IDENTITY CARDS REBORN WITH A NEW NAME

Less than a year after dismantling the previous government’s plans for an “identity card” scheme, the coalition has decided to introduce an “identity assurance” scheme, which from what I can make out still involves a “card”. So that will be an “identity assurance card” instead of an “identity card”.

A prototype will be in use within months and will be used to reliably identify the users of government web sites, although just how reliably is the question.

Currently Visa (the credit card system preferred by the government, and the only one valid for the purchase of Olympic tickets) has been involved in trials with its customers, where they can log into government websites using their credit cards.

I’m not certain which is more dangerous: my credit card details being known by the government, or my use of government internet sites being known by my bank. But something even more worrying is that Francis Maude appears to be in charge of the project, which almost certainly dooms it to failure.

He reckons that the proposed system will make it more difficult for fraudsters to dupe the benefit and tax systems. (I’m not sure how some of his colleagues will feel about that, but perhaps they could find a way of ensuring that Noble Lords have a card as soon as possible, as they seem to be fiddling on a grand scale, according to one of their number.)

The use of the internet for the delivery of government services is not an unreasonable idea. Of course it will save a lot of money. Offices all over the country where people used to be able to go to talk about their business on a one to one basis have long since closed, or become call centres where people can at least talk to another human being about their problems, albeit not face to face. How much cheaper would it be to sack half of these staff and replace them with an online service?

Who cares about quality of service?

Another worry about this is that, of course, there are still people who have no idea how to use a computer, most of them over 65, and there are very many who have no access to a computer.

Use of public computers for personal transactions, with identity cards (sorry identity assurance cards, by people who are not “net savvy” will create far more security problems than use of the cards may eliminate.

Sometimes you have to wonder why they bothered changing governments in England. (I say that because our representation didn’t change at all, except that SNP and Liberal by-election wins went back to Labour!)

I trust that these cards will at least be free, and the invasion of our privacy won't, as proposed by the last lot of incompetents, cost us £40-£60.

DOUBLE YOUR MONEY AND SET SCOTLAND FREE

For a limited period, all donations to the SNP between £1 and £500 will be matched pound-for-pound.

Scottish entrepreneur Brian Souter has pledged to match all small donations received by 31 March up to £500,000, creating an incredible £1 million election fund.

So every £1 you donate will be worth double that - at no extra cost to you.

I don't care much for big business supporting political parties, nor for that matter for trades unions doing it, but life is life and we start from where we are, not from where we would like to be.

So, with the unions funding Labour and the big financial organisations funding the Tories, we have to be grateful that this money is coming to us.

Getting our message through with a hostile press and a hostile state broadcaster is a hard job. The rubbish that is printed about the SNP has been startling over the years, and the way that some achievements have been ignored in the main stream media, including the BBC, is jaw dropping. The curled lip of some presenters when the government is mentioned brings shame on a supposedly neutral state funded organ.

So we need to be able to get the message across with posters, ads, tv and most important of all, people.

The SNP is lucky. Its members get off their backsides and do what they can, whatever that is, from folding communications and putting them in envelopes to going out “chapping doors”. We are lucky that our main asset costs nothing. But other assets do cost money and we will have to pay for the advertising campaign which we must mount.

We need a million pounds. Let’s see if we can get it.

(As so often on this blog, my thanks go to Cynical Highlander for bringing this to my attention.)

Pics: Isn't it one of the prettiest and the best places on Earth (despite today's weather)

IN WHICH TRIS PRAISES THE TORY-LIBERAL COALITION GOVERNMENT.... HONESTLY!!

At last some good news from the government. It is planning a radical overhaul of the state pension, according to Vince Cable. And although he did not confirm reports in the Daily Mail that it could rise from about £97 a week for a single person to around£140, he did say that the proposals included replacing means-tested pension credits with a flat-rate payment, which would ensure a "decent" retirement.

OK. I don’t think £140 a week means a decent retirement, but it’s a million miles closer than the current state of affairs.

Of course people say that it is too expensive and Britain could never manage this kind of pension. But it fair to say that many continental countries have pension far better than this. It would mean vast savings on means testing calculations.

At the moment, pensions are topped up to £132 a week for the poorest by way of a pensions credit.

The Department for Work and Pensions has said that they will publish proposals later this year.

Of course, it's not going to happen for a long while and the figures may have to be revised. If it takes 5 years to implement, then the £140 will have to be upgraded or those who at present are entitled to all the pension credit will have to take a fall in income!

Labour peer Patricia Hollis, who had called last year for a flat rate pension of £132, was said to be delighted. She rekoned the proposals would be affordable because increases in the state pension age.

Most other commentators thought that the idea was a good one too, with some scepticism from a few who feel that it is a heart-warming story spun to balance out the unfairness of some of last week’s announcements.

The Times said the proposed pension changes were not affordable. Their chief economics person said that the sums didn’t add up and that it would require extra money as it would not pay for itself.

But the National Association of Pension Funds, which described the UK's state pension as the worst in Europe, said it welcomed simplification and less bureaucracy.

I think it is a good start. At £99, the UK state pension is derisory and despicable. I’ve criticised many things that this government has done, and with good reason, but credit where it is due. If it pulls this off it WILL be a progressive move and credit where credit is due. It is to Labour’s eternal shame that it took a Conservative-Liberal government to make this move.

Let’s hope that it is brought in speedily and that the amount at which it is pitched will rise swiftly, to bring us a little closer to all other countries in Europe who treat their old with a little more respect than we do.

SNP WON'T ENTER COALITION WITH LONDON PARTIES

Further to some comments in an earlier post today, it appears that the SNP will not go into any kind of coalition with any of the London based parties. They will however work as the London parties do in Holyrood, on a case by case issue depending on merit.

Alex Salmond made it clear to the BBC that Scotland had voted clearly against the Conservatives. No one could really deny that. One seat out of 59 is hardly a ringing endorsement. However, it could be said by the same yardstick, Scotland did not vote SNP either. However, figures further in the post suggest that perhaps were the system fairer SNP’s votes would have brought them in nearer 17 seats.

It voted Labour, and Jim Murphy says that Mr Brown has the constitutional and moral right to try to form a government. I’m not sure where he gets the “moral” bit from. It is patiently obvious that England has voted for a Tory government. Why he thinks that Brown has any moral right to govern is beyond me.

Although technically Brown has the constitutional right to first bite at the cherry when it comes to forming a government, he appears to accept, even if it hasn’t filtered down as far as Murphy, that talks are underway between the Tories, as the largest party both in seats and in votes in the whole UK, and the Liberals, as the party with enough seats to make the difference.

Party: Seats: Gain: Loss: Net: Votes: %:+/-%
Conservative: 306: 100: 3: +97: 10,706,647: 36.1: +3.8
Labour: 258: 3: 94: -91: 8,604,358: 29.0: -6.2
Libs: 57: 8: 13: -5: 6,827,938: 23.0: +1.0


I’m happy to hear that Salmond won’t do deals with the parties in London. It would have been wrong to get involved in English, Welsh and Irish politics.

Talking of moral rights just one look at the figures above gives an indication of just how morally dubious claims of either of the two big parties are.

That approx 10.5 million votes should equal 306 seats; 8.5 million seats equal 258 seats and 6.5 million equal 57 seats shows what a travesty of justice the British voting system is. Labour needs 33,000 votes to get a seat; the Tories 35,000, and the Liberals 120,000. (The SNP needs 82,000 for a seat.)

It’s certainly time for a change!

Sorry about the table; it's hard to read but I can't get it to work any other way.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME REAL OPPOSITION LEADERS?

Heaven help us but the opposition in Scotland is useless... and this time I include Ms Goldie too.

What’s all this about? OK. Let me explain.

The Herald is running a story by Brian Currie, their political editor no less (although you’d think he’d have something a bit more akin to politics to deal with, given that we are approaching a Westminster election). This piece of amazing journalism echos Gray and Goldie's calls for Alex Salmond to apologise for some half witted SNP supporter.

The person concerned is Mr Clayton, 74, a party contact in the Argyll and Bute constituency and, in my humble opinion either age has rendered him soft in the head or he was born tasteless, thoughtless and unlikeable. Whatever the reason the unlovely Mr Clayton sent out an email newsletter to some SNP activists and ministers in which he claimed that poor wee Danus McKinlay, who collapsed and died outside Glasgow City Chambers last week, may have (note: may have) died as a result of drug addiction.

Right. Let’s get this straight from the getgo. I deplore this. I think that people who defame the recently dead are pretty low; I think that when they do it for possible political gain they are even lower, and when the death is that of a young lad just beginning his adult life, I’d happily give the guy a good hard smack on the nose. It is, if this is possible, even lower because he says that Danus “may have” died as a result of drug addiction. So he doesn’t know and he didn’t bother to find out before he started spreading this low-life muck around the place.

So that’s pretty much how I feel about it... You maybe guessed that I’m not one of this Clayton’s fans, and I’m willing to bet that most decent people of most parties feel the same way.

But why, oh why are wee Willie Winkie Gray and Auntie Annabel calling for the First Minister to get involved? What on earth is that about? The person responsible isn’t a minister, or an MSP or MP or councillor. Neither is he some kind of a candidate for any parliament, nor any council... He’s a bloke that is some sort of contact for an Argyle branch of the SNP. Alex Salmond will probably never have heard of him as he hasn't heard of me. He really can’t possibly take personal responsibility for him or for every other person in the SNP. No more indeed than Iain Gray or Annabel Goldie can take responsibility for every tasteless blogger or member of their respective parties who madeout of order remarks about the death of a certain cancer victim, and installed count downs to his death on their blogs.

Yes, what the blogger did was shoddy in the extreme. So he has been referred to the party’s disciplinary committee and I hope he gets a good hard kicking... but an apology from the First Minister? Clearly neither Gray nor Goldie has any idea ... nor will they ever... of what being the First Minister involves. Mr Salmond has a country to run. I have no doubt that he is very angry with Clayton; it may even be that he will say something about it, but it is really not his business to run local SNP branches.

Now if neither of you "opposition leaders" can find any opposing to do over the policies of the Scottish government, or if you have no suggestions to make as to how we can better the lives of our citizens, I suggest you resign and find other employment. You’re certainly wasting your time and our money if this is the best you can do.

Pictured: Annabel Goldie and Iain Gray




++++++++

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REFORM THIS PLACE?

How embarrassing for Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Three Labour MPs and a Conservative lord yesterday pled not guilty to fraud, and insisted that English Courts should not try them as they were parliamentarians.

Morley, Chaytor, Devine and Hanningfield said the charges against them should be heard by parliamentary authorities (which, as we all know, let MPs off with most stuff, and Lords off with everything).

They insisted that they were protected from criminal prosecution by parliamentary privilege citing the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

The MPs asked to be spared the humiliation of being forced to stand in the dock of the court like the rest of the criminal fraternity because they were something special. Much to his credit the magistrate denied the request.

The barrister for the MPs trotted out some nonsense about his clients of course not feeling that they were above the law, insisting that parliamentary privilege is a part of the law and had been since 1689. He did not think that his clients should not stand trial, but (and I admit, I paraphrase) not in the kind of court that was suitable for ordinary people.

Hanningfield, in a separate case, pled not guilty to charges relating to his allowance claims. His barrister said he would also challenge the jurisdiction of the court. He too apparently feels that what is right for ordinary people wouldn’t suit him too terribly well.

Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, had the men charged with false accounting. When they indicated that ordinary people’s courts did not have the right to try the likes of them Mr Starmer replied that prosecutors had decided that the matter should be tested in court.

Interestingly when Princess Anne was charged in court (albeit with far less serious charges) no similar claim for superiority was made.

The charges, according to The Times, are as follows:

Morley, MP for Scunthorpe, faces three charges alleging that he claimed £30,428 more than he was entitled to in second home expenses between 2004 and 2007.

Chaytor, MP for Bury North, also faces three charges. He is accused of fraudulently claiming £18,425 in second home allowances and of using a false invoice to claim £1,950 in IT services.

Devine, MP for Livingston, faces two charges alleging that he claimed £3,240 for cleaning services and £5,505 for stationery using false invoices in 2008 and 2009.

Hanningfield faces six charges of false accounting, relating to 13 claims of between £154.50 and £174 for overnight allowances between 2006 and 2009.

In a separate case it was announced today that Uddin had got away with what had been alleged as fruadulent claims for housing allowances. In what some will see as a complete travesty of justice the case against Mrs Uddin was thrown out because of a recent ruling by the Lords authorities which decided that peers could nominate a property as their "main" home even if they only "visit" it once a month.

Given the generosity of overnight expenses this has cleared as legal the practice of nominating a main home out of London, as long as a visit for a few minutes can be arranged once a month. Nice little earner.

No wonder these people want to be tried by parliament. We’d probably end up paying them compensation and they would all be made Privy Councilors and be given knighthoods and a slap up dinner at Buckingham Palace.

WHEN ARE WE GOING TO REFORM THIS PLACE?


Picture, from The Times, shows Elliot Morley (second left), David Chaytor (second right) and Jim Devine (right) arriving at court with their lawyers.

==========

Government and Judiciary relations at breaking point over torture ruling

The Times reports that relations between the government and the judiciary are at breaking point following the decision of the Court of Appeal to reinstate a judge's criticism of MI5 in a landmark torture ruling.

The judgment concerns the mistreatment in CIA custody of ex Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyam Mohamed, and what MI5 knew about it.

The original ruling caused outrage when it emerged that the part in which Lord Neuberger, Master of the Rolls, questioned the honesty of secret service officers, had been removed following Foreign Office interference.

Now Judge Neuberger and two colleagues have reinstated the paragraph, rewritten to focus the criticism on the individual case. They have also published the original draft text.

Alan Johnson, Home Secretary, said he was deeply disappointed by the court's decision to criticize the Security Service in that manner.

He said: "The Government respects the right of the judges to reach their own judgment. But it is also right that, where we disagree with their conclusions, we say so. The UK’s security and intelligence services do outstanding work to keep us safe against a real and continuing terrorist threat, and they do so under proper control and oversight - by ministers, the Intelligence and Security Committee, the commissioners and, where necessary, the courts."

Without going into the rights and wrongs of torture, or Guantanamo, or indeed the whole war against terror, all of which may be good material for further posts by me or other contributors, we really do need to establish something.

The government depends upon the courts and the judges to uphold the law. Many people criticize them for being out of touch, elitist, superior, wrong minded... and so on, but they are the foundation of our justice system. Therefore, when they rule against the government, based in their learned way upon the laws that the government has made, it is a bit rich for ministers to get their drawers in a twist about it.

Lawyers from the foreign office should have no part in changing rulings of the courts and when they do, they should not be overly surprised that the courts eventually get their own way.

It seems to me that the Blair-Brown government was so desperate to co-operate with the Bush-Cheney administration that they were happy to overlook the fact that prisoners were being tortured. Brits, for all their faults (including island mentality xenophobia and a general dislike of anything that isn’t Anglo-Saxon, except curries and Spanish beaches), are essentially decent people. They don’t like their governments colluding in torture and this government was at least smart enough to recognize that and lie about rendition flights and actual knowledge of torture.

They were forced to admit that they had, erm, got it wrong about the extraordinary rendition flights and to apologize. Now they would do well to do the same thing here.

They have the power to change the law if they wish. Until they do they would do well to obey what stands like most of the rest of us do.

Photos show Mr Neuberger and Guantanamo Bay in the south of Cuba.

............