What’s Left; What’s Right

“When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.” – J. Krishnamurti,

An interesting debate has ensued from the corners of the Liberal Conspiracy website and the BNP’s two European election successes that have led to me to question my presentation of political understanding. That is; what is left, what is right?

It is true that when talking about the BNP we (that includes me) correctly use the term far-right (ultra-nationalist, fascist and racist are also accurate). But then again, are they? Tim Montgomerie, a conservative, has written a letter to the BBC to ask them to properly reflect the BNP’s ‘true’ ideological position on the political spectrum. He argues that instead of being classed as far-right they should be considered far-left. And depending on which way you look at it and the level of your political ignorance, he could have a point. Economically the BNP are a party who believe in big state, in nationalisation, in government intervention and protectionism- traditional positions attributed to the left and socialism. (In essence, their ideology stems from Strasserist economics- that money and big companies are being controlled by the Jews, but then also remember that Karl Marx once wrote: “Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand… The God of the Jews has become secularised and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew’s real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange”).

On the flipside, the left (including general liberalism) have been more open to encompass ideologies such as freedom of movement and expression, civil liberties, human rights. These are certainly not what the BNP stand for. Contrary to this we see New Labour who is considered as centre-left bringing about the destruction of civil liberties and the Tories have become the self-proclaimed vanguard of them. Is this left/right wing politics getting muddled? (Maybe the Tories are just fighting ‘big state’?).

One way of looking upon this is the humble evolution of the political compass. During the Cold War it was a case of you being left, right or centre. Now when you take a simple online quiz to find out what you are you have a Z axis, Y axis, X axis and the other one that no-one can remember the name. You still have the typical left/right wing axis, but now you also have the social axis – authoritarian and libertarian.

Perhaps this is a consequence of the troubles with Stalinism. He was supposed to be left wing, communist in fact, which places him traditionally on the far-left, but the repression he placed upon his people and even his own party members makes him extremely authoritarian. So socially links could be made between the BNP and Stalinism, but they can also begin to be made when it comes to economic policies. But if Stalin was indeed a communist (open to debate but I say no) then does that mean the BNP are?

The fact that the BNP are touted as pulling in a lot of the New Labour vote looks like it supports this idea. The left look towards the working class as the majority, they say the working classes represent the repressed majority. The BNP are directing policies towards the working classes and are also saying they are representing the repressed majority, albeit in a racist way by describing the ridiculous notion of the repressed ‘indigenous’ white majority.

Nick Griffin himself describes the BNP as being outside of left/right wing politics. They choose (sick) issues and (sick) policies that they believe in and to them they don’t fit anywhere on the spectrum.

However no-one wants to be associated with the BNP. Even though some of the centre-right are calling the BNP far-right they are much more in favour of pushing them off to the far-left like Montgomerie is trying to do. One example you can find on comment sections on blogs is by using the name ‘national socialism’ (Nazis) as an example of them being socialist (obviously the same way that the German Democratic Republic was indeed democratic…). In turn the left are pushing them to the far-right. Neither side want to be associated with them, but both sides want the other side to be. To have the BNP be on ‘your’ wing is to announce to the world that what you believe in is only a few doors away from them.

Perhaps Mr Griffin is actually right for a change. Perhaps they don’t belong on either side. Perhaps there is more to politics than left and right. Why is it that people are always classed as left/right/centre?

I personally do class myself as left wing, most things I believe in stem from the left wing ideology. I am proud of ‘belonging’ to the left. However, I don’t associate myself in anyway with New Labour, Stalinism or if they can be considered to be, the BNP- even though they are supposed to also be on the left. Perhaps what we need is this scraping of the left/right associations. The world and politics existed before left/right wing terminology was used, indeed the terminology first evolved with in France and then through Marxist ideology. It also stems from a Cold War positioning, us and them. A way to explain what is happening and what you believe. But why do things have to be so black and white? Even with the new direction political compasses’ are taking people still want to place you on either the left or right with the only alterations being ‘far-‘ and centre-‘.

Taking away these associations is not going to lead to the destruction of left/right ideology and everything in between. Instead it could lead to increased political freedom and understanding. If you are on the left and you like one specific policy from the right, you no longer need to try and ‘reclaim it for the left’. You won’t be bound by thinking ‘I can’t believe in that because it’s a right wing position and I’m on the left. In essence you can pick and choose policies that fit the world or your country best without fear of ‘selling out to the left/right’. These theoretical positions bind us down. Removing the word ‘left wing’ from my thinking is not going to mean that I don’t believe in nationalising the banks anymore, nor does it mean that I think we should tax the rich less, but what it does mean is that it takes away a mental wall that allows others in. Go round telling people you’re left wing then half the world won’t listen to you because they’re right wing, but tell people that your policies and beliefs develop to the needs and best interests of the people you serve then people are more likely to listen. As Krishnamurti said, “When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence”.

[this piece is intended for discussion, debate and evolution]

Vote Cock!

Are you feeling the Tory blues? Do New Labour make you turn red? Are the yellows way too mellow? Do the Greens make you queasy and do the BNP and UKIP actually make you spew? Well, have you ever considered writing ‘COCK’ across your European Election ballot paper?

With too many parties not representing what you believe and politicians becoming more distrustful by the day, it is an attractive option not to cast your democratic vote and to throw it into the bin out of a matter of protest.

But have you considered the damage you are doing to society?

Imagine today’s political landscape with New Labour in power and the Tories waiting outside Number 10 with a sledgehammer, the LibDems are far behind, with the Greens and ‘the others’ lurking nearby. You feel that none of these parties represent you, so you refuse to vote, or you feel a party like the Greens does, but you refuse to vote because ‘they are never going to get into power’. Well a refusal to vote is only going to strengthen the New Labour/Tory dominance of government and they will never ever represent you or do things in your interest. Why, I hear you ask.

Look at the situation like this, in this example there are 210 voters in total:

Party A have 100 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

Party B have 80 diehard voters who will always vote for them.

There are 30 voters who don’t know who to vote for, or are thinking of not voting.

Who are the party’s going to target policies towards? That’s right, the 30 voters. If parties already have their diehard voters then they are much more willing to create policies for the other 30 voters to encourage them to vote for them, either to get into power (Party B) or to consolidate power (Party A).

Now if the 30 didn’t vote at all because they didn’t like any of the parties or felt the party they wanted never will get into power then Party A will create policies that benefit their own diehard voters and Party B will have more policies like Party A in order to attract Party A’s voters and get into power. They become the same, and politics/democracy becomes diluted.

Let’s now say for example that Party A and Party B are both right-wing, both still with 100 diehards and 80 diehards respectively. A new party, Party C, comes along who are left-wing, and those 30 turn to Party C because they are different to Party A and B. In an attempt to win back those 30 votes, Party A and B will create a few more left-wing policies in order to turn those 30 towards them, but still keep policies that are right-wing in order to keep their diehards voting for them instead of switching between Parties A and B (because they are the same). There is therefore a lot more choice and parties are becoming more representative.

That is why it is important to vote.

But still you may argue there is no party that represents me!

That maybe true, but did you know that in the UK spoilt ballot papers are still considered as part of the voting turnout. That means if 100 people vote and a Party has 20 votes (diehards or not) that Party will look at winning over the other 80 voters- even if those 80 put in spoilt ballot papers because it is shown that 100 people will vote.

Party’s will only direct policies at those who do vote. Why should they worry about those who don’t vote, especially when things like SCOPA stop you protesting.

So even if there isn’t a party that tickles your fancy still cast your vote, but just make sure across the ballot paper in big bold letters you write ‘THE BNP ARE SICK DISGUSTING RACIST COCKS’

How to do it bad, how to do it good

What is obvious from the ‘credit crunch’, the attack on privacy and now the MP’s expenses saga is that in the upcoming European Elections the minority partys are going to drastically increase their electorial strength.

So it has come as a bit of a surprise to see the (New) Labour Party Election broadcast focus entirely on David Cameron, and what Cameron’s policies would do to the country. I would have to say that i agree with them on every single point, however as an European Election Broadcast it is pretty poor.

Not once does it talk about their own policies. Granted, they are the ones in power and we can see the shambles of some of their policies, but still, come on, you got to have some sort of manifesto.

Secondly, (New) Labour have 19 MEP’s. Why didn’t the broadcast focus upon the work they have been doing?

Finally, talking about how bad Cameron is is all well and good- i generally support it, but, this is a European election, not a local election. Of course the results of these elections go someway to showing what will happen at the next general election and results going either way is either going to strengthen or weaken either side, but still, this is a European election!

Here is a much better party election broadcast:

Note a few things from this: they talk about the great work they have been doing, they talk about themselves and not other parties, they tell you they are not a one issue party as a lot of people like to suggest, they talk about what they will do, they say that going green is not something you should be nagged into doing but that it is up to the government to help you, and finally, they are not a racist facist party.

I’m voting Green

********************

Here’s another Green Party broadcast from 1999

You can never trust a Tory

Just over a week ago, West Berkshire Council voted through the Local Development Framework core strategy that lists potential sites for housing development in West Berkshire- including Pincent’s Hill.

Without digressing, here’s a picture to absorb:

From left to right; West Berkshire Tory Cllr Emma Webster, West Berkshire Tory MP candidate Alok Sharma, West Berkshire Tory Cllr Joe Mooney and West Berkshire Tory Cllr Tony Linden.

These three councillors represent all the seats in the Birch Copse Ward (my local ward- in fact Cllr Joe Mooney lives literally just round the corner from me).

Over the last few months i have received several leaflets through the post detailing how West Berkshire Conservatives are against the proposed housing development at Pincent’s Hill. In November they organised a local meeting at Little Heath School (attended by around 300 people) where they once again voiced their opposition to the development.

Now consider their voting actions during the voting for the Local Development Framework:

• Cllr Emma Webster- abstained
• Cllr Joe Mooney- voted for the LDF without amendment
• Cllr Tony Linden- did not turn up

The following reasons where given for these positions. Emma Webster holds a conflict of interests as she works for a company bidding to build another development in West Berkshire. Tony Linden was away on other council duty, and as he is not a member of the executive he couldn’t vote on this anyway. Joe Mooney pointed out that “the vote taking place is for this to go out to consultation, and not on any specific sites mentioned. That will take place when it goes to planning.”

A few things. One, don’t voice opposition to a proposal and hold public meetings to oppose something if you have a conflict of interests in the first place. Two, even if you can’t vote you can still turn up and voice your opinion and opposition if you indeed feel strongly about it. Three, if you are opposed to the development, you should do what you can to stop it happening- such as working to remove the site completely from the Local Development Framework.

What this comes down to really is that these councillors are only voicing in public what their Tory overlords require of them. It is indeed the New Labour government that is enforcing local councils and West Berkshire in particular to build 10,500 new homes, and because of this the council need to find places for these. Nationally the Torys, as you would expect them to do, oppose this New Labour idea. [So do i]. Our local councillors need to show that they support what the Tory headquarters says. Whether they put it into practise or not is irrelevant as long as you get the message out that your party is united.

The local Tory opposition has now been exposed as a front for national Tory opposition to New Labour’s national housing policy. These councillors don’t care about what their constituents think, instead they are turning this issue into a political issue in an attempt to mobilise their constituents against New Labour and for the Tories.

Local New Labour MP Martin Salter is opposed to the Pincent’s Hill development (despite his government’s housing plans) and has said “They [the Tories] had the perfect opportunity to deter the developers once and for all by deleting this site from the preferred list, but they have bottled it.” I would go further- i don’t think you can trust a Tory (not even David Davis in his crusade for civil liberty). I think it is obvious that the West Berkshire Conservatives are deliberately leading people in the local area on- opposition to the development is understandably widespread in the area- if the local Tories were not seen to be with the majority public, then god forbid they may lose their seats at the next election.

In simular vein to a local political blogsite, click here and here for good analysis of some of the political goings on surrounding the development. And carrying on the tradition of my last post on the topic, please sign the petition against building on Pincent’s Hill here, visit the local campaign website here and the facebook group here.

For those who wish to take the fight further and directly voice your disappointment to those councillor ‘betrayers’ then here are their emails: jmooney@westberks.gov.uk ewebster@westberks.gov.uk and tlinden@westberks.gov.uk

Further from the email i sent to West Berkshire Planning department you can view near the bottom of this blog post, i have received the following reply:

Thank you for your e-mail objecting to potential housing development at Pincents Hill.

The Council is currently preparing the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework, which will set out the strategic vision for the development of the district to 2026. As part of this work we need to identify a number of strategic housing sites which can help deliver the housing that will be needed over the next 17 years. The Council have recognised throughout the preparation of the Core Strategy that some greenfield land will be needed to meet the housing requirements of the district.

The site at Pincents Hill has been brought forward for consideration, along with a number of other large sites, and we have carried out assessments of the sites, including sustainability appraisal covering analysis of the social, economic and environmental issues.

The Council is intending to carry out extensive consultation on the options for the Core Strategy shortly. If you wish to receive notification of the consultation you can register on our consultation database at www.westberks.gov.uk/ldfconsultation . Alternatively you can e-mail planningpolicy@westberks.gov.uk or contact the planning policy team by post or phone with your details.

Digressing from the email but not the topic, one thing i will be looking into concerning Pincent’s Hill is what precisely the large trench is for that has been dug from the site of the proposed development down through the park and which stops just before the A4 Bath Road. Looks suspiciously like water/sewage supply. Now i don’t want to initiate a conspiracy here, and it is probably something completely innocent, but, perhaps the council have decided that this development is going to happen regardless- so they feel they may as well get everything in place beforehand? No, no that must not be right- surely local government wouldn’t try and pass one over the residents like that…. would they?

Sincere economic questions

I know that my A grade a-level in economics does not translate well to serious national economics; however, i have some queries over Europe’s, UK’s and the US’s bail-out of the banks. It would be good if someone could explain why what i am saying isn’t feasonable or doesn’t make economic sense.

I get the idea/theory/jist of putting money behind the debts that banks have incurred from stupid, ridiculous lending. However:

Money was also given to banks to give them more money to lend to each other, well… if this money was instead used for sweeping tax cuts, or as grants to poorer families, or to ‘pay-off’ people’s debts, then would this not also give the banks more money? Understandably, if this money was used aboard then it would not be in UK banks, but, nearly everyone has a bank account, so if people have more money to spend then they will have more money in their accounts. Banks use the money people deposit in their accounts as their own money at the moment anyway, i.e. they lend it. So if governments used the money to cut taxes drastically, then more accounts would have more money in them, more people would be spending this money in more shops- pushing consumerism up, more shops would have more money- that is saved in bank accounts. So more jobs are created or kept because people are still spending. And more people are more happy, and from a electoral point of view, New Labour would most likely win a lot more support- Brown could have called an election and become our PM by popular choice.

But instead of this they just gave the money to the banks and asked them to lend it to other banks!? So this leads me to believe there is some illogic in my theory. I am sincerely asking people to explain it to me. This is not me using sarcy theories to push my own ideology, far from it. My ideology is more nationalise all banks, move away from consumer led economy, pump the money into a new green energy sector and move Britain towards a low carbon energy independence, and i don’t want New Labour to regain power. So i am being sincere.

While i’m at it, green energy. If all the money given to banks was instead put into green energy, would it not therefore be feasible for the UK to generate all of it’s own electricity, either from hydro, wind or solar. Could the money not have been used to give a grant to every household to enable them to generate their own electricity and sell it back to the grid? Would a revolutionised green energy sector not provide for thousands (maybe of millions depending on what the sector contains) of jobs- reducing unemployment, raising job competition, giving people job security and allowing them to earn and spend their money, boosting consumerism and along the lines of a previous point allowing more people to have more money in their bank accounts, boosting the amount of money the banks have. It would also give Britain complete energy independence, we wouldn’t need to rely on other countries. We wouldn’t need to have such a presence in the Middle East. In theory, it could reduce any terrorist threat that we are facing- one of the first major aims of Fundamental Islamic Terrorism is to end the influence of the West in the Middle East (destroying secularism and allowing for the push of fundamentalism – i don’t think secularism would be destroyed in the Middle East anyway, even if Britain/America weren’t there)- so because of our reduced addiction to oil, we wouldn’t need to be in the Middle East (Afghanistan but especially Iraq).

Anyway, i am going off at a tangent. My point is, if we gave everyone else but the banks money, the banks would get the money in the end anyway.

One last thing. The National Debt. Who are we actually in debt to? I understand when it comes to borrowing from other countries we are in debt to them, but why do i hear of Britain borrowing from the banks? Am i just mishearing? If we were borrowing from the banks (Bank of England) then to me it is more excuse to nationalise them! Plus who is going to hold the UK to account if they don’t pay back their debts on time? More sincere questions.

The rise of the… my number 8

There is something really scary happening in Britain. I do not think the British, mainly the working class, are racist, but I can see that awful racist party that is the STD after the sex of British politics getting a bit more electoral success over the coming years. I am not going to even mention their name on this blog post, but I think those British readers will know who I am on about.

There is a massive campaign to stop this party getting the votes it does not deserve, with groups like Fight Against Fascism and the TUC mobilising to try and neutralise the treat of that party. But I do not think this is going to work as their very focus seems to be missing the point.

The reason I think that party is going to get more electoral success is because of the lack of another radical (left) voting alternative. For years people have been saying that New Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are all the same, that they are becoming disillusioned with voting because of this. During this time there had been no alternative force to vote for. Sure, you have the Greens, but they wrongly have the image amongst the British public that they are a one issue party, so do not count on them to pose the best alternative to that party. Then you have RESPECT, who, like every other left wing party have (and will do further in the future) become factious and are splitting. So do not expect them to pose an alternative.

The last time the far right ever really got as much support as they do now it was the 1930’s. The time of the Battle of Cable Street. At least this time we had an alternative on the left with the Communist Party. But now where are the alternatives?

People are going to vote for that party because they are different to New Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems. And that makes me sad.

Despite the work of Fight Against Fascism and the TUC (among many others) of which I support, and would gleefully help, I think the best way of countering the threat of that party is with a united left wing party who can give us an alternative vote to the main stream parties, and who can grow like that party have. But that is not going to happen, just look at the last attempt, RESPECT, funnily it was RESPECT’s MP that helped with the split. Ironic as getting an MP should had been the basis of expanding its support.

The best we can hope for is for the Tories to get into power, which could force New Labour to become Labour again and perhaps unite the left. But then they have a chance to get into power regardless, and I am too cynical to actually expect it to happen.

I’ll cheer myself up by listening to my number 8 favourite album of 2008:

8. Does It Offend You, Yeah? – You Have No Idea What You’re Getting Yourself Into

I came across this band as me and Johny 2 walked into the NME Awards tour last year down in Portsmouth. We walked in to what turned out to be the last song of their set, of which we heard about 40 seconds of it. But it only took 40 seconds of a heavy droning bass rift to make me explore this band further.

Before the album had come out with only a few songs released on their myspace, they had already become my going out band. We Are Rockstars, Let’s Make Out, Weird Science and Battle Royale were my essential tunes to listen to before going out for a night on the amber nectar. I cheesily call them rock’n’bass, they are the perfect get up and jump sort of band, get your heart beat racing with their bass and synth driven style of rock.

Then, wam bam, they released Dawn Of The Dead as a single. So different to what I had previously heard, primly cut specifically for the radio, I did not recognise who it was at first. It is essentially a pop song, but not one that you would be embarrassed to be seen listening to.

Apart from Dawn Of The Dead, the rest of the album is a fusion of rock’n’bass and pure punk attitude. Does It Offend You, Yeah want you to know where they are coming from, and they don’t care if that offends you. (Oh my cheese continues)

Oh and did I mention they are from my home town of Reading

Personal highlights on the album With a Heavy Heart (I Regret to Inform You) and Let’s Make Out.

Previous:

9. Vampire Weekend – Vampire Weekend

10. The Magnetic Fields – Distortion

Feeling dirty

I thought I was alone in this sentiment: things are getting so bad (environmentally) that I half hope the Tories do get into power. However there is someone else who at least considered it, George Monbiot. That made me feel in better company. Monbiot did go on to say “my first thought was ‘I hope the Tories get in’. My second thought was ‘What the hell am I saying?’”

It is not just New Labour’s environmental credentials that are non-existent by agreeing to a third runway at Heathrow (something Cameron has said he would scrap); it is their complete disregard for our privacy and rights that is really scary. Jacqui Smith is the female Stalin. She scares the hell out of me with her perusal of 42 days, ID cards, DNA, email and text message databases, CCTV systems and now secret gag orders. I painfully remember that it was the Tories who all (but one) voted against 42 days in the Commons.

I know the consequences of me thinking this. I am a Green Party supporter. I consider myself wholly a hippy, liberal, wishwashy, self-hating, weed smoking, terrorist supporting, [add further nonsense claims about left wingers] leftie. I believe the Tories are essentially a party who only look after their own. But my regard of human rights and civil liberties coupled with my passion for the environment have caused me to internally conflict with my dream of economic equality and an increase in nationalisation of important services (banking, rail, reverse privatisation of NHS).

I could have said nothing. If I just voted Green in the next election as I will do, the Tories would have gotten into power anyway, and then people wouldn’t know I had been having this internal conflict. However it is out there now- I have a secret wish for them to get into power.

At least then it might make New Labour turn back to the Labour of old and kick out the business orientated, environment hating, self-demigod believers that inhabit the party at present, and then we would have a more recognisable party that represents truer social democracy, and who have a chance of getting into power. (See, I am trying to justify to myself all of what I said before).

I feel so dirty.

Civil Liberties – the Counter-Attack Begins

The fight against the destruction of our civil liberties is speeding up with more members of the UK blogosphere expressing their concerns and anger with the flawed philosophy of “if you have nothing to hide (we might as well see your boobs)”.

Copied below is a word for word article posted on http://www.power-to-the-people.co.uk, a conservative blog that hits the nail on the head when it comes to civil liberties and the proposed ‘Communications Data Bill’ which looks like will be passed later this year.

Towards the end is a link to a copy of a letter to send to your MP. To find out who your MP is click here and to get in contatc with your MP for free, click here.

“Enough is enough, the UK is becoming a police state by our control obsessed government and we are sitting back and allowing it to happen. It makes me angry to see such lethargy. Everytime a new act is brought in, far more sinister aspects are buried in the detail, which further curtail our civil liberties, freedom and privacy. This has got to stop and now, state should not be permitted to control the people, it should be the other way around. As it stands, just 650 members of parliament are pushing some 65m people around, yes, I mean 650, because whilst this government may have a majority, the MP’s from other parties are not making enough noise about this massive intrusion into our lives, they should be fired, the lot of them. We are quick to condemn the bankers (rightly so in many cases), but we do nothing about the MP’s that have consistently introduced or supported Acts of Parliament that intrude into our lives, in a way that will affect us for many years to come. We must put a stop to it.

It is expected that plans to collect more data on people’s phone, e-mail and web-browsing habits will be included in the innocuously sounding ”Communications Data Bill”, due to be introduced in the Queen’s Speech in November. By all accounts, these proposals are supported by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, Gordon Brown and much of the Labour government. Once again, the government is expected to justify this gross intrusion into the personal lives of 65m people under the auspices of ‘counter-terrorism’, this is utter garbage, they know it and we know it. Yes, there are terrorists out there and they don’t wear badges, but this country has faced terrorism before and the security forces managed to investigate and prosecute without such laws.

I don’t know how many terrorists are out there, but it is not 65m and is probably less that a couple of thousand, why should the privacy and personal of 65m people be invaded by this government because of a few people that mean us harm? This whole thing needs to be put in perspective, more people in the UK die on the roads than as a result of terrorism, more soldiers are killed abroad, that in the UK as a result of terrorism, in fact, more people are killed in farming accidents that as a consequence of terrorism. This government have invested massively in the security services, allowing them to go on a substantial recruitment drive, there should be no need for a massive Big Brother surveillance operation of the entire population of the UK. Before some smart-arse suggests that it is this surveillance and investment in the security services that has reduced the number of terrorist incidents in the UK, I would ask them to provide further evidence that this is the case and then to put it into perspective. For example, it is well know that the airline industry work out whether safety mechanisms are worth introducing on their planes on the basis of a cost/benefit analysis. In other words, will the costs associated with an accident outweigh the cost of implementing the safety programmes. Fact of life, they all do it, they just rarely tell us!

Of course the government will issue the usual platitudes and assurances that they will not misuse this information, but can we believe them. The Icelandic authorities had their assets frozen using anti-terror laws, in spite of the fact that there were other laws that could have been used and would have been just as effective. A local council used anti-terror legislation to spy on the parents of a child that they throught was in the wrong ‘catchment area’. This list, trust me, goes on and on. We also know that this government ant it’s private sector partners are incapapble of securing data, which means our personal lives could be open to all and sundry. Some will argue that if you have nothing to hide, then there is nothing to hide, these same people probably still believe in Father Christmas. As we know information, any information can be used in different ways, depending on the the intepretation of the recipient, how many times have we said or done something that was completely misrepresented?

I have nothing to hide, but I object strongly to my personal calls, web browsing habits and email being monitored and invaded by the state. Government’s could even misuse this information to find out how we intend to vote! It is an appalling proposal and it is high time the British public called time on the control obsessed government and it’s supporters, irrespective of which party they represent. This goes beyond party politics, it is a direct attack on the very fabric of our society and no-one will be safe from government interference if it is allowed to pass into law. If the government believe that this act is so important, then they should allow the British people to vote on it through a referendum, I believe they will get a resounding No…and they know it!

People often tell me that there is “not much we can do”, but there is. Our members of parliament are worried sick that they may lose their seat at the next election, we must emphasise to them that if they support this attack on our civil liberties that we guarantee they will. We must demonstrate to our MP’s that they should be more in fear of the wrath of the British public that the Chief Whip of their own parties. Opposition MP’s should do their jobs and oppose this draconian piece of legislation. We must also warn our local members of parliament that if they vote for this Act, that we will not vote for them, we must make it clear, that we have a voice, not once every 5 years, but throughout their tenure and that we will have it heard. Everyone that feels this Act is a direct infringement of our civil liberties, right to privacy and an attack on the very fabric of our society, should write to their MP and tell them so. I have provided a ‘draft letter’ which can be viewed, personalised and sent to your MP. Draft Letter to MP

I would also invite all fellow bloggers that feel as strongly as I do on this issue to reproduce this article in part or full, topped and tailed if they wish, to publicise this issue to as many people as possible. Let us all stand up and fight in this issue, and remind this government who is actually in charge.

RESIST!”

from http://www.power-to-the-people.co.uk/2008/10/public-call-time-big-brother-britain/

For information on groups fighting the erosion of civil liberties, check these websites out:

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

http://www.no2id.net/

For more information on British Civil Liberty attacks, check this out:

http://deandonaldson.wordpress.com/category/privacy-control/