Sunday, April 30, 2006

New issue of The Underdog


`Walthamstow's Rabble Rousing Rebel Rag' Issue 13 May 2006

When I went to the newsagent's to pick up my Sunday paper I was pleased to see the latest issue of The Underdog there. If you haven't seen it before, it's well worth a read. It's produced by the Walthamstow Anarchist Group, and I think it's pretty widely available (free) from newsagents around Walthamstow. However, if you haven't seen it, you can download it from their website at www.walthamstowanarchy.org.uk .

Although I'm a socialist, and the people behind it are anarchists, I have always found myself in 100% agreement with what they have to say. This issue leads on the excellent victory by the Greenleaf Road Anti-Mast Action Group against the attempt to install a 3G mobile phone mast on Forest Road Police Station. It also covers ID cards, supposedly bad behaviour by kids at Walthamstow Bus Station, domestic violence, terrorism, the effects of the rise of supermarkets on local shops, and Pizza Hut's lighting policy in their toilets (!). A right rattling good read, go and get yourself a copy.

I see they are also planning a public meeting on the 11th June. Should be well worth attending. They say they will put up details on their website.

Saturday, April 29, 2006

William Morris Ward - London Strategic Voter Recommendations

London Strategic Voter - set up to encourage tactical voting to get New Labour out of office - has made recommendations on who to vote for in the upcoming local elections. The William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council recommendations are here.

Let it be said straight away that this is an attempt to get New Labour out from the Left. There are many former Labour voters - like me - who can no longer stomach voting for a party led by war criminals who want to destroy our civil liberties, and are bent on privatising everything in sight.

So for William Morris ward LSV recommends voting 1 Green, and 2 Lib Dem. This raises the question of which 2 of the 3 Lib Dem candidates to vote for. I suggested to LSV that this could be made on the basis of opposition to ID cards, because I have had replies to my letter from 2 of the 3, both strongly opposing the government's legislation.

LSV have gone along with this, and so they are currently recommending voting as follows - 1 vote for the Green candidate (Alexandra Rowe) and 2 for the Lib Dems (Simon Jones and Bob Wheatley). There is nothing against the 3rd Lib Dem candidate, but he hasn't yet replied to me on ID cards, so that seems a reasonable way to make a choice.

Is the PM taking liberties? - Observer blog comments

Tony Blair and Charles Clarke recently went on a PR offensive against those who have criticised their attacks on our civil liberties. Below are my comments on the Observer blog about this issue:


Mr Blair claims that he has to act to suppress our civil liberties in order to ensure the greater right not to be blown up by terrorists. If that is so, why did he ensure UK forces illegally invaded Iraq when he was very clearly and authoritatively warned that such an action would be very likely to make us targets for terrorist attack? It seems our right not to be blown up was rather unimportant compared to his desire to slavishly follow US neoconservative foreign policy.

So why are New Labour introducing all this authoritarian legislation? I don't believe it has anything to do with preventing terrorism, and still less to do with `combating identity fraud' or whatever fantasy they are peddling at present. Personally, I don't believe it is (yet) to do with peak oil either. I think it is preparation for social unrest due to the growing unpopularity of neoliberal economics (and the associated political policies).

This can be seen virtually everywhere these days. Political parties across the industrialised world seem incapable of offering any alternative to failed neoliberalism. Consequently, we see French goverments elected to only one term of office, then booted out. We see stalemate in Germany and Italy. Opposition to neoliberalism is growing, as we have seen with recent ructions in France, with the rejection of the EC constitution, and the fight against Bolkestein in the ferries dispute in Ireland.

This battle is going to intensify. I think New Labour are preparing to stick the boot into any attempt to undermine neoliberalism, and that's why they are becoming increasingly authoritarian, and are attempting to introduce an abomination like the Leg and Reg Reform Bill. I'm sorry to say that I think things may get a lot worse before they get better. But it isn't all one-way traffic. The French went out on the streets and got the CPE attack on young workers rescinded. We will have to be prepared to defend our freedoms if they are not to be taken away from us.

One final thought - the role of the media. Blair has had a very soft ride thus far, especially from the truly pathetic BBC (although I don't think the Guardian has been much better). The gentlemen and ladies of the media had better look to their laurels. Judging by the tone of much of the comment here people are `sick up to here' with Blair and New Labour. If the media continue to wipe Blair's backside for him in their present loathesome manner they are going to lose all credibility. They have been warned.

Letter on ID cards to Walthamstow Guardian

The Walthamstow Guardian issue dated April 27 2006 published the following letter (letters page not online) from me about ID cards and the local election, under the headline `Back candidate who will fight ID cards all the way':

Dear Editor,

Although there are important local issues to consider in the Local Elections on 4th May, many people will be be voting on national issues. Personally, I am deeply concerned about the Government's continuing attacks on our civil liberties.

So I wrote to all 10 candidates in William Morris ward to ask them their views on the Government's ID card plans, and whether they would support a Council motion against forcing people to produce ID cards to get Council services. (The Government plans to force everyone to have an ID card and produce it to get basic services. This will enable it to keep track of where we are and what we do on a daily basis).

So far I have had replies from 2 Conservative, 2 Labour and 2 Liberal Democrat candidates. All have said that they are against ID cards, and that they would personally support a Council motion against them.

However, the Labour candidates said they would only vote for such a motion if the Labour Group on the Council agreed. So although I would urge everyone to only vote for a candidate who opposes ID cards, it is also vital that he or she will vote for a Council motion against them.

Please ask for your local candidates' attitudes before considering voting for them. This may be a last chance to preserve some freedom against state intrusion into every aspect of our private lives.

Yours sincerely,
.
Grouchy

Labour candidates reply to ID cards letter

In April I wrote to all 10 local election candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council to ask about their attitude to ID cards. These are the replies of the Laboour candidates:

1. Geraldine Reardon

Thank you for your letter of 9 April. I share your concerns with the ID Cards Bill. In Walthamstow Labour Party we have had regular discussions about the Bill with Neil Gerrard.

If a motion, such as the one put to Cambridge City Council were proposed to Waltham Forest Council, I would want to support it. However, as you know, each member of Labour Group is bound to obey the Whip and I could only vote if Labour Group supported the proposal. Therefore, beforehand I would have to make sure that Labour Group were in favour of the motion.

My concerns are that a national register will not be voluntary, that compulsion is built into it its implementation, and that it will inevitably encroach on other aspects of our lives. I also don't believe it will do anything to prevent terrorism and will cost a huge amount of money that would be better spent elsewhere.

May I wish you well with the campaign.


2. Adam Gladstone

Thank you for your letter dated 9th April asking for my position on ID cards.

I have always been opposed to ID cards. I opposed them when they were suggested by Michael Howard and the Tories and I oppose them now, even though sadly it is my party which is now proposing them. I oppose them because I think the whole scheme is horribly flawed and will prove disastrously expensive but, perhaps much more importantly, I oppose them because I do not believe that the state has any right to force every citizen to identify themselves.

The potential for creeping authoritarianism is clear. I have no doubt that as a white, middle-class male in my thirties, I would not be asked for my ID card very much. I suspect members of other groups in society may not have such confidence, even though they are just as law-abiding as me. As an individual I therefore have no problems at all supporting such a motion as you suggest.

However I would like to point out that were I elected on May 4th I would be part of a Labour group and would be expected to follow an agreed position within that group. I can only promise you that I would be strongly urging for my group to support such a motion. As you may know, our local MP, Neil Gerrard is a prominent Labour critic of these proposals and has voted against them.

I hope this has answered your questions. I share your view that this issue is very important and I understand why you wish to know the position of candidates before casting your vote on May 4th. Please feel free to contact me again if you want to discuss this or any other matter.

I have not yet received a reply from the 3rd Labour candidate, Khevyn Raj Limbajee.

I am quite heartened by the opposition expressed by these candidates to the ID cards legislation. However, if elected, they still might be overruled by the rest of the Labour Group. And judging by the last Council's apparently enthusiastic introduction of Blairite neoliberal policies, I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in their willingness to oppose Blair on ID cards. Labour candidates throughout the country really ought to be aware by now of how little support there is for Blair's extremist policies amongst the population at large.

Lib Dem candidates reply to ID card letter

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the local elections for William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council to ask about their attitudes to the government's ID cards legislation. These were the Lib Dem replies.

1. Bob Wheatley

Bob Wheatley rang me to assure me that his views were in line with Lib Dem national policy on ID cards. He said he was comletely opposed and may be willing to move a Council motion against them, depending on the size of the Lib Dem group after the election.

2. Simon Jones

I am opposed to the compulsory issue of ID Cards, and would vote for this motion if presented to Waltham Forest Borough Council.

The national Liberal Democrat policy is to oppose the introduction of ID Cards, and our main arguments for this stance are laid out at this web page:
Liberal Democrats : Id Cards


Personally, I find several parts of the Identity Cards Bill make me raise my eyebrows. For example:

(4)
For the purposes of this Act something is necessary in the public interest if, and
only if, it is—

in the interests of national security

“national security”, to me, is one of those phrases (like “health and safety issue”) which make me uneasy: not because they are redundant concepts in themselves but because they are so often hijacked by mindless authoritarians. The ejection of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang from the last Labour Party Conference was an issue of “national security”, apparently, which shows how inappropriately such seemingly benign powers can be applied.

(8) (3) d
d An ID Card issued to an individual … remains the property of the person issuing it

- this might be a more trivial point, but I don’t see why an individual should be asked to pay for something that remains government property.

Other, less specific, reasons for my opposition to these cards include:
- my distaste for the back-door technique to introduce them as compulsory documents;
- the use of paranoia about terrorism to give them a sheen of necessity (all the 7/7 bombers were registered, average citizens right up to the moment they detonated their devices, and would have been eligible to carry quite legitimate ID Cards); and
- the obvious incompatibility between the dream of a registered population and the reality of the Home Office’s failure to provide remotely accurate figures on immigration.

I hope this is helpful to you. And thank you for sending me the details of Cambridge’s resolution – exactly what I would expect from good Liberal Democrats!

Please email or ring me if you wish to discuss anything further.

I have not yet received a reply from the 3rd Liberal Democrat candidate, Mohammad Saeed Diwan, but the Liberal Democrats opposition to ID cards is very clear.

UPDATE Saeed Diwan has now replied to me as follows:

Firstly I would like to apologise for the delay in replaying to your letter dated the 9th April 2006, I am sure you can appreciate that election time is very demanding for us the candidates.

In response to your question regarding the ID cards, my view on this is that the United Kingdom is fast and furiously becoming a police state. We are watched every step of the way by CCTV, tracked by our credit cards and monitored by the banks.

There are no guarantees that the ID Cards will not be forged, there are no guarantees that ID cards will save us from identity theft. Whatever, technology is used to secure the information on the ID cards there will always be someone out there who can and will counter it.

On a recent trip to Kenya I witnessed a man being beaten and then dragged off to the police station by five police men because he was not carrying an ID Card.

I do not support ID cards and will certainly not support any motion in favour of them.

Regards


Saeed Diwan

Conservative candidates reply to ID cards letter

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council in the local elections to ask about their attitude to ID cards. These are the replies of the Conservative candidates:

1. Tim James

Thank you so much for your letter dated 9th April with regard to the local elections and the wider issue of Identity Cards.

I can confirm without hesitation that I am utterly opposed to the introduction of ID cards both personally and politically. David Cameron reiterated the parties hostility to such measures only recently.

I am also concerned that even at proposal stage we witness yet again this willingness to chip away at our civil liberties and freedoms.

Financially - this is yet another burden that will have to be endured by households across the nation, many of whom are already struggling with personal debt which have arisen by trying to meet the shortfalls in their expenditures due to the massive programme of taxation imposed over the past 10 years to pay for this Governments extravagant and alas often wasteful public spending. (An issue mirrored by local government)

Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that these would make our streets safer. ID cards and CCTV cameras are no substitute for police on the street. Crime has become a serious issue over recent years. The Government's response to this has been to downgrade the classification of cannabis, legalise prostitution for women working from home and to extend licencing hours. Needless to say crime has soared. Last July and August serious assault and muggings DOUBLED in Waltham Forest (Data supplied by the Metropolitan Police for Greater London)

I hope this clarifies my position and helps you to come to a decision for the local elections on May 4th. However you decide I know that we are all hoping to make this Borough a better, safer and cleaner place to live without having to bankrupt it's residents with taxes.

Best regards,

Tim James


2. Ian Drury

Thank you for your letter.

I rejoined the Conservative Party the day after the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, announced that ID cards would be introduced, and on an effectively compulsory basis. I oppose ID cards on principle: this is an unacceptable extension of state power and a potential instrument of tyranny.

I would support such a motion as you describe in your letter and if elected, will press for a similar motion to be adopted here.

Kind Regards,
Ian Drury


3. Emily Garrett

Thank you for your recent letter asking for my views on the identity cards bill.

The Conservative party both nationally and in Waltham Forest strongly oppose the introduction of compulsory identity cards as we consider it to be an infringement of civil liberties.

Personally I am also against the introduction of compulsory identity cards for the reason stated above and because I consider it to be an unreasonable financial burden on individuals and do not believe that it is a sensible solution for the problems it is meant to be intended to solve. (i.e. terrorism, crime, identity theft and fraud.)

I would therefore strongly support any motion such as the one cited in your letter should I become a Councillor in Waltham Forest.

I hope this answers your question, but if you would like to ask anything else please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Yours sincerely,

Emily Garrett


So clearly the local Conservative candidates oppose the ID cards legislation. I wish David Cameron would explain, however, why he felt it necessary to compromise on the legislation so that Conservative MPs voted in favour of the introduction of the compulsory database for passport applications combined with an optional ID card - a compromise that is completely worthless. I hope the Conservatives opposition is not going to be tempered should they win office again. That unnecessary compromise raises questiuons in my mind.

Letter to Local Election candidates re ID cards

In April I wrote to all 10 candidates in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest council to ask about their attitudes to the government's ID cards legislation, as follows:

Dear candidate,

I am writing to you as an election candidate in the William Morris ward of Waltham Forest Council. I am a resident in the ward and I would like to ask you a question to help me to decide how to vote in the May local elections. Although there are important local issues at stake I will probably be voting with regard mainly to national issues.

Accordingly, I would like to ask you if you could tell me your attitude to the recently passed ID Cards Bill. Are you in favour or against this measure? Which way would you vote if the question arose - for example on a Council resolution against this measure? For example, Cambridge City Council passed the following motion in February 2005:

This Council notes that the Home Secretary is currently attempting to push an ID Cards Bill through Parliament. This Bill will have an effect upon all of the people of Cambridge. This Council believes:
1) That the disadvantages of such a scheme will outweigh any likely benefits to the people of
Cambridge.
2) That the scheme will do little, if anything, to prevent terrorism, crime or fraud.
3) That the national database that underpins the identity card scheme may facilitate criminal
fraud, terrorism and potential state abuses of human rights.
4) That the ID card and database proposals are likely to fundamentally alter the relationship
between the state and the individual. According to Government estimates, the cost of such a
scheme could reach 5.5 billion, with independent commentators predicting substantially
higher costs. Cambridge residents will be required to pay an estimated 35 for a stand-alone
ID card or 85 for a passport and ID card together.
This Council resolves to:
1) affiliate to the 'No2ID' campaign, which already includes MPs and several political parties
2) make representations at every possible stage, reiterating this Council's opposition to ID
cards
3) take no part in any pilot scheme or feasibility work in relation to the introduction of the
national identity cards
4) make it a policy of the council to ensure that national identity cards would not be required
to access council services or benefits unless specifically required to do so by law
5) only co-operate with the national identity card scheme where to do otherwise would be
unlawful
6) instruct the Chief Executive to write to the Home Secretary expressing these views and
asking him to reconsider his decision to push forward this legislation.

Would you support or oppose such a motion in Waltham Forest?
I would appreciate it if you would be willing to answer these questions for me, and if possible, to reply by e-mail. My contact details follow.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

Neil Gerrard MP - reply on civil liberties issues

I have now had quite a long and reasoned reply from my MP - Neil Gerrard (Lab, Walthamstow) - to recent civil liberties concerns that I wrote to him about.

Dear Grouchy,

Thank you for your emails and apologies for my delay in replying.

Firstly on the ID Cards Bill there have been some changes as a result of the Lords proposing various amendments. I was involved in a couple of meetings with Charles Clarke when these amendments were due for debate. He accepted a Lords Amendment which will mean that it will not be possible to bring in compulsion to have an ID card, or register, without new legislation, as opposed to being able to bring in a regulation under the Bill as it stood. I do believe this is a step forward, and it was for this reason that I was prepared to abstain on a further Lords Amendment.

I also asked, and have on record in the Commons, that it is possible for anyone to renew their passport at any time, without waiting for it to expire. This does mean that if there is a regulation in two or three years to say that anyone applying for a passport must put their details on the national ID register, it will be possible to get a new passport before that which will be valid for 10 years. I am convinced that the Home Office will be incapable of setting in place the technology to run an ID cards system as proposed, something which no other country in the world has done or is attempting, and that it will collapse as a costly folly.

If there is a future attempt to bring in compulsion I believe the objections will be huge. Many of the people who currently say they support ID cards do so in the mistaken belief that it will not affect them. There is an attitude of "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to worry about" which I think would quickly evaporate once people realised that they were going to have to have a card and produce it for all sorts of normal transactions and to obtain public services.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation. This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.

As far as the activities of the Special Branch are concerned and interviewing actors and people like Morrissey, it suggests a complete lack of common sense. I don't see it as a public warning not to criticise; if so it will have exactly the opposite effect.

Yours sincerely

Neil Gerrard

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Waltham Forest Council Election 4 May 2006

This Council is currently under No Overall Control. In practice, it is run by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition who seem to get on together like cats tied up in a bag. The Walthamstow Guardian letters page (letters page not online) seems to be full of letters from Councillors bitterly slagging each other off. Whatever their differences, they don't seem to be about policy. Both parties are enthusiastic privatisers in the currently fashionable neoliberal style. Anyway, if you live in Waltham Forest this is your chance to do something about it.

The candidates list has just been published. There are 207 candidates in 20 wards. The Conservatives, Labour, and Liberal Democrats are each standing 3 candidates in each ward. The Greens are standing 1 candidate in each ward except for 2 (Chingford Green and Valley). Respect are standing 4 candidates (2 each in Leytonstone and Markhouse). There is 1 Socialist Alternative candidate (High Street). There are 2 Independents (both in Cathall). UKIP is standing 1 candidate (in Larkswood), and the BNP have 1 candidate (in Hatch Lane).

London Strategic Voter are arguing for tactical votes to get New Labour out. I am very sympathetic to this view as New Labour have gone way beyond the bounds of the acceptable (e.g. Iraq, attacks on civil liberties, privatisation in health education and housing, etc). But are LSV right in recommending voting for the Lib Dems? Personally, although I don't want to waste my vote I like to vote FOR something if at all possible.

So if I lived in a ward with Respect candidates, they would get my votes. I don't believe such votes would be wasted. They received a very good level of support in the Leytonstone byelection not long ago and it is quite credible that they could be the main challengers to New Labour in those wards. What about the other 18 wards though? I think it's worth voting for the Greens. I don't agree with all their policies but they are avowedly anti-neoliberal, and for me that's the main thing. They also have enough weight not to be merely token candidates. I am sorry to say that I think that the Socialist Alternative probably is a token candidate. It's too important to get New Labour out to waste votes on token candidates, even if they have good policies. I don't know anything yet about the 2 Independents in Cathall ward.

So, what about the Lib Dems? With a heavy heart, I would argue that if you only have a choice between the 3 main parties and the Greens - and you have 3 votes - you should cast 1 vote for the Greens and 2 for the Lib Dems. Not because I believe there is any real difference between Labour and the Lib Dems, but because it is really vital to kick New Labour in the teeth. A really bad result in the local elections may help to undermine the Blair/Brown national agenda. We really mustn't miss any opportunity to do that.