Randomly Selected Article or Link

No doubt there'll be lots of Labour MPs muttering something about "none of my constituents lobbied me over 42 days" so I set about today just to write a quick note to my NuLabour MP Andrew Smith to ensure that he cannot in all honesty say that:

Jock Coats
OXFORD
OX3

Email: jock_nospam@jockcoats.org.uk

Tuesday 10 June 2008

Dear Andrew,

Whilst I expect it will actually make precious little difference -
shoring up a failing Labour leadership is more important than long
fought for civil liberties after all - but in case you currently find
yourself in the unlikely position of being able to say that nobody has
lobbied you to vote against the 42 day detention limit, let me rectify
that!

Despite polling claims that "65% of the population favours" the 42 day
limit, for myself, I do not know of a single person amongst my friends
in your constitutency that do agree with it. All regard it as an
unacceptable trampling over our ancient rights of habeas corpus and of
the very principle of innocent until proven guilty.

If I were being asked or told to vote in favour I would be examining
closely why people like the former Attorney General appears to be
against it. Wht British police require four times as long as other
countries' counterparts even before the extension to do similar work
(computers cannot be easier to crack just because they are in Italy
which maintains a 2 day charge or release regime).

Every change this government has imposed in the name of fighting
terrorism has been an erosion of existing liberties and protections.
Your job is to examine whether each proposal respects the balance
between liberties and the threat it is trying to counter-act. I
believe this one tips the balance and even if twenty eight days was
acceptable (it wasn't) extending it further requires extraordinary
justification that have not so far been forthcoming. Please vote
against 42 day detention, whatever "safeguards" you are offered by way
of "concessions".

Yours sincerely,

Jock Coats

Hat tip to ConservativeHome who highlight an Ipsos MORI poll that shows Lib Dems, leaderless, up two points from our nadir at 13%. Which begs the question; perhaps we should fill the vacancy until and unless it starts to fall again...:)

Labour 1% ahead in MORI poll tomorrow:

I seem to remember being told that once upon a time Inland Revenue officers used not to be allowed to work on different tax schedules so that no one officer would ever know a citizen's true financial position. Oh for such propriety today when whole records in their millions are transported around different departments merely for audit purposes. Much has been said today about the loss of disks containing the child benefit records of 25 million people and many have suggested that it would be quite wrong now to go ahead with ID cards knowing that information security is so lax in a government department that already holds sensitive data on each and every one of us.

I want to take a slightly different line. I have always been and remain utterly opposed to the system of ID cards linked to a database that is now legislated for. However when I was on the Lib Dems' Civil Liberties working party eight years ago or so I did propose a wholly different type of ID card/account that would come into its own in this situation.

My idea was that we could all have a card or account that would "lock" all data held on us by government and that would require us to be present, or able to authenticate online or on the phone like you do with your telephone or internet banking systems, before any government officer could access your data or authorize any transfer of a part of it to someone else. A sort of a "nuclear key" where both the data subject's and the data user's half of that key would effectively be needed to decrypt any of the data subject's personal information. Yes, it might slow certain things down, but let's face it, there are some things we really don't want government interfering in unbeknownst to us. One needn't even have to trust government to guarantee one's identity - you could open it up so an individual could choose a firm like Thawte, who provide guarantees of identity to online commerce sites we trust with £40bn of our custom each year, to guarantee their identity and private key.

Data about us is part of us. It is our right to know it's secure, especially when we have no choice in handing it over - and such circumstances should be minimized. Whether it's bank account details or DNA it's an invasion of our privacy and self-ownership and every additional byte stored about us is a step towards totalitarianism. The apparatus of government should be our servant and not our master and many fought and died to ensure that we were not enslaved by overbearing states in the twentieth century.

I do not see why the National Audit Office should want all the records on the database. Surely audit is about taking a sample to prove that procedures were being followed and the bona fides of the person being audited and the figures they have produced. HMRC should have a system of internal audit that itself can be verified without any other department needing access to the original data. And if they do need access to the original data, then it should be done on site in a secure area or through secure access direct to the systems concerned. No other business surely sends all of their customer records to their external auditors do they? Nor should they in the civil service, and if that's how NAO and District Audit work then that too should change and urgently.

Commentators like Richard Murphy are just plain wrong in insisting that this is not an extremely serious breach that highlights systemic problems in organizations that handle such huge amounts of data without the effective scrutiny of competition for their customers to keep them on their toes. No junior official, in fact I'd go so far as to say no individual official should have had access to the whole data universe without a great deal of additional verification. It defies belief that anyone thought this system was sufficiently secure.

And finally - a word of warning...

In this highly interactive and globalized society, if we continue to insist on potentially intangible bases - our incomes - for tax, the amount and intrusiveness of data they will need to hold on us can only increase. Another plus for taxing land.

Sir,

As a former and in a few days hopefully future local councillor my heart leapt as I read Danny Kruger today (Telegraph | Opinion | If councils had real power, people wouldn't dream of voting BNP) accurately diagnose the problem with local government and accountability. But I'm afraid it sank again when he listed his tax options. He recognized Local Income Tax as a tax on an economic good - work, but his preferred option, Local Sales Tax is similarly a tax on an economic good - trade. Being fair, he does propose LST should replace an existing bad tax on trade - VAT, but it doesn't improve it just because it is local. But he neglected a most obvious possibility, a tax not on homes or buildings, but on land values.

Land Value Tax (usually known as Site Value Rating when in a local context) taxes an economic bad - the underuse of our most precious resource, land, within the planning framework. In 1909 Churchill spoke about those who hold land at below its best permitted use knowing that one day the social and commercial interactions around it would increase its value with no effort at all on their part.

SVR recaptures and recycles the value of investment, both public and private sector, that goes into making a site valuable. It would help stabilize land values and take the speculative hype out of the market that excludes so many from basics such as home ownership. The Institute of Economic Affairs has recently promoted LVT for transport infrastructure funding in "Wheels of Fortune" by Fred Harrison, and Conservative MP David Curry is a supporter. It taxes a monopoly - every site is a monopoly of different factors affecting its value - from being in a good school's catchment area to being next to the new Jubilee Line extension station or Olympic investment.

If Mr Cameron wants verdant sustainability, LVT/SVR is the obvious choice, and indeed is a must in an era of "eco-taxation" to provide people with real choices and control their tax liabilities. Whether local or national, it would automatically create a movement of economic activity from overheated areas, with high land values and therefore high taxes, to underperforming areas of low value and tax, allowing significant cuts in government redistribution mechanisms as the "market" in tax takes over those functions.

Sincerely,

Jock Coats

Just as we are trying to get to grips with whether the Liberal Conspiracy is actually Liberal, so now we have Dave the Chameleon saying the the Conservatives and the Co-operative Movement have always been natural bed-buddies:

The co-op movement has generally been associated with the political left. I think that's a shame. First, because there have always been people on the centre-right concerned about the effects of capitalism on the social fabric. Men like Carlyle and Disraeli, following the tradition of Edmund Burke and Adam Smith himself, who recognised at the outset of the industrial revolution that profit was not the only organising principle of a healthy society. And second, because the co-operative principle reflects an important part of the vision of social progress that we on the centre-right believe in: the role of strong independent institutions, run by and for local people. That's why Conservatives have always argued that free enterprise and the co-operative principle are partners, not adversaries.

It is true that, faced with an alternative between co-operative localism and central state organization, the Conservatives have occasionally championed the mutual. Notably in 1908 when the Old Age Pensions Act was passed the Conservatives tried to promote the use of Friendly Societies and Mutuals instead of a state pension system. And it may be that there have been well-meaning Tories worried about the "effects of capitalism on the social fabric". And yes, co-operatives operate in the same markets as capitalists often and compete, often successfully with them.

However, the International Co-operative Alliance provides the ground rules for bona fide co-operative enterprises. And the Co-operative Values they promote are indeed motherhood and apple pie stuff: "Co-operatives are based on the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity."

But the Co-operative Principles, developed from this vision and building on the rules of the Rochdale Pioneers, set bona fide co-operatives at odds with the traditional capitalism that the Tory party has long championed. "Democratic Member Control" for example means that every member, regardless of their financial stake, has an equal say in the running of the business. Capitalism is based on the exact opposite - that he with the most shares has the greatest say.

"Voluntary Open Membership" was a challenge to the "Church and State" party - with many mutuals founded precisely because their non-conformist members were barred from services and facilities because of their religious associations.

The Co-operative Movement, at least in Britain, was basically founded to empower the lower classes against the Tory ruling class and its economic hold over them. Its principles can be and are used to democratise and devolve services from an overbearing state as with Cameron's regurgitation of the liberal Milton Friedman's idea for co-operative schooling. But it is an extra-ordinary claim that the principles of the Co-op Movement are compatible with the protectionist capitalism embodied in the Conservative party.

Dave incidentally perpetuated the popular story that the co-operative movement started in Rochdale - they codified the idea of course, but it was proto-socialist Robert Owen who opened the first co-op store for his workers in New Lanark, and, to take it to its logical origins, Gerrard Winstanley's Diggers in 1649 who set the scene for the long battle between co-operation and collectivism on the one hand and enclosure and privatisation of our common birthright on the other. I doubt the Conservative Co-operative Movement will be agitating any day soon for wholesale equitable redistribution of the common wealth.

Incidentally Guido - I believe you are quite wrong in this respect - a hedge fund partnership cannot by definition be a bona fide co-operative since one of the other obligations of a bona fide co-operaive is to promote and educate about the co-operative principles. The hedge fund exploits to the max the capitalist principles of shareholder power - might is right. I don't have a principled objection to hedge funds and private equity - they have their place in this broken world, but they cannot be counted as members of the co-operative movement by any stretch of the imagination.