Career Politicians!

On the subject of MPs having other jobs, I do feel that there is nothing wrong with that - so long as it is fully declared in both monetary amounts and the names and interests of the organisations/companies involved. This will allow scrutiny of any voting pattern between the MP and his vested interested. I do not think MPs can crow that they deserve a second job, as they are well paid by the state, but if they can juggle their constituency work and other activities - so be it. it also gives the MP more contact with the real world outside the Westminster bubble. Purely-career politicians are never a good idea.

Some argue that doing extra-curricular work detracts from the MPs ability to do their Parliamentary work. That may be, but then all that is required is for the voters to reject the said MP at the next election if they are not satisfied with their performance.

News Feed: Damian Hinds: Forget ID cards - it's the National Identity Register we have to worry about

Damian Hinds is prospective parliamentary candidate for East Hampshire. Credit where it's due.  The Labour spin machine has scored a rare double hit.  With the first they persuade the media they've had a change of heart on compulsory National Identity Cards, thereby neutralising an awkward issue.  With the second, they quietly speed up the introduction of the National Identity Register, thereby furthering the real underlying aim.  As the Guardian reports, over 80% of people will find their way onto the National Identity Register as a result of applying for or renewing a passport (and will thereafter have a duty to notify the Register of changes in personal details or face a fine of up to £1,000).  Additionally, young people turning 18 are likely to find increasingly that a 'voluntary' ID Card is pretty much compulsory if they ever want to buy a drink, so they'll get on the Register too.  At some point in the future when, say, 90% of people are on the Register, a government could easily decide that they now "might as well", in the interests of efficiency, make the thing universal and compulsory. The key debate is not, and never has been, about a plastic card.  It is about the National Identity Register (NIR) that sits behind the card.  The NIR is the daddy of all databases, which will allow (via everyone's unique Identity Registration Number – in database parlance, the 'index key') the linking together of data held on us across the other 40+ public sector databases, existing, under construction, or planned.  In theory, once the system is at maturity, someone's Identity Registration Number could allow the piecing together of their health record, their income and financial history, their mobile phone numbers and email addresses, their Oyster card usage, and where their car has been in the last few days.  It makes not a jot of difference to the overall architecture of the database state whether the Identity Registration Number appears on an ID Card, or on a passport, or indeed in no physical place at all.  What matters ultimately is just that it is universal, reliable and unique – like a more robust National Insurance number, but used for more purposes, appearing in more systems, and linked to biometric data. Many countries have ID cards; few would aspire to the British vision of such a mass of centralised, interlinked data.  The government may adjust plans for individual jigsaw pieces of the database state, but their direction of travel is unchanged.  If elected, the Conservatives will be able to scrap key parts of the programme, but much damage (and poison-pilling) can be done before then. There is an enormous price tag to all this.  Halting plans for compulsory ID Cards in the short term has relatively little impact on the overall cost to the government of the wider project.  Indeed perhaps Alan Johnson gave away more than he intended when he said scrapping ID Cards themselves would save the public purse "diddly squat".  But the absence of a compulsory plastic card does of course make it trickier to attack the cost of 'ID Cards'.  Which means that opponents have to address the principles involved.  There are clearly some benefits that could come from the National Identity Register and an efficient system of interlinked public sector databases.  Dealing with government departments and agencies ought to be easier; and there would be benefits, too (if sometimes exaggerated) in tackling terrorism, benefit fraud, illegal immigration and crime in general.  Moreover, apart from the cost, many people can see no downside in the ID Register any more than they did in ID Cards, because "If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear".  So, is there another downside?  Opponents talk about a fundamental shift in the relationship between citizens and the state, but what does this actually mean – and why should I care?  As a law-abiding citizen, what reason could I have to actually be worried about, let alone fearful of, the database state?  Here are three simple ones, and one big open-ended one: 1. Privacy. You do have something to hide We all have things we want to keep to ourselves, or to be able to discuss confidentially without them becoming more widely known: finances, health, relationships.  And there are people with legitimate reasons to want to keep their identity or whereabouts hidden: victims of domestic violence, witnesses, those hounded by the press. Thanks to your Identity Registration Number, data held on you across multiple state agencies may be both more centralized (because it's all linked together) and more distributed (because more people could access it).  This increases the risk that someone who sees sensitive data on you turns out to be someone you would rather didn't see it.  2. Balance. The state becomes more powerful and monolithic Different parts of government do different things, and we have different sorts of relationships with them – consultative, confidential, transactional, even suspicious and standoffish.  But once databases on individuals are linked up, the demarcations can get undermined.  There may be things I am happy for one public sector agency to know, but not another.  Joseph Rowntree researchers recently cited the case of mothers in Oxford becoming nervous of discussing post-natal depression with their GP, lest social services find out and try to intervene. People ought to be able to challenge state agencies on a fair footing. Say you contest a parking fine, refuse to pay and are willing to go to court if necessary.  In an 'efficient' world of linked databases, the fine could just be extracted from you by direct debit with your regular council tax payments, leaving you unable to protest. 3. Error. Something always goes wrong Errors in the Criminal Records Bureau database have led to people losing their jobs and/or being stigmatised as criminals. When your 'ID record' impacts on so many more parts of life, and for so many more people, how much more is likely to go wrong? As database security expert Toby Stevens puts it "Information security professionals always assume a system to be insecure, and plan for when – not if – data is lost or corrupted".  However much procedures are tightened, loss of data disks, program code bugs and clerical error will always be with us.  The potential for problems caused by simple human error is magnified, the more data is linked, centralised and then distributed.  And the consequences don't bear thinking about if hackers managed to penetrate and destabilise the system. 4. Potential. The lines will get blurred Government ministers issue multiple assurances on security and privacy: data sharing between departments will be strictly controlled; a limited number of people will have access; data miners will not be able to go on 'fishing' expeditions, and so on. Even if you do believe ministers and civil servants on this, the assurances are worth nothing beyond the short term, since they cannot predict how future holders of those posts will think.  Many of the changes they say will not be made are technical matters, or questions of degree (such as the number of people who would have access to sensitive data) and would not require legislation.  It is perhaps even possible that ministers don't understand some of the technology, realise what it is capable of, or know every way it is being deployed. Whatever the technology can do today, you can bet it'll be able to do more tomorrow. As the data archive builds and processing speeds improve, it will be increasingly viable to do pattern-spotting (identifying patterns of behaviour that are quite likely to indicate wrong-doing, even if the wrongdoing itself isn't identified) and predictive modelling (identifying clusters of characteristics and behaviour traits that often precede subsequent wrong-doing; indeed the Home Office's ONSET system already tries this in a limited way). How confident can you be that no member of your family would ever come under suspicion in this way, despite their actual innocence? So, what is to be done? No sensible person suggests that government should not deploy technology to help serve citizens.  No one is suggesting that the DVLA database should be wiped clean, or that GPs should revert to keeping only paper records in a filing cabinet. But the safest defence against the potential ill side effects outlined above, is largely to maintain fragmentation of data stored on individuals.  In short, for most data and most people, most of the time, the data held on separate databases should not all be linked i.e. there should be no National Identity Register, with the unique reference number that makes such linking possible.  There are some benefits to federating (i.e. linking up) databases across multiple government departments, but it should be possible to get most of these benefits with just a fraction of the drawbacks, if fully federated databases were allowed to exist only in a strictly limited number of categories.  It would be sensible to have one listing children who for some good reason are believed to be at specific risk of abuse; one for convicted repeat criminals; one for terror suspects.  The numbers involved ought to be monitored by Privy Counsellors to satisfy them that the scale of it is proportionate; and people should have a right to know that they (or their children) are on such a list, why, and what data is held, save for certain very tight categories of data relating to current criminal investigations, for example.    You don't need the entire population on a database – nor even the 80% who have a passport – to make it useful.

More U-turns than a driving test!

Labour back down over the part-privatisation of Royal Mail, ID cards are no longer to be compulsory, the Iraq enquiry to be held in public, MPs expenses review defeated in the Commons, nationalisation of the failed East Coast rail line.... spiralling national debt. That is Gordon Brown's legacy!

Labour Hypocrisy!

New Labour Big-wigs, using Primary School teacher phrases, are smuggly pointing out the possible 10% cuts in public spending under a future Tory Government. New Labour are also going to have to make equally high cuts due to the terrible state of the public finances (not that they will admit it), or if they plan to continue to spend at current levels, they are going to mortgage all our futures for short-term electoral gains. A majority of the electorate actually want a reduction in public spending according to a recent poll. I really hope the British public are not stupid enough to be bribed by their own and their children's money!!!!

For Heaven's Sake, Cheer Up!!!!!!!!!

European Commission wants database for all 500 million citizens, raising "big brother" concerns

The European Commission has proposed to set up a new agency to oversee all its large-scale IT systems, thereby bringing together management of three key systems - the Schengen Information System, Visa Information System and Eurodac - plus other related applications, into a single operational structure. Webwereld reports that human right groups have expressed fears for big brother implications, as this would mean that data on all 500 million European Union citizens and all illegal migrants would be merged into a database for "freedom and security". The cost of the system would be €113 million in the first 3 years, and later €10 million per year following that.

Wimbledon Update

Andy Murray in front of a faulty mirror!

SHOCK ENTERTAINMENT NEWS!!!

BBC: Screen star Fawcett dies aged 62:

Actress Farrah Fawcett, who became an icon of 1970s US television, has died of cancer in Los Angeles aged 62, her spokesman has confirmed. Fawcett is best known for starring in Charlie's Angels, and in later years for hard-hitting TV and stage roles. Her partner Ryan O'Neal said: "After a long and brave battle with cancer, our beloved Farrah has passed away." Her battle with illness was chronicled in the television documentary Farrah's Story earlier this year.
O'Neal added: "Although this is an extremely difficult time for her family and friends, we take comfort in the beautiful times that we shared with Farrah over the years and the knowledge that her life brought joy to so many people around the world."

Fawcett's spokesman, Paul Bloch, said she had died shortly before 0930 local time on Thursday in a Santa Monica hospital. O'Neal and Fawcett's friend Alana Stewart - singer Rod Stewart's ex-wife - were by her side, Mr Bloch added. Stewart said in a statement: "For 30 years, Farrah was much more than a friend, she was my sister, and, although I will miss her terribly, I know in my heart that she will always be there as that angel on the shoulder of everyone who loved her."
The star's former Charlie's Angels co-star Jaclyn Smith said: "Farrah had courage, she had strength, and she had faith." The actress, who played Kelly Garrett in the hit TV series, added: "And now she has peace as she rests with the real angels." Cheryl Ladd, who played Kris Munroe in the show, said: "I'm terribly sad about Farrah's passing. She was incredibly brave, and God will be welcoming her with open arms."

John Forsythe, who played a mysterious behind-the-camera boss in Charlie's Angels, said: "She put up a gallant fight against her unforgiving disease, and I send my deepest sympathies and prayers to her family and friends." The screen star was previously married to Lee Majors, star of The Six Million Dollar Man, from 1973 to 1982. "She was an angel on Earth and now an angel forever," Majors said. Oscar-winning actor Robert Duvall, Fawcett's co-star in 1997 film The Apostle, said she was "an outstanding talent - better than most feature film actresses that I've seen". Her death has come just weeks after her TV documentary was broadcast. The video diary chronicled her battle with anal cancer in her final months.

O'Neal said she had wanted to tell her story on her own terms. O'Neal, Fawcett's partner since 1982, recently disclosed they would finally get married, but the pair never got the chance to exchange vows. She and O'Neal have one son, Redmond, who is serving a prison sentence for drug offences. As Fawcett's career was taking off, she posed in a red bathing suit for a poster which went on to sell several million copies. Her long blonde locks, made famous by her role in Charlie's Angels, were emulated by fans across the globe. The actress earned a string of Emmy and Golden Globe nominations for her small screen roles, but never won one of the major awards. In 1995, she was honoured with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.

EU solvency rules could see pensions cut by up to 20%

The FT and the front page of the Express report that British workers could see pensions cut up to 20 percent under the EU's proposed Solvency II rules that govern insurance company capital requirements, and are set to be introduced in 2012.  The rules would oblige insurers to be more aggressive in marking annuity liabilities to the market, increasing volatility on balance sheets and forcing them to raise the level of capital that they hold. Insurers are likely to pass on resulting added costs to pensioners, according to the FT.   The paper reports that the people who are likely to be most affected will be those with defined contribution pension schemes, in which money is used to buy an annuity on retirement, which pays out a fixed income.  The paper quotes John Pollock, an Executive Director at Legal & General saying, "At the widest corporate spread levels during the credit crisis, the impact would have been much more than 20 per cent. Now that markets are somewhat better it has come down, but would still be between 10 and 20 per cent."   Lord Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, said this month that the FSA had little power to act since the laws were passed by the European Parliament in April. "We have to be realistic about the extent to which the FSA ... can influence this debate," he told the Association of British Insurers. "The challenge for the industry is to get involved in the debate."

Couldn't stay quiet on this....

If you sliced the pompous little John Bercow through the middle, the word FLIP would be printed all the way through. Under the thumb of his arch-Labourite wife, he has flipped his political views as many times as he's flipped his properties. John Bercow becoming the speaker, using Labour votes, is the worst appointment since the Emperor Calligula made his horse a consul! Never the less, I wish him good luck.... he's gonna need it.