Brown must be in trouble

Even New Labour lickspittle Keith Vaz voted for the Lib Dem Gurkha motion. Well done Mr Vaz.

He was one of 27 Labour MPs who defied a three line whip to vote against the Government; but perhaps the really scary thing for the bunker was the much larger number who abstained.

The Jim Callaghan comparisons are now going strong. Brown is, after all, the first prime minister to lose an opposition day debate in the Commons since Sunny Jim in 1978. And while Callaghan was always scrabbling around for votes, Brown managed to lose - despite that three line whip - with a working majority of 63 MPs. 

Ouch.

And we still have the expenses debate tomorrow! Oh, happy days...

The Equality Bill reads like a pile of steaming turds

Oh dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Harriet Harman's Equality Bill is truly, utterly, dreadful. It's an attempt to put into law the worst of Labour's utterly unthought-through, vague, aspirational buzzwordage. And, surprise surprise, when you try to distil these concepts, they run through your fingers. It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

Take this clause:

8 Equality and diversity

(1) The Commission shall, by exercising the powers conferred by this Part—
(a) promote understanding of the importance of equality and diversity,
(b) encourage good practice in relation to equality and diversity,

[...]

(2) In subsection (1)—
“diversity” means the fact that individuals are different,
“equality” means equality between individuals, and
“unlawful” is to be construed in accordance with section 36.

So, to take one example, one of the statutory duties of the Equality Commission is to encourage good practice in relation to the fact that individuals are different.

This doesn't mean anything. It has no meaning.

I hope that Parliamentary Counsel was sobbing tears of red hot shame as he typed those words.

It reminds me of a story that a Parliamentary Counsel once told me. Shortly after Labour's 1997 election, when the new dawn had (had it not) broken, word reached PC's Office that the Prime Minister would like an Enterprise Bill prepared.

Er, jolly good, came the reply; what does he want it to say?

We don't know yet, came the reply. We'll get back to you on that. The point is, we want an Act called the Enterprise Act on the statute books as soon as possible, to show we are keen to promote enterprise.

Cue Parliamentary Counsel punching wall in frustration.

Update: a colleague suggests that the clause might read better if amended like this -

"diversity" means the fact that individuals are different;
"equality" means the fact that individuals are the same...

Brown apologises - and lies

'Speaking in Glasgow, the Prime Minister said: "I am sorry about what happened. I have said all along when I saw this first I was horrified, I was shocked and I was very angry indeed."'

Not true. The No. 10 response, as late as 11 April, was this:

A Number 10 spokesman said the messages were "juvenile and inappropriate".

The spokesman added that nobody in Downing Street knew of the e-mails and that it was Mr Brown's view that there was "no place in politics for the dissemination or publication of material of this kind".

Does thinking something is 'juvenile and inappropriate' (a naked attempt to kill the story, of course) suggest that one is 'horrified' and 'shocked' by it? Of course not.

Even in this late, half-assed apology, Brown is lying. He really is a political trainwreck.

When is a riot not a riot?

When it is a 'challenging incident'. That's how Prisons Minister David Hanson repeatedly described the Ashwell Prison riot over the Easter weekend on the Today programme on Monday. It was also a 'very disturbing incident'. But it was not a riot, oh no. Evan Davis at one point says to him 'The Prison Officers Association say you are refusing to call it a riot. Do you accept it was a riot?' Answer - 'It was a very disturbing incident...'.

Good, subtle spinning, chaps. The public both welcome and respect it.

But when Brixton and Tottenham ignite this summer, I hope the Challenging Incident police are a little less heavy handed than they have been of late.

Bob Quick, superdick!

What an arse. To be fair, half of me feels sorry for him, especially as he has fallen (after being given several helping shoves, no doubt) on his sword; but the other half simply cannot believe the crassness of his blunder. After all, what none of the commentators seem to be saying is that it is almost inevitable that he has committed a criminal offence and breached section 8(1) of the Official Secrets Act 1989, which is subject to a maximum sentence of three months' imprisonment.

Update: ah, I see that Guido has pointed out the OSA breach, though why he modifies it by calling it 'technically' a breach I don't know. Arguably, this is a situation that section 8 was designed to deal with; after all it seems quite possible that by forcing the arrests to take place earlier than planned, damage to nataional security may have resulted.

Update 2: and it's not as though this whole photographing of papers in Downing Street thang hasn't happened recently, is it Caroline Flint?

That Jacqui Smith Today interview

An extract.

Humphreys: ...but can you not see, Home Secretary, the fact that it has emerged that you have captured, tortured and killed over twenty puppy labradors has caused a lot of upset and concern?

Smith: Of course I can John. That is why I have said it was a mistake for me to have done it, and I've been very clear about that. But people want me now to get on with the job, and that's what I'm going to do.

The Law, the Government, Teenagers...and Sex

The Times and the Mail are suitable outraged about a new government leaflet on talking to your children about sex. The outrage arises from the fact that the leaflet will apparently suggest that parents consider avoiding banging on about right and wrong when telling their kids about the birds and the bees, apparently because of the fear that said children will switch off and stop listening if it becomes a lecture, rather than a groovy bonding session about johnnies. A conservative Christian is wheeled out by both papers to condemn this government-sponsored hostility to morality.

The advice, which talks about 'teenagers', is aimed, officials have confirmed, at all teenagers, not just those over the age of consent, because children under the age of consent have sex too. And the advice is not to prevent such children having sex, or even to advise them against it; but rather to ensure that they understand what sex is, and, especially, about contraception. "Why not offer to go [to the doctor] with your daughter or encourage them to take a friend to support them", it says.

I don't find this, in itself, especially extraordinary. What is striking is the disconnect between government policy in this area, as exemplified by this leaflet, and the law. Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 it is an offence for a person under the age of 18 to have sex with a person who is under 16, without a reasonable belief that he or she is over 16, or with a person under 13. And it's a serious offence; on conviction, you can go to prison for up to five years.

The 2003 Act also creates, at section 14, a specific offence of 'arranging or facilitating the commisison of a child sex offence', which without more would catch a parent taking his 15-year old son to the doctor, pursuant to Beverly Hughes' advice, to get some condoms. Now the offence specifically exempts from liability a person who is acting to protect the child, which means acting for the purpose of

"(a) protecting the child from sexually transmitted infection,
(b) protecting the physical safety of the child,
(c) preventing the child from becoming pregnant, or
(d) promoting the child’s emotional well-being by the giving of advice"

so the parent of the 15-year old would not be committing the s14 offence. (Interestingly, there is no reason why said parent would not be committing the common law offence of 'aiding and abetting' a child sex offence, though there is no way the CPS would prosecute in those circumstances.)

But the key thing, it seems to me, is that the 15 year-old himself would, in having consensual sex with his girlfriend (or boyfriend), be committing a serious criminal offence; and the government is encouraging his parents to help him arrange contraception and/or protection against STDs, so that he can continue to offend.

Doesn't that seem just the teensiest bit odd?

Lies, damned lies, and Keith Vaz

The Office of National Statistics has published figures showing how the number of foreign workers in the country has increased in the past year at the same time as it published the latest unemployment figures.

'Senior Government sources' have briefed that they are, like a Cabinet of Kola Kubes, 'fizzing' with anger, because they believe that the National Statistician, Karen Dunnell, published the figures with the intent of embarrassing the Prime Minister.

No proof is offered for this conjecture which, in anonymously ascribing improper motives to a civil servant who cannot effectively answer back, is a smear of the dirtiest kind. It also smacks of bullying and intimidation of an office holder who, by statute, is independent of the Government.

And now pompous little Keith Vaz has gone into print on the issue in the Times. In a masterclass of NewLabour-ese he tells us (and I can't resist another fisk):

I’m not against the publication of statistics

That's a relief. It is the ONS' statutory function, after all.

but they have to be accurate, relevant and very clear.

OK.

So I think that to put out figures on foreign-born workers on the same day as the release of unemployment statistics is not helpful. The danger is that such information could be misconstrued or misused by those who do not support the view that Britain should be a diverse and multicultural society.

A magnificent string of non-sequiturs, and classically, pathologically, New Labour. First: so what? Statistics can be, and are, misused and misconstrued by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. That's not a reason not to publish them. Second: it is not the job of the ONS to defend or promote the idea that 'Britain should be a diverse and multicultural society' or indeed, and importantly, to be 'helpful'. Indeed, I'd be worried if I thought such an independent body was being, in the Government's view, helpful. Third: note the inference - if information, pure data, can be used to support the arguments of those who 'do not support the view that etc', it should not be released.

While we should be transparent about statistics, organisations such as the Office for National Statistics should be careful to make sure that they are always accompanied by a detailed explanation.

No, no, no! The job of the ONS is to produce raw data in an intelligble form. It is not its job to provide 'detailed explanations'. That, rather, is the instinct of Mr Vaz, who cannot bear the idea of pertinent information being produced shorn of spin.

New Labour: 'the data is unhelpful, therefore, do not publish the data'. Pathetic.

Another Government IT security lapse

Typical. I decide to go a learn to sail course the day high winds, floods (and probably plague and disease) sweep in.

Tssk. Still, it's given me a chance to draw your attention to another IT cock-up on the part of the Government. With exquisite irony, the domain name of the website of the National High-Tech Crime Unit has been allowed to lapse, and of course it's been taken over. PCPro have the details (thanks to Portswigger who drew it to my attention). Still feeling happy about the National Identity Register? 

No2ID!

The latest Government data loss has, it seems to me, been pretty downplayed in the media - largely because Parliament isn't sitting, but also, it seems to me, because we have just got used to it, blase about the personal details of tens of thousands of peope being...well, lost, like you lose your keys. 

In fact, of course, it's wholly unacceptable. But what it also underlines, surely, is that the ID card scheme is a really, really bad idea. Putting aside the significant and substantive points of principle (which I consider overwhelming) for a moment, consider and meditate on the simple fact that no computer system is wholly secure and hack-proof. If a human has designed it, a human can hack it. Therefore, logic dictates that the National Identity Register will be compromised, probably quite soon after going live, even if there isn't a data loss due to the Government's own incompetence. As such, it seems to me, the entire latest justification of the legislation - providing secure and guaranteed proof of identity for all citizens - is holed beneath the waterline. The hacking - which as I say, will inevitably happen - will be disastrous and a massive pain in the arse for those directly affected, impacting on all parts of their lives; and it could also, depending on who the hackers are, have significant wider security implications.

And it's all due to start very shortly. The first cards, it is claimed, will be issued this year or next.

Ffs.

No.10 website

A tiny addendum to Dizzy et al's comprehensive savaging of this piece of incompetent rubbish - the email address for comments, admin@number10.gov.uk, doesn't work.

That video

was a link from the No.10 site. What is the point of it? It's not serving any useful purpose. It's clearly trying to be amusing - is that a Government role? Why should Government - ie me and you - and not the Labour Party be paying for this bollocks? 

Is this what you want your taxes paying for?

I suppose it has to happen every so often

Gulp. I agree with a "The Sun Says". Brown's silence on Georgia has been frankly weird, and Cameron's trip, which could have come across as opportunistic, instead simply fills the news gap. The amusingly error-prone new No. 10 website has a couple of slightly desperate stories along the lines of "Russia and Georgia really should try to get along and stop this nonsense says Brown", but they hardly constitute a forceful denunciation; more hopeful confirmation that he has picked up from the telly that, you know, something a bit tricky's been happening.  

(I was going to go on to say something about the sweet stories of Georgians and Russians hugging at the Olympics before playing beach volleyball against each other. But their impact is sadly diluted by the slightly odd fact that the Georgian team was in fact from, erm, Brazil.)

"Jim, let me be very clear."

Reason 4,647 why this grotesque excuse for a Government will be demolished at the next election: junior Ministers saying "Let me be clear" on the Today programme, just before saying something misleading or self-exculpatory. Exhibit A: Bridget Prentice this morning, talking about the CICB's turn-around on cutting compensation for rape victims who were drunk at the time they were attacked. She said that the CICB's policy "had always been" not to reduce awards where the victim was drunk. That it had done so was due to a misapplication of the policy (aka "it was the civil servants' fault, not mine"). (What you call a policy that is not implemented is a moot point.) Then Evan Davis gently raised the question of why, in that case, the CICB will take drunkenness into account in considering pay-outs to victims of mugging. If it's not your fault if you're raped when drunk, why should it be your fault if mugged when drunk? Prentice's response? To talk about rape victims. And when pushed? To say that we (the Government, of which the CICB is, according to Ms Prentice, wholly independent) are concentrating on rape victims. She had simply no response on the mugging point. Hopeless.