CentreRight

Alex Deane: The rioters - what did they think they were doing? What should they think now?

My great friend Jeremy Brier was spot on in his piece yesterday about fees, and as a good debating partner I don't disagree with a word of it. All I'd like to add about the rioters is this:

* Did they think that they would change the minds of the relevant decision-makers by doing this? If so, I am sure that they were wrong. Does anyone disagree?

* Did they think that they would convince us that they need educating? If so, they were right - but I don't think that they advanced any case that others should pay for it. On the contrary, I think that they undermined their claim that they deserve anything - in this case, to have their education subsidised by non-graduates. It is difficult to make anyone who benefited from tuition-feeless free education dislike them so much that one overlooks their fundamental point, but with me at least they have succeeded.

* What should they think now? Well, this is a very old-fashioned word. I think that they should feel ashamed. I don't imagine that they will. But I cannot help but make the point that their timing is exceptionally poor. Today is Remembrance Day.  I know that this is little more than cliché, but - my grandfathers fought, as did so many we remember today, to preserve freedom. Was it for this? How do these ambassadors of this generation think that they weigh up in the obvious comparison with those ambassadors of that generation?

The BBC: an interesting juxtaposition of facts

Two interesting facts for you:

1) Danny Cohen is BBC 1's new controller, on £260,000 + benefits. It's suggested that this is worth it given his sterling and innovative work at BBC3 from 2007 to 2010 (Source: p. 13 Financial Times Magazine, 23/24 October 2010).

2) In 2008-2009, 84.4% of the programmes shown on BBC3 were repeats (Source: p. 15 Prospect September 2010, citing The Daily Telegraph, 28th April 2010).

Hmm.

Alex Deane: BBC presenters go on strike - don't waste the opportunity!

The BBC's "talent" went on strike yesterday. Others stepped in. The news was still read, the airwaves were still filled. I daresay that much that was said was said with less snide self-satisfaction. Those who filled in will come at a fraction of the price of the "talent" who walked.

Am I the only person to whom the obvious analogy occurs? When workers in a far more vital field in the USA - air traffic control - tried to bully their employer and walked out, Ronald Reagan laid them off and put others in their place. Doing so here would be much easier, as there are tons of people who'd love to read the news, become a journalist, etcetera. Indeed, we're always told how difficult it is for people to get into these hallowed halls.

So. Looking to save costs, make it easier for new people to break into the top tier of the profession and have a fresh start at the jaded and biased BBC, all in one go...? Well, here's the perfect opportunity! Let said "talent" go... for good.

Alex Deane: The Republicans are the party of freedom

As I did during the Presidential election, I thought I'd just say who I think we ought to be supporting in the US.

I don't think that it can be put much more clearly than this:

I believe that freedom is the deepest need of every human soul.

George W. Bush, Press Conference, White House, Tuesday, April 13, 2004

America's most misunderestimated President hits the nail on the head once again.

You see, I simply don't think that President Obama believes that. I don't think that Bill Clinton did, or FDR either. Democrats generally don't. But I think that Ronald Reagan did, and so do most Republicans, generally.

I think that Democrats would agree that freedom is important. They'd pay lip service to it, and more. They'd probably mean it. But they would stress a connection with one's fellow man, the need for community and so on, before speaking as GWB does here. Even if they agreed in principle with the statement (which isn't a one-off), in practice they would place freedom well down the batting order of importance in weighing up the worth of various social goods. In practice, they would place other goods - public education, public health, public welfare, the needs that ultimately build the supposed need for a welfare state, before the importance of the individual's right to choose for and live for himself. It's a genuine and legitimate difference of opinion, but a vital and a fundamental one, and I am with the Republicans and against the Democrats. 

This manifests itself in the desire for a smaller state, for lower taxes, for less regulation amongst Republicans, and a greater sympathy for such things amongst Democrats. It's for reasons like this that I am so pleased to read Tim's post to the effect that ConHome readers prefer the Republicans to the Democrats 4 to 1 (although Tim is a bit unfair to include Dan Hannan in his list of Obamacons; I criticised him at the time, but he has publicly recanted..!). And let us not be mistaken - if America does not advance the cause of freedom, then the world will slip backwards into more bureaucracy and socialism, because the most advanced society on the planet is the one currently pushing the cause of freedom most strongly. If they relent, the rest of us will follow.

As I said when McCain campaigned, I say again - the Republicans are far from perfect. They have taxed too much - but their instincts are generally right and their opponents are far, far worse. They have infringed on freedoms of late - the Patriot Act not least - but their instincts are generally right and their opponents are far, far worse. So I say, loudly and proudly,

COME ON THE GOP.

Alex Deane: In resurrecting the Intercept Modernisation Programme, the Government breaks a clear, basic and fundamental promise

Having been controversial enough that even Labour suspended it, it has emerged today that the appalling "Intercept Modernisation Programme" is to continue.

Buried in the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Government plans to introduce

a programme to preserve the ability of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies to obtain communication data and to intercept communications

The IMP will allow the security services and the police to spy on the activities of everyone using a phone or the internet. Every communications provider will be obliged to store details of your communications for at least a year and obliged in due course to surrender them up to the authorities. The authorities will be able to track every phone call, email, text message and website visit made by the public on the absurd pretext that it will help to tackle crime or terrorism.

This is despite the Conservative Party's recent pledge to reverse the rise of the surveillance state: a commitment now fairly and squarely broken.

This can't be blamed on the formation of the Coalition. The Coalition Agreement promised to "end the storage of internet and email records without good reason".

Couple this with the disgusting u-turn on the Summary Care Record, despite similarly clear and concrete promises, and a troubling picture emerges; it is fascinating and dreadful to see the speed of bureaucratic capture, the reversion to bureaucratic authoritarianism on show - intrusions are piling up so fast that my extended essay published last week is already out of date.

Just see how the surveillance state is being reversed, eh!?

The BBC's budget

The BBC is to receive a real terms budget cut - over 4 years - of 16%.

That is to say, it is to be cut much less than many Government departments.

Is that right?

There is a move to restrict our spending in Europe - is your MP a part of it?

I wrote on Monday that the European budget should be cut like all other budgets.Some CR posters suggested that there would be no appetite for this suggestion in Parliament, but the heroic Douglas Carswell has led the charge, with 34 Conservative MPs pledging to oppose the hitherto unchallenged progress of a whopping cash handover to the EU despite belt-tightening in every other corner of the budget process.

Two things to note.

• I don't think of this as a "rebellion". Look at the list. These aren't "usual suspects". These are people from across the Party and (IMHO) many with significant futures in Parliament. If anything, I regard this as a loyal thing for British MPs to do, and something that reflects both the Conservative tradition and specifically the thrust of the 2010 manifesto.

• On the other hand, there is no need for this to be seen as a party-political issue. Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs and members who see cuts coming in the public sector in this country are presumably equally aghast at the prospect of the money flowing to Europe going unchanged. I trust that the ranks of people supporting Douglas's position will be swelled by Members from the other side of the aisle.

The list is of course not definitive. There will be more Conservatives who agree, who can be added. So - if you have a Conservative Member, is your MP on the list?

Alex Deane: European spending should be cut, just like other budgets

In the coming weeks, the government will announce public spending cuts in order to deal with the deficit. All the talk will be of tough spending decisions. So why are we about to approve an increase in the UK contribution to the EU budget? 
 
This Wednesday, the House of Commons will be debating and voting on a motion to approve an inflation-busting rise in the amount we pay to Brussels. In other words, while we make spending cuts to public services, some of the money clawed back will then be soaked up by the EU (despite all the warning signs).
 
Effectively, despite a decade of European budgets so poorly run they couldn't be signed off, we're not merely ring-fencing the EU budget from cuts. We are significantly increasing it. How can this be right?

If you agree with me, you might consider getting in touch with your MP, as I have with mine.

Let me ask you that again

London's Southbank Centre has been refused Heritage Listing - for the third time in two decades.

Hurrah, I say - if listed, it would greatly diminish the chances of tearing down this Brutalist beast, crown jewel in the horrors of the Sixties, and starting again with something that doesn't look like the back of a Slovak swimming pool squatting eyesoreishly on prize territory by the Thames.

But regardless of what one thinks of the merits of the decision, why on earth is it being made, for the third time? And note that of course, when it suits, this is a one way process, and when it doesn't, it isn't: if the concrete bunkers had been listed, the re-evaluation to, er, "delist" the Centre wouldn't be opened for discussion until the answer changed, would it?

This is a discussion of wider public importance. It's akin to the Irish being asked to vote again on Lisbon. Why are some decisions judged by a (self-appointed) "elite" to be wrong, and required to be taken again?

I'm sure we'll see the Southbank Centre up for a fourth time 'ere long... 

Council tax snoopers are axed

Over on the Local Government page Harry Phibbs has covered the wider issues about today's news that council tax bands will not be re-evaluated in England. I want to take a moment to stress the privacy aspect of today's announcement.

Apart from the main announcement, which will save taxpayers up and down the country a fortune, Mr Pickles has announced an independent data audit of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA) aimed at protecting privacy and civil liberties as part of the Government's agenda of dismantling the "database state". Needless to say, Big Brother Watch welcomes this.

The VOA's inspectors assess properties' value for council tax purposes, and their collection of data on features of homes such as the number of bedrooms or bathrooms, whether it has a patio and whether it enjoys a nice view or is in a good neighbourhood, is seriously controversial - rightly so.

The VOA maintains that this doesn't/didn't matter as they've opted not to use their power to force entry to homes in order to fill their databanks with information about us. On the contrary - I do not believe that our privacy should be dependent on the goodwill - or the whim - of bureaucrats. Furthermore, it's unwarranted snooping whether or not the jobsworth actually crosses the threshold.

So - more power to your elbow, Mr Pickles.

(The obvious coda: I do hope that this announcement ultimately results in the appropriate action, not just yet another sounds-good-nothing-happens review)

Vandalising Tower Bridge

As often discussed on this site, it can be difficult to define what being a "conservative" (or a "Conservative") is. Indeed, as I write I realise that some readers will read this piece, think of the free market and capitalism, and think I'm off-beam. But in my humble opinion, one interesting and useful little litmus test might be - does this make you angry?

Tower Bridge Faces Future as 'Glorified Ad Hoarding' - The City says banners on famous landmark would be 'carefully chosen'

TOWER BRIDGE could be draped in advertising over Christmas if plans to sell space on the famous London icon get the go-ahead.

The 19th century bridge is one of the most recognised landmarks in London and traditionalists would likely protest at the idea of using it as a prop for ads.

But the people behind the proposal – The City of London Corporation – say that the scheme would be in good taste.

"The brand will be carefully chosen with preference going to Olympic sponsors and the brand will be tightly controlled," read a statement from the Corporation.

"There is no intention whatsoever that Tower Bridge becomes a glorified advertising hoarding. The City recognises and protects the bridge as a grade I listed building, a significant part of London's heritage and a global icon."

Behind the advert-plan lies what the Corporation calls a "one-off opportunity" in the form of scaffolding that is to surround the lower part of the bridge for essential painting work for three months this winter.

The idea is advert banners could be hung from the scaffolding.

Before the ads go up, the Corporation has to convince both neighbouring councils - Southwark and Lambeth – that it's a good idea.

Let's hope those Boroughs tell them where to stick it. And what exactly are we talking about? A little poster, perhaps? A small image decoratively done? Oh, no:

The official planning application to Southwark reads:

"Temporary advertising banner (12 weeks) attached to scaffolding shroud which will be erected to enable the painting works to be undertaken on the bascules (lifting sections of the Grade I listed bridge) both of which will measure approximately 39m long by 11 to 5.5m high each side."

Thirty-nine metres?!

Should you wish to express a view, the consultation process is open (until 6 October) here. Full piece here. Harrumph.

The "post-democratic" EU

A neat turn of phrase in an interesting article over at The Australian about the European Parliament's simulation game Citzalia:

"Just when you thought the European Union could not get more disconnected from reality, it gets more virtual. Soon, citizen-avatars will be able to experience "democracy in action" in virtual reality: let us hope they find it as disappointing as reality itself.

After the failure of its online TV Europarl, the parliament is preparing Citzalia, an educational "platform" described as a "3D world that captures the essence of the European Parliament".

Through role-play and social networking, citizen-avatars will walk the powerless corridors of the EU's talking shop (in the real world, power remains with the mandarins of the commission) and even interact with the avatars of actual members of the European Parliament.

Presumably their hope - at E275,000 ($387,550) - is to shed some light on the terribly important role of the EU legislature: that might be a bad idea. With record low participation in last year's elections (43 per cent), maybe people realised their vote was pointless and they could not vote for their preferred candidate anyway (one votes for a party list).

The thought of citizen-avatars trying to figure out the "co-decision" legislative process is dizzying. Good luck to them with the arcane consultations between the commission, the council and the parliament, and the culture of deals behind the proverbial closed doors.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, a new consultation process with the 27 national legislatures (the Barroso initiative) should add to the bureaucratic fun.

Exposing the boring, poorly attended and entirely managed non-debates in the parliament would indeed be in the interest of transparency. Not to mention the outrageous full relocation 12 times a year between Strasbourg and Brussels (annual cost E200 million).

Too much realism might confuse citizen-avatars. But the unelected and unaccountable (its accounts have not passed audit for many, many years) commission is the main creator of the laws that we must obey (about 85 per cent of all new British legislation comes from the EU).

The truth is the MEPs are confined to rubber-stamping, with the right to throw occasional delaying tantrums to earn their credentials as the guardians of EU democracy - or, rather, as the fig-leaves of this unique post-democracy.

One real nod towards democracy was the Lisbon Treaty's Citizens' Initiative (Article 11) enabling citizens to propose legislation. But it is hopelessly bogged down in red tape and controversy, strangled to the point of meaninglessness.

Forget the citizen-avatar. The real movers and shakers are the lobbyists - many of whom get EU grants to lobby the EU: cosy. As the International Policy Network study The Friends of the EU exposed in March, green advocacy groups are subsidised to lobby for more funds and to provide research. This is a self-serving circle of bureaucrats and lobbyists, not democracy in any sense citizens can recognise.

As our votes do not matter (a referendum can be run again for the right answer, as in Ireland, or merely avoided, as in Britain, and MEPs are pointless), we can make up for it with a tiny virtual thrill of involvement in a fantasy world inspired by a real nightmare: we can get online and spend every minute complaining about the democratic deficit - then we can at least pretend our voices makes a difference."

Good stuff.

Google Books

I believe strongly - near-absolutely - in freedom of speech.

However (and I appreciate that there is a potential tension here) I do not believe in a near-absolute right to nick the speech of others. Or the expression of others, or intellectual property, or copyright, or whatever you want to call it.

That is why I view the ongoing arguments about Google Books with such interest, and recommend that one reads the single-page response from the catchily named Initiative for a Competitive Online MarketPlace to the growing policy discussion about how to respond to Google's approach to copyright.

ICOMP's position is admirably restrained and academic in its expression, but you might get an understanding of the problem from a single line:

"unauthorised scanning of European works by Google continues unabated."

Hmm.

Islam and modern society (German edition)

Whilst I was in Germany this weekend, Thilo Sarrazin, a Bundesbank board member, gave an interview to Welt am Sonntag, in which he said that Muslims do not want to fit into German society. Opprobrium rained down on him, with critics combing the statute book to see if he had broken any laws.

Why is this such a controversial statement? Would it be similarly controversial in the United Kingdom?

Thoughts on the Australian election

A gripping election in Australia over the weekend, in which I immediately declare an interest:

The picture's from the Liberal Party's London branch election event - the London booth is the largest in the world and results from it may well have affected the remarkably narrow result. The ABC's site for details on a seat-by-seat basis is well worth a look: you'll note that currently they're (rightly) still labelling some seats as "undecided" which the press would have you think are done and dusted.

First, let's consider the respective leaderships. I'm no fan of Kevin Rudd. Some ten years ago I lived in his electorate - I then thought him able, palpably ambitious and slimy to a quite extraordinary degree. But whatever one makes of him, he was elected Prime Minister at the ballot box as leader of the Labor Party in 2007 by a significant majority. His left-of-centre party then promptly took the axe to him given (i) poll numbers they didn't like and (ii) internal rivalries, installing their own candidate in his stead (sound familiar, British readers?). That's the legacy Julia Gillard had to bear. On the other hand, Australia's first female Prime Minister was only in post for a short period before calling the election. Overall, she had a good election. Rudd's inactivity on some issues and reversal of pledged positions on others were given lip service but could, when convenient, be only semi-defended, a benefit of the change.

On the other hand, Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott emerged as Liberal leader only after his Party had worked through two post-Howard alternatives in a single Parliament (neither of them the heir-apparent Peter Costello, who eventually pushed aside the laurel wreath). Despite this, Abbott managed to shake off a historically pretty poor media reputation and had a remarkably vigorous and impressive campaign. Lest you think I am being sycophantic, I point out that this is in stark contrast to his poor 2007 election, as I noted at the time.

As you will know by now, the result this weekend was unbelievably close. The current prediction has the two parties on 73 seats each. Thus in a 150 seat Parliament the Coalition and Labor have obtained comparable batches of seats, each unable to form government alone, and it seems likely that the Parliament's independent members will decide who forms power. Bob Katter, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott are a curious trio. All are former members of the National Party (the minor partner in the Coalition along with the Liberal Party). It is a rural-orientated, often protectionist, populist movement which has long been closely affiliated with the more urban and free-market Liberals (by convention, the parties do not contest seats in which the other party has an incumbent member, and usually run joint Senate tickets). Beyond the formal and informal coalitions that have existed for some time, the two parties are now formally merged in Queensland.

Here's a thumbnail sketch of each of the three members now being wooed by the main parties (to the extent that GIllard name-checked all of them in her election night speech). On reading, you'll see that forming bonds with these men, each of whom plainly represents the will of the electorates for which they are members, is not without complications:

A David Milliband for the Labour Party party party party

Oh my.

David Milliband's leadership team has published the most cringeworthy guide to hosting a "party" for those people who might just feel spontaneously inspired to speak of the magnificence of the Glorious Leader hold a house party a la the Obama campaign. It's a six page colour PDF with minute-by-minute steps to help you maintain the spontaneity, including scripted remarks for-the-words-what-should-come-outta-your-mouth.

You simply have to read this.

Tips for success include:

3) Invite them. It’s probably easiest to give them a call. Invitations are best when made personally so if you won’t see them face-to-face, just pick up the phone. Here is an example of how to frame your House Meeting and this may be useful for sending out emails;

“David Miliband in his campaign for Labour leadership has launched the Movement for Change. This is an exciting initiative to rebuild the Labour Party from the grassroots and go back to the Labour traditions of organising within the local community.

I’m hosting a House Meeting as part of David’s leadership campaign to bring people together in the community to discuss how we can be part of the Movement for Change at a local level. It will be a chance to share stories, build relationships and discuss what we would like to change in this area and how we can help make David leader of the Labour Party to take this forward.

I hope you can come. The details are: Time, Date, Venue

It will be a really exciting opportunity to talk about our community and how we can help David Miliband’s Movement for Change being put into practice locally as well as practical steps for Labour supporters, Labour members and David’s leadership campaign.”

5) Inform ze High Command David’s leadership team (on [email protected]) that the House Group
Meeting is taking place.

(and then the "events subsection itself! Hold yourself steady!)

Bob Crow

Can there be any more galling an example of hypocrisy in modern public life than loudmouthed bully Bob Crow trousering a 12% pay rise?

The hardline general secretary of the Rail Maritime and Transport union has taken the £10,000 salary increase, despite the painful pay freeze affecting millions of workers in both the public and private sectors.

His basic pay rose from £84,923 in 2008 to £94,747 at the end of last year, according to figures published by the RMT.

No, seriously - I defy you - name something worse.

Does the EU speak for you?

Joao Vale de Almeida, the European Union's new "Ambassador" to Washington, has announced that he is the first point of contact for diplomatic relations between the Americans and all European nations:

In a comment that has come to symbolise the American view of the EU, Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state, is once said to asked: "When I want to talk to Europe, who do I call?"

In a response to that question, Mr Vale de Almeida declared: "In this area code, you call me." The ambassador insisted that he did not wish to "impose myself" on member states' ambassadors, who will continue to oversee "bilateral matters." But he declared: "Where we have a common position, I am the one leading the show."

How do you feel about that?

Is it time to tear down the Information Commissioner's Office and start again?

By Alex Deane

There was significant debate yesterday about the use of credit agencies as bounty hunters to track down benefit cheats. I don't really want to get into that debate as I've discussed it elsewhere, but the issue acted as a trigger for this post.

During that discussion, the Information Commissioner appeared on Newsnight. He said a few punchy things. I didn't disagree with him. But I was asked by a journalist whether I thought the ICO would actually do any good for the millions of people potentially affected by new policy. I laughed. Let me explain why.

The Conservative Party's Project Umubano in Sierra Leone

Alexander Deane is the Director of Big Brother Watch.

The Conservative Party’s Project Umubano is now in its fourth year. Its work commenced in Rwanda and last year expanded to include Sierra Leone. It’s worth stressing that Umubano volunteers of course receive nothing from the state – one pays for the trip or raises the money oneself.

I was very proud to take part in this year’s Umubano work for the first time this year, in Sierra Leone. This beautiful and tragic country is still best known for the civil war which visited widespread, sporadic, senseless, horrific violence upon thousands of individuals and upon entire communities all over the state from 1991 to 2002. A full eight years on, Sierra Leoneans are keen to put that time behind them. There is little doubt in my mind that we should provide assistance to them in doing so. The country anchors the UN's quality of life index, its place at the very bottom of the table merited by deep-rooted problems in almost every aspect of Sierra Leonean society.

It is easy and perhaps sometimes tempting for travellers to exaggerate the dangers of the country they visited. Certainly, traffic can be chaotic, health facilities outside of the capital (Freetown) scant and the electricity supply sporadic and unreliable everywhere, but in both Freetown and in the country more generally one can travel and spend time as a visitor without tremendous problems (bearing in mind the relevant FCO advice of course). Sierra Leone's problems aren't really threats to those there temporarily - they're crippling for those who live there. The greatest dangers facing the country are no longer violent in nature – instead, corruption and the absence of many elements of what we would consider to a basic state apparatus and infrastructure are the chief problems for Sierra Leone today. Indeed, one can often see where the infrastructure once was.

This year, Umubano’s work in Sierra Leone fell into the following team areas:

What next - the FCO party party party twitter feed?

Note to the Home Office:

Catching those conducting sham marriages - good.

Paying civil servants to set up and run a Home Office flickr account, uploading numerous photographs memorialising your triumphs, in the midst of an ongoing budgetary crisis - bad. Well, let's settle on "highly questionable".

A stain on our national conscience

An urgent question tabled by Labour's Emily Thornberry is currently being debated in the House of Commons. She has rightly asked about the Crown Prosecution Service's announcement that a police officer will not face charges over the death of Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper seller whom the officer was filmed pushing to the ground during the G20 protests in London April 2009.

Mr Tomlinson was not involved in the protests - he was walking home when he was caught up in the demonstration. He died very soon after he was assaulted by the officer.

Dominic Grieve, for whom I have the greatest respect, has just stated that the CPS has told him that they could not proceed with the evidence available to them.

Really?

I would suggest that they watch the widely available video footage once again, and then let a jury decide.

This "decision" has taken months to arrive at. Doubt is expressed by all concerned about the conflicting evidence from the coroners (which I do not regard as the insuperable issue others apparently did: even if there are causation problems with proving that Mr Tomlinson's death resulted from the officer's attack, a simple assault charge would not have held such difficulties in the six months afterwards, and a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm is in any case not time barred. Furthermore, prosecution of the officer for acting outwith his professional responsibilities would seem right). Much of real concern has also emerged about the officer himself, who had been ejected from the Metropolitan Police once already before.

Think again. Confidence in the rule of law is severely undermined by such non-decisions. A wholly innocent man has been killed in broad daylight on the streets of London, the event was captured on video, and nothing has been done. It is a stain on our national conscience.

Alex Deane is the Director of Big Brother Watch.

Why France, and Philip Hollobone, are wrong on the Burka Ban

I bow to nobody in my admiration for Roger Helmer but on this topic I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree.

I have no doubt that to Roger and many others the burka is a symbol of repression and that they find it repellant. However, I also have no doubt that there are many women in this country who wish to wear the burka of their own volition and their beliefs are equally firmly held. The former are free to think as they wish. The latter are free to dress as they wish.

As a matter of fact, I dislike the connotations of the burka myself - but I regard my own attitude on the clothes others choose to wear as a matter relevant only for my own views and outlooks, not as something on which the state should legislate. If actual abuse or repression happens somewhere, then the state should find evidence of it and prosecute it. Otherwise, it's none of the business of the authorities what people wear.

So I agree with Damian Green - I think that to allow the state to govern dress would be to yield too much power to the state.

People seem insistent on going beyond such simple statements of principle, drawing comparisons with costume in other areas. If that appeals:

• Wearing a swastika might mean that one is a Nazi, or that one is in a production of Cabaret, or that one is a Balinese Hindu. In any case, I wouldn't ban it.To say so does not mean that I approve of Nazism (I don't), or like Cabaret (I do) or have a view on Balinese Hinduism (I don't).

• Wearing one's trousers with the top around one's mid-thigh certainly, I think, means that one's an idiot. But the government should not ban that either.

There is or should be a big difference between judgments we are entitled to make ourselves in our lives - intellectually, morally, emotionally - and what the state can decide, legally. This is one issue that falls under the former, not the latter.

The government should not be able to tell us what to wear.

Alex Deane is the Director of Big Brother Watch

CentreRight's own Mark Wallace has some very good analysis on this elsewhere

An idle Sunday evening thought

A little less than a month ago, Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (America's most senior military officer) said publicly that

the US national debt posed the biggest threat to its national security - bigger even than that posed by al-Qaeda or weapons of mass destruction.

It got lost in the tsunami of coverage about McChrystal's dismissal, but it's a striking remark, isn't it?

What do you think of it, and - making the necessary alterations - do you think it fits the situation in the UK?

Of COURSE the BBC tax should be reduced - if it's to continue at all

I applaud Jeremy Hunt's signal that there is to be a reduction in the amount of money that the BBC is able to demand a amount from those who own televisions capable of receiving signals (whether they use them to watch the BBC or not). To my knowledge, regardless of economic conditions the licence fee has only ever gone up since it was introduced - also regardless of the fact that during the lifetime of the state broadcaster there has been a proliferation of provision that really, to my mind, makes the BBC tax an anachronism in the first place.

I think that the claims being made on the BBC's behalf (and widely broadcast by, ahem, the BBC) that the licence fee should be exempt are absurd. Those responsible for every other aspect of public life are required to make serious cuts in their budgets - who could possibly maintain in a plausible way that the BBC is uniquely different from everything else? And if anyone can make that argument, could they please try, rather than just blustering away about the supposed "quality" of output from the BBC, which is a notion that is - to my mind - open to serious challenge?

Having listened to Radio 4's PM Programme today, it is evident that the BBC's fascination with itself continues, along with a remarkable determination to drive up the news agenda the notion that the money it receives from us should be protected. The show had two uncritically pro-status quo advocates who got to make their statements entirely without rebuttal, and then the great John Whittingdale, who - as he stuck up for the proposition that perhaps the BBC might have to be treated like everything else - was inevitably grilled.

This is a narrow economic part of a wider debate about the future of our state broadcaster, and the those who maintain that the BBC's position should go unchanged look even more ridiculous than usual as a result of that narrowness. Consider the wider issues for a moment. Given the success of the market in providing broadcast content in... well, everywhere else, I question whether we need to have a state-funded broadcaster at all. Just try explaining to a friend from abroad that we have to pay this cash for our state broadcaster if you want to see how silly it is. Moreover, I think it a severe limitation of freedom of speech and expression in this country that, in order for me to receive the message of commercial broadcasters who wish me to receive that, for free (paid for by their advertising), I have to subsidise a different set of stations. I don't know why the BBC has this uniquely protected position, even within the world of the arts. Imagine if it existed in, say, the theatre; imagine that if you went to the box office and asked for tickets to La Boheme, you were told that you had to pay a fee to subsidise Cats at the theatre next door. "No!" you'd cry. "But it's a uniquely good cultural product," you'd be told. "I'm not going to see it!" says you. "Tough - pay anyway, or you can't go to the theatre - oh, and I know where you live - it's all in the database." Finally, I resent being forced to subsidise the propagation of a worldview and political agenda with which I disagree, given that I question the supposed political impartiality of the BBC - no, worse, I think that the BBC - which given its funding structure should be the most impartial of our broadcasters - is in fact the least. But perhaps all of that's a debate for the longer term. In the meantime, the BBC should certainly not be exempt from the general round of belt-tightening caused by Labour's absurd largesse.