Will The Coalition Really Roll Back The Police State

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

The Coalition Government say they will not only deconstruct the police state set-up by Labour, but that they will go further and ask citizens what laws they want repealed.

Those more enlightened among us know that this is not being done out of virtue, because all decisions in politics are made out of pragmatism - in this case they simply can no longer afford to run the army of CCTV operators and DNA personnel, etc.

But how far will they go? I notice they are talking about halting the expansion of traffic surveillance - but not reducing it. Is this all hot air and waffle or can we expect to see the spy cameras actually being unscrewed from their posts and taken down?

[ken_ichikawa]

I think generally it will be shortage of money rather than ideology which rolls back the un libertarian things.

The ID cards thing for example, the tories said that they would not honour the agreements Labour signed pre election.

CCTV cameras, and databases cost money to implement, remove it and a cost vanishes.

I think they will make gestures, and probably remove the idiotic pointless ones so they are seen to be doing something.

The law which makes it illegal to swim around the titanic for example or to use a nuclear weapon etc.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

I think generally it will be shortage of money rather than ideology which rolls back the un libertarian things.

The ID cards thing for example, the tories said that they would not honour the agreements Labour signed pre election.

CCTV cameras, and databases cost money to implement, remove it and a cost vanishes.

I think they will make gestures, and probably remove the idiotic pointless ones so they are seen to be doing something.

The law which makes it illegal to swim around the titanic for example or to use a nuclear weapon etc.

I think there is some ideology in there though, thinking about it. If we are inferring that they are taking the surveillance architecture down because they can't fund it, then it stands to reason it was a loss-making venture to start with. That the revenue raised from all the fines was less than the cost of running it all. So ideology must have been a large part of it in the first place. If you look back through history at various other socialist states oppressive surveillance has always been a favourite pastime.

[huw]

The Coalition Government say they will not only deconstruct the police state set-up by Labour, but that they will go further and ask citizens what laws they want repealed.

Those more enlightened among us know that this is not being done out of virtue, because all decisions in politics are made out of pragmatism - in this case they simply can no longer afford to run the army of CCTV operators and DNA personnel, etc.

It's pragmatic to mollify the liberal rank-and-file (including back-benchers and those to whom they must answer) who could blow the coalition apart if they don't get enough of what they want.

Even if Clegg is only interested in being in government, he needs others to keep him there.

[right_freds_dead]

the od thing about the labour police state is that no one really asked for one. they just sort of 'did it'

[Aidan Ap Word]

I think there is some ideology in there though, thinking about it. If we are inferring that they are taking the surveillance architecture down because they can't fund it, then it stands to reason it was a loss-making venture to start with. That the revenue raised from all the fines was less than the cost of running it all. So ideology must have been a large part of it in the first place. If you look back through history at various other socialist states oppressive surveillance has always been a favourite pastime.

Unless the system was set up to buy votes ... by showing that they were doing something (albeit the wrong/irrelevant/wasteful thing!) about the collapsing society ...?

That is: some socio-analyst numpty suggests that the a godawful set of cameras will set the nation at ease about their safety and hey presto a government department is born. And it is attempted that the government is portrayed as effective and active ... the system is set up as a method of 'earning votes/support'. The perception that the guvnment is doing something about socially accepted/prioritised/hot issues (sheople action calling by gossip) is the key purchased 'product' of such things. The fines (etc) is just a partial inroad into the cost of the meaningless system ... or am I too cynical?

Or is it just another way to e,ploy people in meangless non-jobs as an attempt to employ everyone who could possibly be a voter?

Aidanapword

Edited May 19, 2010 by Aidan Ap Word

[right_freds_dead]

Unless the system was set up to buy votes ... by showing that they were doing something (albeit the wrong/irrelevant/wasteful thing!) about the collapsing society ...?

what collapsing society ? things were fine in 2001 until this property ramping face raped out country. is there a connection between the fµcked over and the ones doing the fµcking over ?

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Unless the system was set up to buy votes ... by showing that they were doing something (albeit the wrong/irrelevant/wasteful thing!) about the collapsing society ...?

That is: some socio-analyst numpty suggests that the a godawful set of cameras will set the nation at ease about their safety and hey presto a government department is born. And it is attempted that the government is portrayed as effective and active ... the system is set up as a method of 'earning votes/support'. The perception that the guvnment is doing something about socially accepted/prioritised/hot issues (sheople action calling by gossip) is the key purchased 'product' of such things. The fines (etc) is just a partial inroad into the cost of the meaningless system ... or am I too cynical?

Or is it just another way to e,ploy people in meangless non-jobs as an attempt to employ everyone who could possibly be a voter?

Aidanapword

You could be right. While all right-thinking people were offended by the surveillance and violation of civil liberties, the "if you have nothing to hide" brigade of useful idiots seemed to be numbered in their millions. The massive increase of the police state could have been Labour's clumsy socialist clunking fist way of showing them they were "being tough on crime", only the voters were too ignorant to realise that they had become the target of the state while the actual criminals were getting it easier than ever vie various statutes rolled out to the courts.

[johnny5thumbs]

the od thing about the labour police state is that no one really asked for one. they just sort of 'did it'

Blo0dy well right. I don't remember that being a plank of their agenda. Maybe this is how politics works after 5 years in power ...

[right_freds_dead]

Blo0dy well right. I don't remember that being a plank of their agenda. Maybe this is how politics works after 5 years in power ...

yeah. the longer they stay the more they create policy behind closed doors based on no public demand. perhaps thats human nature. to consolidate a position gained.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

yeah. the longer they stay the more they create policy behind closed doors based on no public demand. perhaps thats human nature. to consolidate a position gained.

Blair made policy this way right from the start though. It didn't take him five years to marginalise parliament - his "sofa government" started on Day One.

[Guest tbatst2000]

The Coalition Government say they will not only deconstruct the police state set-up by Labour, but that they will go further and ask citizens what laws they want repealed.

Those more enlightened among us know that this is not being done out of virtue, because all decisions in politics are made out of pragmatism - in this case they simply can no longer afford to run the army of CCTV operators and DNA personnel, etc.

But how far will they go? I notice they are talking about halting the expansion of traffic surveillance - but not reducing it. Is this all hot air and waffle or can we expect to see the spy cameras actually being unscrewed from their posts and taken down?

For once, I'm going to be uncynical about a politician. I met Clegg a couple of years back at an event and spent 10 minutes talking to him about ID cards and civil liberties in general and he's deadly serious about fixing this stuff. His intensity was such it reminded me of an evangelical preacher. FWIW, I can't see any way he could have gone into a coallition with Labour, the civil liberties thing would have killed any deal sooner or later.

[Guest tbatst2000]

yeah. the longer they stay the more they create policy behind closed doors based on no public demand. perhaps thats human nature. to consolidate a position gained.

The coallition thing is going to make those cosy Blair on the sofa type deals pretty much impossible I would think. Anything important not discussed and agreed in full cabinet meetings seems likely to cause no-end of grief for Cleggeron (or should that be Camerlegg?).

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

For once, I'm going to be uncynical about a politician. I met Clegg a couple of years back at an event and spent 10 minutes talking to him about ID cards and civil liberties in general and he's deadly serious about fixing this stuff. His intensity was such it reminded me of an evangelical preacher. FWIW, I can't see any way he could have gone into a coallition with Labour, the civil liberties thing would have killed any deal sooner or later.

Another term of Labour and I thought we'd be looking at the people being asked to report to police stations for eye scans and finger printing, etc. The Liberals' civil liberties beliefs is the one area I believe them on. It's a classically liberal position not to be messed with. But the Tories have no real tradition on this line aside from a generic belief in small government (and to see how east they can toss that aside look at Bush and how much he expanded govt.). Also the Tories brought us the CJPO Act in 1994 that eroded the centuries old right to silence. My point is, can theliberals have that much sway over the Tories and if yes for how long?

[huw]

For once, I'm going to be uncynical about a politician. I met Clegg a couple of years back at an event and spent 10 minutes talking to him about ID cards and civil liberties in general and he's deadly serious about fixing this stuff. His intensity was such it reminded me of an evangelical preacher. FWIW, I can't see any way he could have gone into a coallition with Labour, the civil liberties thing would have killed any deal sooner or later.

Indeed. It's strange that quite a few liberals would have preferred a deal with authoritarian New-Labour. I can only assume that they were never really committed to the civil-liberties principles of their former party

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Indeed. It's strange that quite a few liberals would have preferred a deal with authoritarian New-Labour. I can only assume that they were never really committed to the civil-liberties principles of their former party

For those liberals it was a case of better the devil you know. As I have already pointed out, the Tories do not have a good record on civil liberties so the liberals would have thought that was a dead end there as well. But they knew that the Labour Party would have been more likely to assist them on other progressive agendas. If were in the Parliamentary Liberal Democrats I would have gone with the Tories.

[Guest tbatst2000]

the Tories do not have a good record on civil liberties

Until 1997 I was of that opinion too, but history has shown them to be relatively much better than NuLab. PACE was a high-point for them and Michael Howard was a low point but it's worth pointing out that, whilst they certainly talked about things like ID cards, they actually implemented very little of it. The Tories have always had people like Peter Lilley who, whilst not at all nice when it came to social policy, were great believers in the English tradition of liberty. NuLab on the other hand, seemed to have almost no-one that cared at all.

[Guest tbatst2000]

Also the Tories brought us the CJPO Act in 1994 that eroded the centuries old right to silence. My point is, can theliberals have that much sway over the Tories and if yes for how long?

Yeah, that sucked. I blame Michael Howard for much of what followed under NuLab too - they saw him get away with it an followed suit. There's a special place in hell for people like him, Blunkett, Clarke, Straw and Smith.

The interesting question is whether there are many in the Tory party who actually think authoritarianism is a good thing. I suspect there are plenty who'd be happy enough to vote for all the same stuff nulab was doing if the whips told them too but relatively few, if any, who would push for it otherwise. I bet that this is an area where the Tory side of the coallition will be happy enough to sit back and let the Lib-Dems get on with it. That way, if it turns out to be popular they can take the credit and, if Murdoch decides he doesn't like it for some reason, they can pretend it's nothing to do with them.

There are a few Tories - David Davies, Peter Lilley and probably some others for example - who are fully onboard of course, but I doubt most of them care either way.

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Yeah, that sucked. I blame Michael Howard for much of what followed under NuLab too - they saw him get away with it an followed suit. There's a special place in hell for people like him, Blunkett, Clarke, Straw and Smith.

The interesting question is whether there are many in the Tory party who actually think authoritarianism is a good thing. I suspect there are plenty who'd be happy enough to vote for all the same stuff nulab was doing if the whips told them too but relatively few, if any, who would push for it otherwise. I bet that this is an area where the Tory side of the coallition will be happy enough to sit back and let the Lib-Dems get on with it. That way, if it turns out to be popular they can take the credit and, if Murdoch decides he doesn't like it for some reason, they can pretend it's nothing to do with them.

There are a few Tories - David Davies, Peter Lilley and probably some others for example - who are fully onboard of course, but I doubt most of them care either way.

Yes for this reason I am pleased there is a coalition govt and not a Tory government with a majority of 87 or something. Britain is lucky that it has Clegg & Co. deconstructing the police state (if they really do it). The US also suffered a dreadful violation of civil liberties/surveillance intrusion, etc., but America takes a lot longer to change course because of its political system. The British PM is more like a King, frankly, which can be a bad thing if that King happens to think like Tony Blair, but a really good thing if that King happens to think like the Coalition apparently do.

Americans cannot see a deconstruction of their surveillance state as fast as it could happen in the UK for this reason. If the PM and DPM get together on this it could be happening in weeks.