Longrider

Big John commented recently about the rise in hits on his blog. As did I and Libertine. The puzzling thing here is that I am beginning to smell the proverbial rodent drizzled liberally with fish oil…

Let’s take yesterday. According to my Blog City records, I had 642 hits. Hmm. I also use Sitemeter and according to that, I had 14.

A discrepancy there, what?

During the closing months of my employment with Network Rail, I was involved with the development of the company’s incident management training. I was introduced to London Resilience. It was clear back in 2003 that those who would have to deal with a terrorist attack on the nation’s capital, were expecting it. The statement I often heard was “not if, but when” along with speculation about the magnitude and nature of such an attack. Indeed, the combined services were already practising. From what little I’ve seen and heard, that practice paid off today.

So today, what they had been preparing for while hoping it wouldn’t happen, happened. I trust the cowards responsible are proud of their actions. After all, they didn’t have to go into the field and face enemy fire as real soldiers do. The most that they are likely to face is a term of imprisonment should they be caught. That’s presuming that suicide bombers weren’t used - in which case, they are dead. The planners of such atrocities don’t do anything so dangerous themselves, preferring to use ideologically illiterate footsoldiers to do their dirty work.

I knew I would have to write something about this, but wasn’t sure what. Because of my involvement with emergency planning, I too, knew that this was going to happen at some point. That it happened on my old commuting route is a little unnerving, but that was nearly two years ago now, so rather distant. I have not been personally affected (unless you count three hours trying to get back home from Reading). It was reading Big John’s comment that gelled my thoughts.

London and the British people have been here before. The Blitz saw London’s east end bombed by the Luftwaffe - but not into submission. During the Irish “troubles” the nation has suffered terrorists attacks going back as far as the 1880s. If the latest brand of terrorists think that we will submit, then they are mistaken. Britons are made of tougher stuff.

My condolences go out to those who lost friends and family today. While grieving for our loss, we must however remember this; If we give in and change our way of life - if we allow ourselves to be terrorised, then the terrorist wins and we dishonour the memories of those cut down so cruelly today. The message that we must send out to those who would undermine our way of life is;

Business as usual.

Something Kaz mentioned regarding the bombings in London yesterday was the media frenzy that ensued. When I switched on the television, normal programming had been suspended while the BBC News dissected in minute detail the sequence of events, showed over and over again grainy mobile phone video footage of the aftermath and helicopter shots of the city. Much of this was fatuous comment for the sake of it - there was nothing new to be said.

This morning, BBC Breakfast is doing it all again. I realise that this is a big news story. However, there is only so much that can be said - much is mere speculation until the investigation uncovers the perpetrators and their real motives. The problem is that the media is as much a weapon in the terrorists’ armoury as the bomb and the gun. They rely on the news coverage and extra long special programming is a treat indeed - free advertising for their campaign.

This is the oxygen of publicity. I understand that a news blackout is probably not appropriate and is unachievable. A little restraint might be in order, though.

In the Times today, Simon Davies discusses the LSE solution to Identity Cards systems.

He starts off by touching on the trust issue that beleaguers the current bill staggering through the committee stage in parliament.

“…no ID card scheme can be made to work if the public does not trust it. Trust in this scheme is now dead, and it is doubtful that it can be resurrected. Even if the Government succeeds in ramming the legislation on to the statute book, there will be a fatally significant number of refuseniks who will not co-operate.”

There are an increasing number of us, it would seem.

The approach suggested by the LSE - assuming that a system is necessary - is one of consumer control. That is, where the individual decides what information is kept and who may have access to it. This is fine and dandy and certainly some of the scenarios he presents make sense:

“At this point the card can be used for a range of purposes. Cardholders can choose what information to put on to the system. So a person in poor health may wish to place medical data on to the card, but may then choose to limit access to this information to A&E and paramedic personnel. Someone attending an STD clinic may decide to block all identifying data other than a reference number or first name.”

What isn’t said, is what about those of us who have neither need nor desire to have any card at all?

“It has asked to be closely involved with the Home Office on the practicalities of implementation of the scheme and also wants to see:

• full data-sharing between the public and private sectors to ensure its accuracy
• finance suppliers to have access to ‘readers’ via an accredited licensing system
• implementation of an informal arrangement with the authorities to ensure financial institutions are never knowingly provided with false information”

Thanks guys - you have no idea just how helpful that press release is. Read it and weep.

I’m going to be controversial and state that I am not one of those who supported London’s bid to host the junket that is the Olympic Games. Not just because I find the whole thing terminally tedious, but because of the utter arrogance it wallows in.

If people want to partake or even host this event, then that’s fine by me in principle. So long as it hurts no one. Ah, now there’s the rub… But it will hurt people in one way or another, won’t it? If you are a London council tax payer, the delightful Ken will be putting up taxes averaging £20 per annum starting in 2006/7. Were these good folk asked whether they wanted to contribute to this sporting event? And if they don’t, what then? This amounts to robbery. Oh, the excuse is that the area needed investment anyway. Fine, but an Olympic village and a bloody great stadium? I don’t think so.

Then there are the people who just happen to be in the way of the grand plan. Forman and Field, for example. Having just spent out on new premises, they now find that they are inconveniently located and must vacate. I have a bias here. I despise the principle of compulsory purchase - it is a deeply nasty process that allows the strong to bully the weak. The Americans have a term for it - eminent domain abuse. It is this that Forman and Field now find themselves facing.

So, when you watch the BBC News gloating over London’s victory to the point where they expended 15 minutes worth of somewhat putrid hot air, then you might spare a thought for the little people about to be trampled underfoot.
—–

Last week the Prime Minister made another of his fatuous soundbite comments. On the matter of identity cards, he said they were:

“…an idea whose time has come”.

Sometimes, someone comes up with a rebuttal to such inane comment that it is delightful in its simplicity. The Cape Times responded thus:

“It has been and gone, and it should never return.”

The same could be said for the Right Honourable Tony Blair.
—–

Today the Telegraph publishes the results of the YouGov poll it commissioned. In comparison with a similar one published two years ago, public support for the ID cards bill has fallen from 78% to 45%. As the Telegraph points out:

“Such findings suggest that voters have done something that their MPs almost never do: fitted their opinions to the facts, rather than the other way around.”

Given my recent experience, I can relate to that comment.

Here we have a mirror of what happened to the Australia Card. That unmitigated disaster started with huge public support until people realised the implications. For a while, I was beginning to think that the UK public were not going to wake up to this. However a plethora of media coverage has achieved the necessary awareness and inevitable backlash.

For most people the objections probably centre around the practical and cost features of the bill. Even if we ignore for a moment the LSE findings, the government has been touting ever increasing figures. The original “entitlement” card was going to cost somewhere in the region of £30 when first mooted. This rose to £70 then £85 and at the last count, £93. Even given that the Prime Minister has insisted that the cost be capped, the government are not saying how much it will be. The LSE research committee has taken into account such things as changing biometric identifiers and concluded from this that cards will need renewing every five years rather than every ten years. While this seems a sensible conclusion to the rational observer, according to Charles Clarke, it is “mad”. I suppose this is a mild improvement on his predecessor, David Blunkett who referred to those who disagreed with him as “intellectual pygmies”. Kettles and pots spring to mind.

In 1995, a similar proposal was being mooted by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard. His opposite number, a young, idealistic Tony Blair had this to say on the matter:

“We all suffer crime, the poorest and vulnerable most of all, it is the duty of government to protect them. But we can make choices in spending too. And instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands of extra police officers on the beat in our local communities.”

Whatever happened to him?

It is probably no bad thing that this has been seen as a flagship bill for Tony Blair. He is damaged goods and his dissembling over this is an echo of those quicksand speeches justifying war in Iraq. People don’t trust him, they don’t trust what he says and when he says that this bill is a good thing, they conclude that it probably isn’t.

The question now, is will the government do the decent thing and put this bill out of its misery? Or are they so entrenched that they are incapable of recognising that they were wrong and it is time to admit it with dignity? As the Telegraph points out:

John Maynard Keynes once told a questioner: “When I realise I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” We can only hope that our ministers are big enough to do the same thing.

Well?
—–

Well, the vote went pretty much as I expected. I had vaguely hoped that it would be closer, but I wasn’t disappointed at 20 Labour rebels. Unfortunately, despite lobbying, my own MP Roger Berry voted with the "ayes". In so doing he betrayed his Labour principles. He also betrayed his constituents. I will never vote for this man again - ever.

For now, there will be something of a lull while the bill proceeds to the Lords. Now is the time to educate people who until now have been largely ignorant. People who think that this is just about a piece of plastic in their pocket. People who believe that if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. People who think that this is designed to make their lives easier - as opposed to making it simpler for government to catalogue and identify us for its own purposes.

Something that one of the posters at Samizdata points out, now is the time to explore who is really pushing for this scheme. Who really wants to control and catalogue - politicians are ephemeral. While they might enjoy the trappings of power, their time in office is brief and is subject to the whim of the ballot box. Who is the power behind government and stands to gain?