outside of the mainstream, to meet others like themselves. It is, in short, a critical building block for a properly liberal society.

And yes, it does need to be policed against illegality - I'm perfectly relaxed about that - and we need to educate society about its impact and how best to take advantage of the opportunities it offers. But an opt-out option is far better than an opt-in strategy.

The definition of 'adult content' is a vexed one. Various 'minority' communities are rightly concerned that they will be impacted, and that entirely legal, consensual material will be included, as well as critical support material for, for example, the LGBT+ community will be covered. And who, exactly, decides what will be included, and how will they cover every potential website? Is such a project even possible?

It would surely be better to police the internet for criminality, and to educate, rather than to presume criminality and block material pre-emptively based on a set of contentious criteria. But, it seems, something must be done, and this is something, so it must be done.

In a society where we are increasingly taught to be scared of things, it was inevitable that, at some point, the internet would be targeted by people who either don't get it, or have a material interest in not getting it. I would have expected it from Labour, but assumed that, given how loudly Conservatives proclaim their love for freedom, that they might be a bit more sensible. It seems that I was wrong... again. I'm afraid that it's still true that Conservatives still mostly believe in the freedom to do whatever they approve of.

But will Liberal Democrat parliamentarians, given the chance, be any better? Or, in a vain effort to appease the Daily Mail, will they just roll over?

Regardless, I don't have a good feeling about this...

What about my human rights?

For liberal civil servants, it's been a pretty ghastly weekend.

First, the Government start to float the idea that the Human Rights Act is causing problems in terms of their crime and community safety goals. If that wasn't bad enough, this morning's newspapers are full of claims that our Prime Minister is proposing to 'rescue' public services.

The Human Rights Act was one of the key things that led me to believe in 1997 that a Labour government would be, on balance, not unbearable (it didn't lead me to vote for them but...). The concept that citizens might have certain inalienable rights was long overdue and it was, after all, Liberal Democrat policy.

Recent events have conspired to create an atmosphere whereby it is possible to link any instance where the criminal justice system has failed to a 'complication brought about by the Human Rights Act'. The fact that in every instance, the problem could more validly be connected to an administrative failure, is not mentioned. Why? Bureaucracy is hated even more than 'liberal lawyers'. If politicians (and I don't spare Liberal Democrats from this charge - are you reading this, Vince Cable?) insist on slagging off the civil service at every opportunity, you hardly encourage the best and the brightest to join, do you? Most errors are committed, quite innocently, by junior members of staff trying to keep the system operating with judicious use of string and sealing wax. Training is poor, procedural changes too frequent, reforms ever ongoing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Pay your bureaucrats properly, get the best, and you could make real savings by cutting the number of staff needed to fix problems caused by not having the ability to do things properly in the first place. A lot of what we do is process driven and there are usually only limited options. The secret is to know what those options are and, most important of all, why each is relevant and what impact it might have.

And so we are to be rescued... by a man who, quite frankly, appears to hate us and all that we stand for. Earth to Leader, Earth to Leader, you've been in charge for nine years now, so it must be your fault, mustn't it? How long can you blame previous administrations before your credibility runs out? The public sector doesn't need rescuing, it needs some certainty and a little tender loving care. That doesn't mean throwing a shedload of money at it, nor does it mean increasing staffing numbers. What it means is coming up with a clear concept of what government does, what it can do and what it should do?

Here's an outline draft for you to play with...

• government protects the citizenry from external and internal threats to its safety, defines a framework within which society interacts and provides core public services to enable equality of opportunity
• government can enable people to take control of their own lives, create a level playing field of opportunity, not of outcome, and protect those less able to protect themselves
• government should support freedom of the individual within the context of a free society, accept that its actions should be justified and, equally important, accountable and act as a force for good in a multilateral world

The concepts aren't difficult, the practice is, but it comes down to building a partnership with all of the stakeholders (to steal some classic New Labour jargon). I'm a stakeholder too, both as a civil servant and as a taxpayer. So at least look as though you care, can't you?...

ID cards? Secure? You're having a laugh, aren't you?

I must thank my friend, Jeremy Sanders, for this...