Manchester says No!

The results of Manchester's referendum on congestion charging and improvements to public transport are in, and they could hardly be clearer. According to the Guardian, 79% of respondents said no, on the back of a 53% turnout. That's close to a general election level of turnout around here. Although the Yes campaign claimed that 9 out of 10 people would not pay the charge, around 4 out of 10 people decided that they didn't want it.

I have distinctly mixed feelings about this. Mostly, I'm disappointed; after all, I did vote yes myself. That's easy for me: I don't own a car, walk to work, and rely on public transport to get around Greater Manchester. The congestion charge would cost me precisely nothing. According to the No campaign, it would work out at £1200 a year for those who would have to pay the maximum amount. It's clearly a regressive tax, and that is not a small amount of money for people who are already struggling to make ends meet. Of course, that's the point: the charge wouldn't work if everyone could easily afford it.

For me, the most important thing about the proposals was the improvements to public transport. There is no doubt that these are needed. Some of them, such as extensions of the Metrolink tram system to Oldham and Rochdale, will happen anyway. But I suspect we will be stuck with an unreliable and expensive (deregulated) bus service for a long time to come.

The problem is that, in the words of the Yes campaign, "there is no plan B". That being the case, it seems crazy to put the question to a referendum. Saying that you either agree with these proposals or you get nothing is hardly a democratic way of posing a referendum question; it's a pretense of democracy. It would have been more sensible, and democratic, to either have our local representatives on the Manchester Council decide to implement the proposals come what may, or have a referendum in which there was a genuine choice of competing proposals.

Improvements in public transport are a good thing, but on their own they will not reduce car use. Driving will always be more convenient than taking the bus, unless there are clear disincentives for car use. It seems that congestion charging is a political impossibility in Manchester, at least right now. An alternative might be to make driving in the city less convenient, by restricting parking, restricting access to certain streets, etc. This would have the advantage of not stinging the poor with another regressive tax. What is clear is that doing nothing is not an option in the long term: it's back to the drawing board for Manchester's transport policy.

Hazel Blears talks rubbish about the blogosphere

I was struck by this article in yesterday's Grauniad. Hazel Blears, the MP for Salford and communities minister (who I incidentally saw having a swift half in Manchester's City Arms the other day), weighs in on the culture of "corrosive cynicism" which is supposedly damaging political discourse in the UK. This, of course, is all the fault of the media, and in particular the blogosphere. The following quote is from an address that Blears is giving today at a Hansard Society conference on growing political disengagement in Britain:

"Perhaps because of the nature of the technology, there is a tendency for political blogs to have a 'Samizdat' style. The most popular blogs are rightwing, ranging from the considered Tory views of Iain Dale, to the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes. Perhaps this is simply anti-establishment. Blogs have only existed under a Labour government. Perhaps if there was a Tory government, all the leading blogs would be left-of-centre? But mostly, political blogs are written by people with disdain for the political system and politicians, who see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy. Until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

Now, I don't want to claim that all of what Blears says here is total nonsense. Clearly the media in general does have a lot to answer for. But perhaps there could be other reasons for political disengagement in the UK? I can think of a handful off the top of my head.

1. The growing reliance of the Labour party on rich donors, which has led to a number of scandals, including the "cash for honours" affair. The corollary of this is a decrease in party membership, an erosion of internal party democracy, a lack of connection between the party grassroots and the government, and a perception amongst the electorate that the government is corrupt.

2. The Iraq war, opposed by a large proportion of the population, and launched on the basis of statements that were not true (whether or not they were strictly "lies"), has now led to the deaths of more than 175 British soldiers and serious injuries to many more. This is aside from the civilian death toll in Iraq, the best that can be said of which is that we don't know what it is, but it is a hell of a lot.

3. A failure to apply appropriate regulation to financial markets allowed the inflation of a credit and asset bubble which has now burst, and will lead to perhaps hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs and their homes.

4. A massive proliferation in anti-terror laws, which despite re-assurances when they were brought in, are now being used to suppress legitimate protest and freeze the assets of Icelandic banks.

No doubt you can think of a few more. So perhaps this corrosive cynicism has as much to do with the cynicism and incompetence of the government as that of the media and the blogosphere?

Quite apart from that, it is interesting to look at what Blears says about the blogosphere. She says that political bloggers "see their function as unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy", and then adds that "until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture...it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair." To me, unearthing scandals does add value to our political culture. Or should government wrong-doing just be hidden? An important aspect of democratic government is that those who govern us can be held to account. That can't happen if no-one knows what they're up to.

It's obviously true that a large number of blogs are dreadful and useless. But it's equally true that many are valuable. By indulging in a rant against the media and the blogosphere, without addressing the contribution of government corruption and incompetence, Blears is not doing much to further the debate on political disengagement.

42 days: get writing, folks

The report stage of the counter-terrorism bill is coming up. This bill would allow pre-charge detention of terrorist suspects for up to 42 days. The current limit is 28 days, already significantly higher than most comparable democracies. No good case has been made for this erosion of civil liberties, and it's time to get writing to your MP. The following went off to my MP today:

I am writing to express my concerns at the proposal in the counter-terrorism bill to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days in certain circumstances. This is a considerable extension to current powers, and for that reason a clear case needs to be made for the necessity of the measure. In my opinion, this has not been done. I note that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken McDonald, and Lord Goldsmith, the former Attorney General, have stated that they see no need for an extension to pre-charge detention. I also note that Lord Dear, the former chief inspector of constabulary, has stated that most chief constables he has spoken to do not think a 42-day detention period is necessary. This raises the question of who exactly does think this provision is necessary.

As I understand them, the proposals would provide for the Home Secretary to make a statement to parliament, and for parliament to vote on an extension to pre-charge detention. However, it is difficult to see how the Home Secretary can come before parliament to discuss individual cases because of the risk of prejudicing them.

The proposals seem to be poorly thought out, unnecessary and unworkable, and I hope you will carefully consider the implications of the proposed legislation for civil liberties before the report stage of the bill.

Sincerely,

Paul Wilson

The uses for terrorist atrocities

I couldn't help but be struck by the Guardian front page last week, that included two stories related to the 7th July terrorist bombings on the London transport system in 2005.

The first story outlined how the Saudi Arabian government, being investigated under corruption allegations linked to the sale of military equipment by BAE systems, allegedly threatened that intelligence co-operation would be compromised unless the investigation was called off. This would threaten another 7/7 and lead directly to the "loss of British lives on British streets". Any government with a spine would have told the Saudis where to go, given threats made in an attempt to halt an ongoing criminal investigation would be a criminal offence. Disgracefully, our government caved in and ordered an end to the investigation. This just can't be right.

The second story featured George Bush, who claimed that the 7/7 bombings could justify torture.

"To the critics, I ask them this: when we, within the law, interrogate and get information that protects ourselves and possibly others in other nations to prevent attacks, which attack would they have hoped that we wouldn't have prevented? And so, the United States will act within the law. We'll make sure professionals have the tools necessary to do their job within the law ".

On being asked about whether Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition send the wrong signal to the world, Bush said "It should send the signal that America is going to respect law, but is going to take actions necessary to protect ourselves, and find information that may protect others -- unless, of course, people say, well, there's no threat, they're just making up the threat, these people aren't problematic. But I don't see how you can say that in Great Britain, after people came and blew up bombs in subways. I suspect the families of those victims understand the nature of killers".

So there you have it. America will respect the law, by using techniques such as waterboarding that are transparently illegal. Families of the 7/7 victims will support torture, because they understand the nature of killers. But what if they understand the nature of torturers too? Again, this just can't be right, can it?

The terrorist attacks of 7/7, in which 52 innocent people were killed, are now being used to justify torture and corrupt arms sales to dictatorial regimes. Nice.

The answer is 42

The government has decided that it wants to extend the limit for detention without charge to 42 days. Why 42? Who knows? The government certainly doesn't seem to have any particular rationale. 90 days has recently been floated again, as has 56 days. Apparently 42 days is thought to be a reasonable compromise.

The proposal follows on from Tony Blair's defeat in the Commons over raising the limit to 90 days. An amendment was passed reducing the limit to 28 days, which is the current limit. This is still significantly longer than any comparable democracy, as this report from Liberty shows. Apparently we are facing a new and different threat, but why this requires such illiberal measures has never been made clear. The UK has faced terrorism before from the IRA, at a time when the maximum length of pre-charge detention was just three days. Why is the current threat so much more serious? And why is the threat so much more serious here than it is anywhere else?

Who wants this extension? According to an article in today's Guardian, no-one except the police and Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terror legislation. No-one else seems convinced, which seems reasonable enough as the government has provided no evidence to show that 42-day detention is necessary or desirable. In a democracy, we shouldn't just reflexively give the police what they want. We should ask why they want it, and what the costs and benefits to our democracy might be if we do give them what they want. This debate is happening, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the government is listening to it.

There was a debate on this in the Lords yesterday, which makes interesting reading if you're into that sort of thing. Lord West is grilled on why the proposals have been made, even though the process of consultation is not complete. Lord Thomas asks "despite all the consultation about which the Minister has talked, there has been not a shred of consensus on the further extension. Why has the process stopped now? Why do we not further seek consensus on such a divisive issue?". Answer came there none. It seems that the government has decided to pick a random number between the current 28 days and the mooted 56 days, and call this a 'consensus'.

In his evidence to the Lords, Lord West talks about detailed 'trend analysis' that shows that some cases will need more than 28 days. Without seeing this data, it's difficult to say much about it. However, an alternative interpretation would be that the trend analysis is showing detention periods increasing towards the limit, not because longer detention is needed but because it is available. This could be an argument against an extension, as extended powers are likely to be used whether they are needed or not.

Anway, it seems as though I'll be writing to my MP again, although it didn't do me a lot of good last time.

Edit to add: You can get some of the documentation associated with this here. The Summary of Responses to the Counter Terrorism Bill Consultation clearly says that "The responses to the consultation clearly indicate that pre-charge detention is a controversial issue and the majority of the responses which we received did not support an outright extension to the current 28 day limit". So what was the point in the consultation again?

The way the proposal works is that the Home Secretary could increase the limit to 42 days immediately, if a chief constable and the director of public prosecutions back the move. It must then be approved by the Commons and Lords within thirty days. The independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, specifically recommended against this proposal. To quote from Lord Carlile's report:

"This might involve the recall of Parliament during a recess to deal with a single case which in itself was not the cause of a national emergency. This could prove extremely impractical. Further, the potential unfairness to the uncharged suspect of a Parliamentary debate on his/her case is self-evident."

So what is the point in the independent reviewer again?

It's also worth noting Lord Carlile's point that "There has been no case so far in which it has been shown clearly that more than 28 days’ detention would have been likely to result in charges which in fact were not made, although there remain many terrorist cases which are yet to be tried".

Democracy, ask me if I'm bothered

You could hardly have failed to notice that there has been speculation about a possible snap election in the UK, with the first week of November having been suggested as the most likely date. The press has been having seizures over this, discussing every possible factor that could have influenced Gordon Brown's decision. Factors mentioned have included the likely turnout at a time of the year when much of the polling would take place in the dark; polling in marginal seats; the state of the economy; the events at the Tory conference; the weather; and just about everything but the thing that seems, at least to me, to be the most important.

The problem is that if an election were called for November, then the December 2006 electoral roll would have to be used. People who had moved home since that date would be in danger of losing their votes. Estimates are that this could affect up to a million people (e.g. see here). Where this has been discussed at all, it has been looked on as a minor inconvenience that could affect turn-out, as opposed to a threat to people's basic democratic rights.

Now, surely any Prime Minister who would consider holding an election at a time when up to a million people could lose their vote is not fit to hold office. At a time when Gordon Brown is trying to wear the mantle of a statesman by publicly opposing anti-democratic regimes such as those in Burma and Zimbabwe, it's surely not too much to ask that he take a little care with our own democratic institutions. It's also sad that the opposition and media have failed to make any kind of issue of this. I would like to have seen an enormous banner headline somewhere, anywhere, saying "A million to lose votes in November poll".

Thankfully, Brown has now bottled it, but this episode seems to put the lie to his conceit that he's governing for the country, rather than the Labour party. And it's clear that the UK is in desperate need of electoral reform, if the fact that people move house every so often can create such problems for the current system.

Happy days are here again...but not really

Oh, let the joy be unconfined, I thought, as I picked up the Guardian on Saturday and saw this article on the front page. Lord Goldsmith has finally resigned as Attorney General!

When I read the article, and thought about it a bit more, I realised that there wasn't that much to celebrate here. Goldsmith didn't resign because of the dropping of the SFO investigation into BAE systems, or because of his advice on the Iraq war (which had all caveats and doubts stripped out before it was given, in summarised form, to cabinet). He resigned because he was in all likelihood going to be sacked by Gordon Brown within days. The announcement of Goldsmith's resignation was made at 9:30pm on Friday night, in the news graveyard shift. I wonder why? Sure enough, the only paper to pick up the news was the grauniad.

Of course, everyone had to pretend that Goldsmith has done an excellent job. Tony Blair said that Goldsmith discharged his role "at all times with integrity and professionalism ... You have shown an unwavering commitment to the importance of the rule of law and human rights. " An unwavering commitment to the importance of the rule of law? This is the Attorney General who famously said that, in dropping the BAE systems investigation, "It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest". Whatever else it may be, this is not an "unwavering commitment to the rule of law".

Gordon Brown said "His contribution to the country and this government has been immense, not least through transforming the Crown Prosecution Service. It is with my regret he has made his personal decision to step down". That personal decision was of course entirely unrelated to his imminent sacking by Brown.

Good riddance, I say, but nothing important will change until the Attorney General becomes truly independent of government. If Gordon Brown can do something about this, it would be a start. But the general evasion and disingenuousness surrounding the performance of Lord Goldsmith is not a good omen.

Corruption by British firms condoned by the government

If you've been following the Guardian recently, you'll know about allegations of corruption surrounding the Al Yamamah arms sales to Saudi Arabia by BAE systems. The Guardian claims that Prince Bandar, a member of the Saudi royal family, received illegal payments of £30 million a quarter over the last ten years. An investigation by the serious fraud office was dropped, purportedly by the director of the SFO, Robert Wardle, earlier this year. The reasons given for the decision to drop the investigation, in a statement by the Attorney General, were as follows:

"The decision has been taken following representations that have been made both to the Attorney General and the director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security."

"It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest."

"No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest."

Well, there's a lot going on here. Firstly, we might ask how the Attorney General's statement that "It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest" squares with the oath taken by Barristers, which reads, in part, "You shall not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things shall conduct yourself truly and with integrity". The rule of law cannot be selectively applied or 'balanced' against other interests, otherwise it simply doesn't exist. Surely this is something the Attorney General should realise.

We might also ask if it's really true that "No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest." Tony Blair has taken responsibility for the decision, saying that he was asked to give advice on the damage that might be caused if the investigation continued. Publicly, he has stated that "This investigation, if it had gone ahead, would have involved the most serious allegations and investigation being made of the Saudi royal family and my job is to give advice as to whether that is a sensible thing in circumstances where I don’t believe the investigation would have led to anywhere except to the complete wreckage of a vital interest to our country." The fight against terrorism would have been harmed and "we would have lost thousands, thousands of British jobs," Mr Blair added.

So it seems as if Tony Blair was giving some weight to "the national economic interest".

I wrote to my MP expressing my dismay that the SFO investigation was dropped, and received a letter from the Attorney General in which he said the main reason for ending the investigation was that he thought there was little chance of convictions being obtained. This also does not stand up to scrutiny. The investigation was abandoned before the SFO could get access to Swiss bank account details that may have contained damning information. They may not have done as well, but it is impossible to know that before getting access to them.

Of course, the big issue here is not who said what when to whom. It's really rather simple. Essentially, the inquiry was stopped because to continue it might upset Saudi Arabia and cause them to withdraw co-operation on security issues. This position has been admitted and publicly defended by no less a figure than Tony Blair. If we're fighting a 'war on terror' in order to protect our democratic freedoms and the rule of law, it's not a good idea to abandon the rule of law to keep a deeply repressive religious dictatorship onside. This ought to be absolutely obvious. It also ought to be absolutely obvious that any 'ally' behaving in the way Saudi Arabia has (i.e. using blackmail to end a criminal investigation) is not an ally worth having. This government has allowed itself to be put in a position where it explicitly and publicly defends turning a blind eye to bribery and corruption, using security as an excuse. That is unforgiveable.

PS-SFO investigations into BAE deals with South Africa and Tanzania continue. But Thabo Mbeki, the South African president, is reported to be furious that the South Africa investigation is ongoing, saying at Davos that "It does puzzle me why a strategic interest with regard to the work of BAE, there would be a strategic interest that would arise with one country and does not arise with other countries". In other words, you ignore corruption in Saudi Arabia: South Africa is your ally too, so you should ignore corruption in South Africa. This is the kind of mess the decision over the Saudi Arabia investigation will continue to get us into.