Votes at 16?
Clare Coatman (London, oD): In an attempt to engage young people with the formal political process, the Youth Citizenship Commission (YCC) - a body set up this summer as part of the Governance of Britain agenda to "examine ways of developing young people's understanding of citizenship and increase their participation in politics" - is beginning a three month consultation on lowering the voting age to sixteen - the first of a range of proposals. The consultation paper (pdf) includes information on where we fit in internationally, the current legal picture (what rights and responsibilities come into effect at what ages) and the implications of both leaving the law untouched and reforming it.
Sixteen-year-olds can get married, have children and join the army. They are among those who will feel the long term impact of global warming, our foreign policy and the recent financial crisis. They will face major challenges from rising unemployment and will feel the full effects of our education policy.
The stalker state
As National Coordinator of NO2ID I suppose I should be grateful for small mercies. But this hardly includes the thin sugar-coating on the Home Secretary's speech last week when she described her promised 'consultation' on the Communications Data Bill. Hers was a transparent attempt to misdirect the argument.
The government says it won't be storing the content of your telephone or internet use, as if that makes it all right. It is however proposing to record – for life – the details of everyone you call or write to and what websites you visit.
Do you want the State (which in the UK means a large and growing number who can gain access to its systems) to have a record of your religious and political interests, your sexual curiosities, your financial and medical worries, your wider (or narrower) concerns and your special relationships; not to mention a trace of what it reckons ‘you’ have done on your computer even when it is done by someone else? You don’t?
Human rights and narrowing the scope for telling lies about the past
Patrick Corrigan, (Amnesty Blogs: Belfast and Beyond): Some detailed leaks in the News Letter this morning about the supposed likely recommendations of the Eames-Bradley Consultative Group on the Past in Northern Ireland. As I have blogged before, their report isn't now due for publication until December or January, but today's news reports gives a fair few details.
The Belfast Telegraph's story describes the proposals as follows:
"… there will be a five-year commission to investigate murders – headed by an independent international commissioner. The British and Irish Governments would appoint that commissioner with the agreement of the Executive and there will be an Investigations Unit and an Information Recovery Unit.
The plan is for the Investigations Unit to take over the work of the current Historical Enquiries Team and the legacy cases that are dealt with by the Police Ombudsman’s office.
"… if prosecution is not possible — then with the agreement of families cases can go to the Information Recovery Unit. Anyone with knowledge of killings will be encouraged to “tell what they know” — and any information they would give would not be admissible in court. That means there would be immunity from prosecution."
My sources tell me (yes, I have a few!) that on this occasion the leak isn't from Eames-Bradley themselves and that they are a bit disconcerted that it has taken place, but we can probably assume that the report is fairly accurate.
Two views of the City
Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Writing in the Guardian today, Paul Myners who was drafted in by Brown to oversee the government's efforts to save our financial institutions, proclaims
by taking decisive action domestically, and by leading the debate on a new approach internationally, the UK will remain a world leader in financial services. The fundamentals that underpinned our successes over the last decade have not changed - a talented workforce, world-class infrastructure and an internationalism and openness unmatched by other financial centres.
Meanwhile, Nelson Schwarts in the New York Times reveals how the US viewed the City,
In recent years, as Wall Street boomed, Americans often dismissed Europe as a place for languorous meals and vacations, not economic innovation.
London remained a financial hub, of course, but it was often treated dismissively — as a flashy aberration pumped up by petrodollars from Russia and the Gulf, an exception to the otherwise somnolent Continent.
It's an especially interesting read because the NYT is ambivalent as to whether Britain is now to be regared as part of a European response or not.
Does the government have something to hide from inquests?
Damian O'Loan (Paris): The government, shamed by the criticisms in yesterday's coroner's report labelling MoD failures "lamentable", was perhaps only too aware of the attraction of dropping the idea of secret inquests from the failed Counter-Terrorism Bill. As ever though, they will revert to another piece of legislation to implement what is clearly neither wanted nor needed. If, as noted by Tom Griffin, the Conservatives continue to base their opposition on the needs of British service personnel only, it is possible that the general public will be at risk.
Secret inquests, along with internment without trial, formed part of the draconian Special Powers Act 1922 that failed spectacularly in Northern Ireland. The government claims the need to protect vital security information trumps the relevant human rights concerns. The concern is that if the state is involved in a death, it could use this legislation to conceal evidence, and prejudice the right to effective remedy. As we have seen in Northern Ireland with infiltration methods, and Britain with the de Menezes muder, there can be no certainty that this is an outlandish proposal.
From Glenrothes to EWNI
Mike Small (Fife, Bella Caledonia): Last week's lost cause is this week's cause celebre. Mr Bean - virtually laughed out of office two weeks ago - is this week's giant of fiscal rectitude bestriding the world stage like a colossus of economic management. Inconvenient truths like the role New Labour played in the deregulation of goods and services, the 'liberation' of the Bank of England or support for the policy of basing your economy on spiralling housing prices, are swept aside in the glib wave of back-slapping that is sweeping the political commentariat.
The media is fickle, not feral.
Gleefully Jim Murphy the new Scottish Secretary mocks the SNP with reference to the 'arc of insolvency', a reference to the 'arc of prosperity' that the SNP have used to describe Iceland, Ireland and Norway. The problem with Labour's new found chutzpah is that they are treading on thin ice. The markets are faltering, the terrain unpredictable. Just as the SNP's original triumvirate of Ireland, Iceland and Norway was a too-convenient set, it equally fails as an example of why Scotland must be held to the Union. Norway is doing fine in the financial crisis, Iceland is not. The scale and impact of crisis has little or nothing to do with the size and constitutional make-up of the country involved.
High up with Jaqui Smith at the ippr
Clare Coatman (London, oD): Jacqui Smith's speech on counter-terrorism, which she gave to the ippr on Wednesday, has attracted a fiercely critical response from both the media and the opposition parties (you can read the speech in full here). Chris Huhne described the plans for a central database of all mobile phone and internet traffic as "Orwellian" and Dominic Grieve made a strong case that there is no justification for "such an exponential increase in the powers of the state."
Along with OK's Guy Aitchison, I sat in the audience for the speech which was held in the luxurious offices of the law firm Clifford Chance high up in Canary Wharf. Smith started off with a brief history of terrorism in the UK which she described as having two phases. "Phase one" terrorism purportedly spanned the 70's and 80's and was characterised by clearly focused objectives in specific geographical locations; attacks by non-nationals and the lack of a public narrative or use of religious language. "Phase two" terrorism, or 'new terrorism,' is characterised by domestic recruitment; a public narrative; a well defined ideology often expressed in religious language; the willingness to use WMDs to inflict mass casualties and the use of sophisticated technologies.
Hoon rhetoric hits a new low
Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The following remark by Geoff Hoon, which was directed at Lib Dem MP Julia Goldsworthy on tonight's Question Time, lays bare the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the Government's case for the database state:
If they are going to use the internet to communicate with each other and we don't have the power to deal with that, then you are giving a licence to terrorists to kill people
So now, it would seem, not only are opponents of the Govenment's draconian laws "ignoring" terrorism, as Jacqui Smith claimed following the 42 days climbdown, they are actively giving "licence" to "terrorists to kill people"! If this rhetorical turn tells us anything it's just how low the Government is prepared to stoop to bully these measures through.
Update: I'm currently watching News 24 where a Fabian Society apologist is attempting to justify Hoon's outrageous remarks. So far her arguments - "I don't mind if the Government knows if I phoned my son this afternoon" - have failed to convince...
See also UK Liberty
It's not over
Guy Aitchison (London, OK): The fight against the Counter-Terrorism Bill must not end with the Government's humiliating climbdown over the 42 days proposals. There's still loads of nasties left in the Bill, not least the powers to confiscate a "terrorist's" property - including their bank accounts, vehicles, computers or even their house - without trial and potentially on the basis of secret evidence. There's more listed here in an excellent post by David Mery:
The economic crisis is a human rights issue
Radhika Balakrishnan and Diane Elson: The U.S. financial crisis, and the $700 billion rescue plan, even as amended by the Senate and the Treasury Department, do not simply involve huge monetary costs. Both the crisis and the proposed bailout involve violations of the human rights of millions of Americans. Any short- and long-term solutions to the problems must take human rights into account and ensure that the banks are fully accountable to the American people
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, crafted under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt in the aftermath of the great depression and the Second World War and signed by the U.S., declares that everyone has inalienable political and civil and economic and social rights. Governments have obligations to respect, protect and fulfill those human rights, which include the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to housing, and the right to education, as well as the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Don't rule out minority government next parliament
But Canada may actually have more things to teach us about are own political future than you think. When Stephen Harper the Conservative PM called the election the polls predicted that the Conservatives would be returned with an absolute majority. Instead Canada is waking up today to another hung parliament and its third minority government in a row. It looks like, in the midst of an economic storm, Canada decided it did not want any one party in total control.
Hurray - take two
Anthony Barnett (London, OK): As 42 days goes down so does the clause giving the power to order secret inquests which we OKd here. Well done to Inquest - see their letter in today's Guardian.
A momentous day in the Lords
It was particularly interesting to observe the fissures in the various sectors of the Chamber. The biggest split was among the Labour Lords. Ranged on one side were the securicrats in the form of Foulkes Of Cumnock, Harris of Haringey and Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, with the liberal wing being represented by Baroness Malllieu and Lords Falconer and Morris of Aberavon. Former police chiefs were also divided between Lords Dear and Condon voting against 42 days and Lord Imbert who supported the proposal, though the former security service heads voted against it. Ex judges and former Lord Chancellors and Attorneys General voted against and only two Labour QCs ( Lord Archer of Sandwell and Lord Wedderburn) voted with the government. Lord Tebbit was the lone Tory dissident who voted for 42 days. Apart from the minister, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, the military top brass who turned out voted against the government. The one bishop in attendance, Southwark, voted against.
The roll of shame
Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Among those joining the roll of shame of 118 peers who voted for 42 days are: Adonis, Campbell-Savours, Clinton-Davis, Darzi, Gould, Hollis, Kinnock, Lipsey, Malloch-Brown, Mandelson, Radice, Rooker, Soley, Triesman, Wedderburn, Whitty. You can find the full list of the disgraced here.But well done Tessa Blackstone.
I was very disappointed to see that Lord Melvin Bragg abstained. So much for the great intellectual of broadcasting!
De Menezes and the Counter Terrorism Bill
Tom Griffin (London, OK): Yesterday's proceedings at the De Menezes inquest provide an important illustration of why the Counter Terrorism Bill deserves continued scrutiny even after the defeat of 42 days in the Lords.
Justice4Jean reports:
An officer, known only as 'Owen' due to being successfully granted anonymity for the inquest, admitted to deleting a section of notes which would have been potentially vital evidence to any investigative proceedings.
'Owen', who was Deputy Surveillance Co-ordinator for the operation and was present in the operation control room working alongside senior officers including DAC Cressida Dick and D Supt Jon Boucher, wrote up detailed notes of his recollections shortly after Jean's death. These included details of conversations, decisions and commands given by senior officers during the final half hour of Jean's life before his fatal shooting.
Restating Scotland
Democratic Wealth
Thatcher's legacy
G4S: securing whose world?
Re-birth of the nation?
Devalue or Else!
Can Europe Make It?
