CentreRight

The Boris of Biology - facts of Artificial Life and the policy implications

Craig Venter is the 'Boris' of Biology and there is no denying that his passion for progress in genetics and slightly worrying drive to create Artificial Life is genuine.

What they did: In short his team made a synthetic copy of a bacterial genome (of 500 genes - we have about 25,000) and inserted it into another live host bacterial cell whose own DNA had been removed. This second cell was then only being controlled by the synthetic genome, as it's the DNA in the genome that directs the cell's activities. So this combination of synthetic genome plus the (already live) host was something totally novel, and the proof that it 'worked' is that this new bacteria went on to divide in the normal way that bacterial cells do.

Why it's not artificial life: While this is a significant achievement which took 15 years and £30m to create, I would argue however against the Economist's claim that 'mere mortals have now made artificial life' for the two main reasons. Firstly it's a copy of an existing, naturally occurring genome; and secondly it wouldn't have got anywhere without the live host cell, and all the essential stuff (polymerase enzymes, ribosomes, mRNA, mitochondria, cytoplasm) that the host cell contained. We haven't created new life-giving chemicals or designed a previously unknown live creature. And although the speed of DNA synthesis and experimentation is increasing, the staggering complexities of gene expression, incompatibility of genetic 'parts' and unpredictability of the cellular 'circuits' still constitute massive hurdles to progress.

Policy Implications: However the policy implications are still huge. For a start, if 'progress' is defined as steady improvement, what are we trying to improve, and why? And what are the risks of pursuing 'progress'? With such little public engagement in science, people will worry about what this means to them, to life, to safety. Life scientists will worry about 'GM' type rejection and security specialist's concern will revolve around the ignorancee of life scientists who are unaware of international treaties that exist to reduce bio-error. We may not be able to create artificial life, but someone could create artificial smallpox.....

The call for a moratorium from Human Genetics Alert on this science is no bad thing. It will raise the profile, allow us to analyse the benefits and assess the risk - ultimately increasing the public's confidence in decisions made. We shouldn't continue regardless just because we can.

Europe's Shame: The Treatment of Roma Refugees in Kosovo

Just under two months ago, I returned from a visit to Kosovo. 

I had intended to write about my experiences and impressions of the province but every time I put pen to paper, no words were forthcoming. 

As with every conflict zone – especially ethnic conflicts of the type seen in Kosovo – the views you hear from local people are too polarised, the emotions expressed too strong and the very human symbols of destruction illustrated by the burned out homes;  and piles of rubble which still line roads in the north of the country are still too evident to draw a fair conclusion as to the “rights” and “wrongs” of any situation. 

I won’t touch on the ongoing politick regarding the future of Kosovo as a country, nor will I discuss the ongoing intimidation and wretched living conditions of the province’s minorities.  I do, however, want to highlight one significant wrong the international community has a duty to right: the treatment and living conditions of Roma refugees in the country.

This problem stems back to the height of the Kosovo conflict between 1998 and 1999, when the Kosovo Liberation Army expelled 90,000 ethnic Roma citizens from their homes on the basis of Albanian nationalist fears that the community were stooges of Slobodan Milosevic.  

The coalition agreement lists 45 areas to "review", "investigate" or "consider"

By Neil O'Brien

At the fag end of the Brown administration, policy making increasingly came to resemble the desperate scenes in The Thick of It, as ministers launched half-baked schemes on an increasingly bemused public.

Reality seemed to blur into fiction. The BBC series gave us the idea of  "Pet Asbos". But the real government came up with the "dog tax". In a desperate moment Malcolm Tucker and his pals came up with the "National Spare Room Register". But the real Labour government wanted to make everyone renting out a room pay to register on a new "national landlords database".

The new coalition suffers from no such shortage of good ideas - in fact the coalition agreement lists about 400 different policies.

It states that many areas are going to be put out to review. On some occasions this will just be a way of kicking issues into the long grass, which is a shame. We can all think of things that a coalition is not going to be able to do, and there are plenty of compromises that might be unpleasant to have to swallow. That's coalition government for you.

But while the media will probably mock, many of the reviews are positively a good thing.  Policy-on-the-hoof and sofa government led to a series of preventable disasters.  From the ten pence tax rate to "marching yobs to the cashpoint", press-release-driven policy making was not a success.

I think life under a coalition will tend to favour slower but much more evidence-based politics.  I'm struck by how the best developed policies survived the pressures of the general election campaign, and are now in the coalition agreement - while the ones that hadn’t been so well thought-through haven’t made it.

The fine details of policy are being haggled about as never before. What exactly will the role of local authorities in school choice be?  How exactly will elected police oversight be implemented?  Detail is everything now.  Conservatives who agree with Mrs T, and think that "the facts of life are conservative" will see little to be afraid of in this process. In fact thinking things through properly is supposed to be a conservative virtue.

The full list of reviews, investigations and considerations is below (I haven't included the spending review).

It's an interesting guide to the strengths and weaknesses  of the coalition and the opportunities it faces. There are some great ideas in there - and some less great ones.  Some are massive, like the West Lothian question, while others are pretty obscure.

Deregulation to Save the Nation

I may be appalled by the energy and environment section of the coalition document, but I am extremely impressed by section 2, on Business.  As Vice-President of an organisation dedicated to Competitive Enterprise, I have to say that most of these policies are excellent:

•    We will cut red tape by introducing a ‘one-in, one-out’ rule whereby no new regulation is brought in without other regulation being cut by a greater amount.

This sort of regulatory budget idea has been a great success whenever it has been tried.  It forces regulators to think hard about the utility of existing regulations, which are often introduced as a knee-jerk reaction to a one-off problem.

•    We will end the culture of ‘tick-box’ regulation, and instead target inspections on high-risk organisations through co-regulation and improving professional standards.

One of the worst aspects of regulation is the creation of a 'tick-box' culture, which engenders a false sense of security and leads to lapses.  It is plausible that the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was at least facilitated by a 'tick-box' approach.  In most cases, 'tick-box' cultures cause massive amounts of time to be spent on minutiae, greatly harming economic efficiency and driving up costs for end-users, which is you and me.

•    We will impose ‘sunset clauses’ on regulations and regulators to ensure that the need for each regulation is regularly reviewed.

Zombie regulations that keep on existing years and even decades after their useful life has ended are an important part of regulatory bloat and the "tick-box" culture.

Keep hold of the map, George

Reading today's programme for coalition government feels like long walk through some very mixed terrain - in typically British weather. One moment the turf is springy underfoot, the sky is clear and you have real momentum. The brisk language, short sentences and firm commitments in the section on civil liberties gladden the heart, after so many years of Big Brother Labour. For localists and quango-haters there's some nice fresh air: more local decision-making, an end to Standards Boards, "regionalisation" and Comprehensive Area Assessments. Then a few clouds of uncertainty - will Local Enterprise Partnerships just be RDAs under a new name? A few spots of rain turn to a heavy shower as you hit the section on Equalities. It's back to Harriet Harperson country: gender equality on boards of listed companies, gender balance in the "early years workforce"; schemes for "Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic" business start-ups - how patronising and tokenistic is that?

The skies clear again when you get to education: plenty of firm commitments for school freedom - but then the path seems to narrow on faith schools, required to be more 'inclusive' in their admissions. Welfare reform seems promising at first but then gets a bit overgrown:

"We will investigate how to simplify the benefits system in order to improve incentives to work." Plenty of long grass there, in an area where urgent action is needed.

As to the tax section - over which much Conservative ink has been spilt in the press this week - well, it's very short on detail. It gives George Osborne room to choose the path to growth: lower corporation tax, increasing personal allowances to incentivise the low-paid, tax breaks for entrepreneurs. But if he doesn't keep a grip, there's enough small print for some of his colleagues to steer Britain into the muddy ground of redistribution, where growth is stagnant and opportunity gets trampled underfoot.

Ultimately, will coalition life be an interesting walk or just a dispiriting ramble ?  If George - and Michael, and Iain - keep a very firm hold of the map, then we might just about get there. But if I were you, I'd take a very stout pair of boots, plenty of rations - and a tent. Because you might not get home before nightfall.

Constitutional options: Presidency etc.

I believe that the fixed term Parliaments proposal, 55%, the favouring of TV debates amongst major party leaders, the abolition of the 1922 committee of backbenchers, the proposal that there should be no change of Prime Minister without a new General Election, and others all reflect a common (albeit perhaps un-selfconscious) belief in Presidential politics.

There are indeed some strong arguments to be made in favour of Presidency.  But let's have a debate on it instead of ambling into a Presidential arrangement without really thinking too hard about it.

As I've blogged before, modern Conservatives (or "progressive Conservatives" OR "liberal Conservatives" or whatever you want to call them) don't have the sorts of bias I personally favour towards incremental and evolutionary constitutional change.  Instead, they are revolutionaries, hoping to over-turn the whole system and replace it with something new, modern, and progressive.  Fine.  Let's run the debate on those terms: Year Zero; Start again.  So, the question before us, on our otherwise-blank sheet of paper, is: "How should we construct a constitution from scratch?"

A symbol for our times

I won’t have been the first to spot this, but as the BBC made me splutter into my tea this morning, I’ll mention it all the same.

Is it just me, or is there a freakish symmetry between the current political situation and the announcement of the mascots for the 2012 games? It was the colours that triggered it, though even Boris Johnson has tactfully acknowledged the simplest of parallels.

After the era of Mr Bean, are we officially now in the age of Wenlock and Mandeville? Today's strange politics provides a rich seam for the comedy clubs at least.

A timely history lesson...

Eighty-eight years ago this October the Conservative-dominated coalition headed by Liberal David Lloyd George fell.

The four years since the end of the Great War hostilities had been troubled. A deep economic recession in 1920/21 had resulted in sharp tax rises and cuts in public spending to the fledgling welfare state. Disquiet over the Prime Minister’s corrupt use of the honours system had reached a crescendo. As the parliamentary term neared its end there was continuing Conservative fear that the leading figures in the coalition would agree to a snap election to the detriment of many of their followers. Above all there was a dangerous disconnect between our Party’s leaders, mesmerised by office and Lloyd George’s charisma, and the backbenchers on which its majority relied.

Thus was the stage set for the famous Carlton Club meeting, which precipitated the end of the coalition and the frontline political careers of many of its leaders.

Since October 1922 the Conservative Party has recognised the distinct interests of backbenchers at times when the Party has been in government. From Baldwin to Churchill to Thatcher these interests have been institutionalised in the role of the 1922 Committee.

Collective governmental responsibility commands the loyalty of Ministers; backbenchers must balance the conflicts between country, constituency and party in all that they do. The 1922 Committee is not a forum for institutionalised dissent - it is by contrast a crucial safety valve (and at times, an early warning system) for our Party, enabling some of these conflicts to be played out, without damaging the Conservative Party in government.

We all know that tackling the economic crisis in the years to come will place a tremendous strain on any political party, yet alone a government in coalition

Trust and respect must be the watchwords of the relationship between the Party leadership and its backbench followers. Whilst it is legitimate to question the status or composition of the 1922 Committee for the modern era, it would be wise for this to happen soberly, responsibly and with a proper period for consideration.

Nick Clegg's extraordinary pledges on civil liberties

In a remarkable speech this morning (still going as I write) Nick Clegg has set out the fundamental first steps of the great repeals this new Government intends to bring about, with a pledge to bring "an end to spying on people:"

• ID cards out
• Biometric passports stopped
• No e-mail control without specific need
• CCTV regulated
• Innocent people off the DNA database
• No ContactPoint
• No fingerprints taken from children by schools without parental consent
• Removal of restrictions on right to peaceful protest
• Review the thousands of criminal offences created by New Labour which made criminals of ordinary people
• Review of the anti-terror powers. Back to "great British freedoms."
• Defend trial by jury.

OK we need details. But this is great stuff.

A member of al-Qaeda? Come on in...the more the merrier

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has just passed one of those legal rulings which now occur so often that you become numb to it.

From the BBC:

The alleged leader of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb targets in north-west England has won his appeal against deportation.

A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

Mr Naseer, 23, was one of 10 Pakistani students arrested last April as part of a massive counter-terrorism operation in Liverpool and Manchester.

The very definition of "scum"

It was a disgusting crime: two 16-year olds wrote racist and obscene graffiti on prayer books in Blackburn cathedral and bent out of shape a "priceless" cross. Fortunately for the police, the morons also chose to write their names in the Cathedral visitors' book and were thus caught and convicted.

When passing judgement on any crime, the Magistrates have a difficult job to do in working out how to phrase their judgement in such a way that it is suitably explained for the public record and communicates strongly and adequately to the perpetrator the seriousness of their offence.

However, in this case the Chairman of the Magistrates - Austin Molloy - came up with the perfect summation: "Normal people would consider you absolute scum."

In that judgement he was absolutely right - scum he called them, and scum they are. These vandals could practically function as the very definition of the word "scum".

Despite his accuracy and strong justification, though, Mr Molloy has now been suspended from the Bench and is facing disciplinary action for using the word.

It is perhaps unsurprising that the mother of one of these scum has registered a complaint, but it is remarkable that it was Mr Molloy's own Court Clerk who urged her to do so. It is staggering that the authorities didn't throw the complaint straight into the bin and have instead chosen to suspend Mr Molloy for the grievous offence of doing his job and standing up on behalf of decent people against vandals.

Free speech has long been an important pillar of our historic rights - surely if anyone should be free to speak it is a judge or magistrate in their own courtroom?

Take the outriders, Prime Minister

It is difficult not to applaud David Cameron for his egalitarian streak over London’s traffic. Indicating his intent to do away with motorcycle escorts certainly sets him apart from the sort of politicians who would speed through special politburo lanes in their Zil limousines. But just as he can’t expect to ride his bike in to work, someone in his team has to tell him he also has to apply common sense to his motoring routine.

There are plenty of reasons behind this. Off the top of my head, I can think of Franz Ferdinand, Sarajevo, 1914; and Sait Halim Pasha, Rome, 1931 - both of whose bullet-scarred cars are on display in Vienna and Istanbul today. There was King Alexander of Yugoslavia, Marseilles, 1934. Or of course JFK, Dallas, 1963. Terrorists and extremists read history books. They sometimes read fiction like Tom Clancy too.

Let’s hope that it doesn’t take a crank with a tin of paintstripper, or worse, to get this lesson across. Well done Mr Cameron for spotting a possible economy. But in this instance, it’s a false one. Take the outriders, Prime Minister. I for one won’t criticise you for it.

A Conservative case for hiking Capital Gains Tax

"I have long felt it is highly undesirable that Capital Gains Tax should have given rise to a substantial tax avoidance industry dedicated solely to converting income into capital gain, which is taxed very much more lightly."

No: not the words yesterday of David Laws.  Or even of George Osborne.  Rather, I'm quoting from Nigel Lawson's magisterial memoirs, "The view from Number Eleven", on the 1987 budget.  I've changed the tense from past to present, but otherwise altered nothing.

That year, Lawson "decided...to tax corporate capital gains at the relevant corporation tax rate, which at that time meant 35 per cent for larger companies and 27 per cent for smaller companies...instead of at the long-standing Capital Gains Tax rate of 30 per cent."

"It was an astonishing stroke of luck that no-one guessed that I envisaged this merely as the first stage in a two stage process, with the principle being extended to individuals in a subsequent Budget.  It thus came as a complete surprise in the 1988 Budget when I brought Capital Gains Tax for individuals into line with the basic and higher rates of income tax."

Later in his memoir, Lawson names the rates: 25 per cent and 40 per cent respectively.  He adds: "Not surprisingly, this change was, and remains, very unpopular with many Conservative back-benchers, who saw it as an increase in the Capital Gains Rate from 30 per cent to 40 per cent - although they were in no position to complain too loudly in a year in which the higher rates had been significantly reduced."

Obviously, Lawson's CGT rises aren't the beginning and end of the matter as far as Conservatives are concerned.  He wasn't Margaret Thatcher's last Chancellor, and John Major's Government followed hers.  TaxCafe claims here that "by the time of the 1997 General Election, the Conservatives were set well on a path towards the abolition of Capital Gains Tax".  And like many other taxes, CGT has long been subject to a complex series of special reliefs and allowances.

None the less, Lawson's words indicate that there is a Conservative history of raising CGT in order to clamp down on tax avoidance.  He was a controversial Chancellor, not least because of his support for entry to the Exchange Rate Mechanism - a cataclysmic blunder.  None the less, he was a great tax reformer, and deliverer of "flatter, lower, simpler taxes" (copyright: George Osborne).

I'm against tax rises and for tax cuts whenever possible - money should, as Gladstone put it, "fructify in the pockets of the people".  But some tax rises will be necessary to help reduce the deficit, as Osborne indicated during the election campaign.  That being so, CGT increases have a respectable Conservative pedigree, and there's no reason in principle why they shouldn't be part of the mix.

However, I've three reservations -

* The Liberal Democrat manifesto committed that Party to "taxing capital gains at the same rate as income".  Our own made no specific reference to the tax.  The agreement between the two parties referred to "a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities".  Questions about accountability are bound to arise from agreements and/or measures that weren't put before voters in an election manifesto.

* The agreement refers specifically to non-business capital gains and to exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.  This raises specific questions about what constitutes such gains and activities - as well as broader ones about how any further reliefs and exemptions might be structured.  John Redwood has some suggestions here.

* Finally, look again at one of those quotes from Lawson in relation to the 1988 budget: "I brought Capital Gains Tax for individuals into line with the basic and higher rates of income tax."  It was that budget, of course, which slashed the higher rate from 60 per cent to 40 per cent (prompting "grave disorder" in the Chamber from Labour MPs, and the suspension of the Commons for ten minutes).

In the medium term, then, Osborne should remember the other half of Lawson's equation.  If CGT rates are to go up then, the top rate should come down - as soon as possible.  After all, our manifesto said that "we do not regard the 50p tax rate as a permanent feature of the tax system".  I've written about this matter before here.

Paul Goodman

Hedge fund headaches

George Osborne would not have wished his early days as Chancellor to be dominated by a rearguard action at the European Parliament. Yet as the Greek economic storm swirls, further clouds are on the continental horizon as the proposed Directive on Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) - which I wrote about here last September - goes to crucial votes by MEPs today.

To recap, the Directive is the first attempt in any jurisdiction to create direct regulation of the alternative fund industry, the aim being to clip the wings of hedge fund and private equity managers. The impetus derives from panic in response to the economic crisis alongside a partisan vision of hedge funds and private equity as a Wild West show of amoral speculators and asset-strippers.

But there has been no crisis of asset management. Unlike banks, hedge funds neither leveraged themselves to the hilt (they lacked the balance sheet clout to do so even if they had wanted to) nor ran down from adequate levels of liquidity. Indeed those which have failed have not threatened the entire financial system. Which is why this legislation is so controversial.

The coalition's policies on the European Union

The coalition government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is only a week old and yet already pessimists are saying it won’t last long – frankly I hope they're wrong. One of the reasons most often quoted for the coalition’s fragility is Europe, or more specifically the divergence of opinion between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on Britain’s role in, and relationship with, the European Union.

Most of those who believe the coalition will founder on this issue are hardline eurosceptics. One such doomsayer is Lord Tebbit, who disgracefully called on voters in last year’s European election to vote for UKIP. This belief that Europe will be the undoing of a very carefully constructed coalition is perhaps a reflection of the overriding importance – one might almost call it an obsession – that some in our party attach to our membership of the EU. They are so committed either to Britain adopting a more hostile approach to the EU or seeking to secede altogether that it appears they see the collapse of a Conservative-led government as a worthwhile price to pay to achieve their goals. For them, nothing else matters. I sometimes wonder if we have learned the lessons of the last period of Tory government.

For voters, however – and I must have canvassed hundreds, if not thousands, of households across the entire London region in two election campaigns in the past year – Europe barely registers on their political radar. UKIP once again came nowhere near winning a seat, though it may have denied us a few extra ones. UKIP polled 3.1% of the popular vote nationally, which admittedly puts them in fourth place ahead of the Greens but a long way behind the pro-European Liberal Democrats. The Green Party, however, did show that well-disciplined smaller parties are occasionally capable of making a breakthrough under first-past-the-post.

None of the main parties contesting the election advocated a secessionist or obstructionist approach to Europe. The coalition government, therefore, ought to reflect first and foremost the fact that Britain should remain a fully engaged member of the European Union.

That which must not be named

I have posted before about the very British stance that the Obama administration is currently taking to its counter-terrorism policy. More evidence of this was provided last week, when Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

Referring to the three major terrorist attacks attempted in the US in the past year - the Fort Hood shooting, the Detroit bombing and now the Times Square bombing - Republican Congressman Lamar Smith asks Holder whether 'radical Islam' may just have been one of the contributing factors to these attacks. This seems like a reasonably straight forward question to answer. Radical Islam is, you would guess, quite hard to whitewash out of the Islamism-inspired terrorism that is so common these days. 

However, US government policy is to now remove all references to Islam when discussing terrorism. It is one of those British policies that our American allies seem to have unfortunately taken to with some relish. With an almost heroic disconnect from reality, Holder can not bring himself to accept that all those terrorists who say they are acting in the name of Islam are actually terrorists acting in the name of Islam.

It's a painful watch - a bit like trying to persuade a terrified Hogswarts student to say 'Lord Voldemort'. But - as in the Harry Potter series - if you are too afraid to name the enemy, chances are you won't have the will or know-how to defeat it either.

Big Brother Watch is against the 55% change - where does your organisation stand?

In agreement with David Davis, Big Brother Watch sees the mooted 55% dissolution rule as antidemocratic and undesirable.

The pseudo-defence given - that a vote of no confidence would continue to exist - is no real defence, as a government suffering a vote of no confidence defeat by a margin of 54.9% or less would be likely to say, "we'll take this on board, it's bad news - but there's no need to have an election because a dissolution can't be forced."

The rule change seems designed specifically to suit this Parliament, an unwise way to legislate. One cannot, for example, imagine Gordon Brown giving way to demands for an election, if this provision had been in place, and he had lost such a vote in the way described above.

What do you think? If a representative of a think tank or group, where does your organisation stand?

Invitation: Become a Hackney Citizen

Andrew Boff was the Conservative candidate for Hackney Mayor on May 7. I'm sure, with all these minor shenanigans happening on the national political stage, it slipped your mind to check in with the results of our mayoral election. But I want to do more than tell you about them. I want to ask you for money. No, don't stop reading, it's not for me or even the greater Hackney Tory Collective. It's for a campaign to protect a small, independent newspaper from the mighty legal clout of Hackney Labour Council.

Harry Phibbs covered the 'controversial' decisions of Hackney's Labour council in the run-up to the election: first they banned Andrew's electoral address from going out to voters. Their given reason for this was that Andrew referred to the salary bill of the current mayor and his cabinet. Apparently this is out of order for our council: not only should we pay their salaries, we shouldn't learn how much it costs us either, certainly not from the manifesto of an opposition politician. Run this through your head again: Hackney Labour Council will not permit the costs of their mayor and cabinet to be printed in the manifesto of an opposition politician at election time.

Can it get worse? Yes, it can get worse.

Blogging the Lisbon changes

Centre Right and the laudable England Expects were quick off the mark in highlighting the realities underlying the Lisbon Treaty changes. The indefatigable Bruno Waterfield has once again done the cause of British democracy an immense service.

As we explore further today on the TPA site, where the blogosphere has led, print journalism and politicians now follow, two weeks later. A policy revolution – long overdue – may be only a month away. Whether it comes willingly or accidentally remains to be seen.

One thing is more immediately apparent. In the world of the OODA loop – Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act -  the Decision phase involves editorial decisions, and the possibility of any story never making copy. The Action element adds another half day’s delay, and even more for the Sundays. Guido’s predictions about the role of internet commentators (or at least the Netocracy) usurping the traditional cutting edge role of print journalists seems to have been once again proven right.

Google admits Street View cars recorded wi-fi activity without consent

I recently wrote about privacy issues raised by Google's Street View programme. It turns out that things are worse than initially thought, as per the Times:

Google’s Street View cars have been spying on people’s internet use for three years, the search giant admitted last night. It had been scooping up snippets of people’s online activities broadcast over unprotected home and business wi-fi networks.

Google admitted that the cars’ radio antennae snooped on e-mails and other bits of information when the vehicles trundled through towns and cities. Google said that the data was mistakenly collected and only in short bursts as the vehicles passed by, and was never used.

Emphasis added.

Some thought Big Brother Watch was overreacting when we criticised Street View. I simply make the point that Google has found an entirely new way to invade privacy that we hadn't even considered when questioning Street View first time around.

Hat tip: AC

The Big Society: Time to deregulate sea defence

Last week former Environment Secretary John Gummer observed that spending on sea defence is unfortunately vulnerable to public spending cuts.

Now, a strong case can be made for protecting sea defence from any spending cuts – it has for years been woefully underfunded. Despite being an island nation we spend less than 0.1% of all public spending on sea defence. Moreover, two of the 3 UK regions most vulnerable to coastal erosion (the South and East) receive the lowest amounts of all public spending per person. Eastern England which includes Mr Gummer’s former constituency of Suffolk Coastal receives the lowest amount of public spending anywhere in the UK (18% below average) despite having not only huge needs for sea defence, which Mr Gummer most ably championed, but also a percentage of elderly people well above the national average and a worse transport infrastructure than any other region (where else in England is two hours drive from the nearest motorway and an hour from the nearest dual carriageway?).

John Gummer is right of course though. The interest alone on the debt run up by the previous government is currently £43 billion a year, which is more than 50 times the total UK budget for sea defence. In such circumstances even the minuscule amounts we currently spend on sea defence are clearly vulnerable.

Yet, if we must have cuts to sea defence and I am certainly not advocating that we do, then herein lies an opportunity. Put simply, it is an opportunity to allow local people to undertake small scale works to defend the coast themselves. In short it is an opportunity to create the ‘Big Society’ that was a central themes of the Conservative manifesto.

However, there are currently two obstacles to this happening, the policies of Natural England and the Environment Agency.

Cabin crews of lemmings

Different lyrics, same old song: it seems that BA cabin crews are taking after the Greeks.

Q: The company that employs you is facing a loss of £20 million a day, and about to post a loss this year of £600 million, largely through no fault of its own. What should you do?

A: Strike.

Sigh.

Hedging Bets

The business section of the Sunday Telegraph carries a dire prediction, with officials floating George Osborne will fold this week over the new EU hedge fund regulations. They claim he was given a "hospital pass"; basically, set up as the patsy for Labour’s failure to block it.

There is a lot of truth in that, and it certainly demonstrates the vacuity behind declarations about how wonderful and necessary QMV is. It also highlights the need to change so much about the terms in which Britain sits within the EU treaties (more on that anon).

But what is also very concerning is the evident quasi-official line, more akin to the FCO’s wash-out position than that of the historically more robust Treasury. Assessing that the UK lacks a blocking minority, the explanation goes that "we don’t want to be in a position where we squander any negotiating capital we have for the future on an issue it doesn’t appear we can win." A fear from past form is that the UK may even be set simply to register an abstention.

This all sets a poor precedent for the new Government. It continues the longstanding civil service tradition of attempting to hide defeats at Council of Ministers’ meetings by the expediency of not voting against them at all. As Alice in Wonderland measures go, it is one of the more shameful tactics to have emerged from ministerial red boxes over the years.

So what should Osborne do in such circumstances? He should let sunlight in.

He should indicate first off that he will be voting against the measure, and shall be frequently explaining to foreign investors (in particular during his next visit to Wall Street, and to the US State Department) that it was not Britain’s idea.

He should also indicate that he would interpret the directive, when it is incorporated into UK law, in a way that best suits the national needs. If that is not how the directive is actually written, then tough.

Since the UK is reportedly home to 80 per cent of the hedge funds concerned, he should state that he considers it a matter of vital national interest. That won’t help with the veto (the principles behind the now redundant Ionnina Compromise notwithstanding). But it will send notice that countries backing any tough line can expect reciprocal treatment when state aid for their own ‘essential services’ (coal mines, steel mills, airlines and computer giants, for example) comes under legal challenge.

Given the amount of time that the ECJ is currently taking to review cases, the issue will likely take years to go through the Luxembourg Courts. If he has the nerve, he could leave his own ‘hospital pass’ for his successor. And if he gets back in, and the Luxembourg court rules against, he could and should just refuse to pay any fines issued.

As the Italian Government can tell you over their milk fiasco, these embarrassments have a habit of sorting themselves out – and Rome isn’t even a key net contributor.

It may not be communautaire. But then neither is the economic brigandage that’s happening in Brussels this week.

Chances are, however, that with their rival across the Channel continuing to flourish under home-made law rather than communal shackles, the host countries for the other 20 per cent of the EU market will soon be subject to some ferocious lobbying to undo their collective suicide bid. A legal review in five years’ time may in the event prove a redundant threat.

A big question naturally is the position of the Liberal Democrats. More particularly, it rests on whether Mr Cable would dare to catch the Circle Line from Westminster down to the City and explain why he was not prepared to stand up for the national interest. I suspect he has a preference to write his own proposals rather than cut and paste them, even where they hail from Brussels.

These newspaper leaks tend to emerge just prior to big meetings, in order for some small concession to be sold as a triumph wrung by superior statesmanship, and an ounce of honour salved. Even so, we are facing a major crunch decision. So, will Mr Osborne set the tone for how the country is to be run over the next five years, and instruct the civil service as to who’s in charge? Or will he, as the Sunday Telegraph’s Business Editor suggests, yet "snatch defeat from the jaws of defeat"? It is, on several levels, a telling week ahead.

We must not re-ratify Lisbon

I didn't believe it when Matthew Elliot said that the Lisbon Treaty needed to be re-ratified.  I still find it hard to believe.  Are we really saying that the Greeks and Germans will be seeking to re-ratify a Treaty at this moment?  And if so, how sure are we that they'll actually do it?

But, if it really is the case that there must be re-ratification, what happens in Greece and Germany is a matter for the Greeks and Germans.  We in Britain have a matter before us.  Should we ratify, should we call a referendum, should we refuse to ratify, should we say we will ratify but only if we can re-negotiate?

The Editor appears to believe that Cameron will simply seek to ratify.  To do otherwise - to, for example, insist on a referendum or a renegotiation, would bring down the Coalition.  That might well be true.

I supported Cameron's policy once Lisbon's original ratification had gone through, when others condemned him.  I believe that Cameron is by instinct a Eurosceptic - one of the few things on which I think he has true conviction (ID cards being another).  I have, however, been consistently concerned that, for all the merits of the policy, Cameron may regard renegotiation of our relationship within the EU as a low priority.

Now it's decision time.  You know what I think: we should use this, along with the further Treaty that must be implemented now to introduce European Economic governance, to renegotiate.  I don't believe we need a referendum for that.  But my view on that could change.  After all, the point of many of those seeking a referendum is that the politicians cannot be trusted on Europe and must have their discretion curtailed by plebiscite.

The moment of testing comes.  For Cameron, the question is: Are you the Real Deal on Europe as we've hoped since you were elected leader (and indeed that was a key reason we chose you)?  And if refusing to re-ratify without renegotiation would indeed bring down the Coalition, then I have this question for Conservative MPs and for the wider Conservative Party: Is the difference between being in government and being in opposition that in opposition we are permitted to vote against adding to the EU treaties whilst in government we must vote in favour?

Chris Chope MP: Will the Conservatives fall for the Lib Dem honey trap?

By Chris Chope, Conservative MP for Christchurch

It is clear from Simon Hughes’ lack of response to my challenge on last night’s BBC2 Newsnight programme, that the Lib Dems have set a very sophisticated honey trap.

Under the coalition agreement, the Conservatives will be unable to call a General Election even if the Lib Dems withdraw from that coalition. Simon Hughes did not deny that this means the Lib Dems remain free, at any time, to pull the rug from under the Conservatives, join with Labour and the Nationalists in a minority Government and force through full PR and a wider socialist agenda.

Therefore, the consequence of the 55% threshold requirement to secure a dissolution is to facilitate the very nightmare scenario of full PR which Conservative MPs were told they were avoiding by agreeing to support the AV referendum. 

Apart from the unconstitutionality of the 55% threshold requirement, the political argument that it is necessary for stability is utterly specious. Stability can only be secured for the coalition if David Cameron promises, as he has done, not to withdraw from the coalition and call a General Election AND if the Lib Dems are deterred from pulling out of the coalition by the certain knowledge that such action would trigger an immediate General Election.

Conservative MPs and activists need to be alerted to the grave political implications of removing the right to request a dissolution if the coalition breaks down. We could find ourselves, sooner rather than later during a five year Parliament, isolated in Opposition and impotent to bring down the Government even with a one vote majority. 

These issues must be discussed urgently by both the Parliamentary and voluntary Party.