British politics and political jargon

Over the years, I've become very interested in politics in the UK and thought I knew quite a bit about how the British political system works but this latest General Election has made me realize how much I don't know.

I thought I would share a list of political terms and acronyms in this post since a lot of my readers are from various parts of the world and I'm sure they are even more bafffled by it all, than I am!

The United Kingdom (UK) is a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional Monarch as Head of State.


There are three main political parties in the UK:

Conservative Party (also known as Tories)  Centre-right
The leader of the Opposition and Conservative Party leader is David Cameron.

Labour Party  Centre-left
The incumbent Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party is Gordon Brown

Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) - a centrist to centre-left political party
The leader of the Liberal Democrats party is Nick Clegg

Other Political Parties:
Democratic Unionist Party - the DUP is the largest party in Northern Ireland
Scottish National Party - the SNP is fighting for Scottish Independence
Sinn Fein - Irish republican party seeking to end British rule in Northern Ireland
Plaid Cymru - the Party of Wales - in favour of Welsh independence.
Social Democratic and Labour Party - Constitutional Irish nationalist party in Northern Ireland
Alliance Party of Northern Ireland - Liberal party in Northern Ireland
Green Party of England and Wales - environmentalist party. Favours British republicanism
Ulster Unionist Party - Unionist party in Northern Ireland
UK Independence Party (UKIP) Libertarian, seeking Britain's withdrawal from the European Union
Scottish Green Party - Environmentalist party in favour of Scottish independence.
Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) is a small loyalist political party from Northern Ireland.
Green Party in Northern Ireland - Environmentalist party in Northern Ireland.
British National Party (BNP) - a far-right party, has its roots in the neo-Nazi group the National Front

The Palace of Westminster, also known as the Houses of Parliament or Westminster Palace, is the meeting place of the two houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom - the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

The House of Commons is the name of the elected lower house. The party with the largest number of members in the Commons forms the government.
The House of Lords (also known as House of Peers for ceremonial purposes) is the upper house of the Parliament and is also known as "the Lords".

A Member of Parliament (MP) is a representative of the voters to a parliament.

The Prime Minister is not elected by the people. The political party is elected and the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons usually becomes the prime minister.

A hung parliament (also known as a minority parliament or balanced parliament) is a legislature in which no political party has an absolute majority of seats.

A coalition government is a cabinet of a parliamentary government in which several parties cooperate.

The UK is one of 27 member states of the European Union and is subject to European Union (EU) legislation.

A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) is a person who has been elected to the European Parliament, one of the European Union's two legislative bodies.
UK Office of the European Parliament

The single transferable vote (STV) is a preferential voting system designed to minimize "wasted" votes, provide proportional representation, and ensure that votes are explicitly cast for individual candidates rather than party lists.

Proportional representation (PR) or full representation, is a type of voting system aimed at securing a close match between the percentage of votes that groups of candidates obtain in elections, and the percentage of seats they receive.

First past the post (FPTP or FPP) voting refers to an election determined by the highest polling candidate(s). The British electoral system is based on the "First-Past-The-Post" (FPTP) system.

The West Lothian question - refers to the constitutional anomaly created by the devolution of power to Scotland. Because laws for issues such as health care, education and crime are now made in the Scottish Parliament, MPs representing Scottish seats cannot vote on them. But they can still vote on laws affecting those issues in England, which are still made in the House of Commons.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own assemblies, while England does not.

England doesn't have its own parliament. Issues that affect England are decided by the UK government, which consists of MPs from all over the UK.

The Barnett Formula was designed as a temporary measure by Lord Barnett, then the Labour chief secretary to the Treasury, in 1978 as a system for the division of public spending. It has been retained as the basis for funding the three devolved (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) governments.

The Day After the Election - and the results are in: a Hung Parliament!

Well after all that, the election results are in but with no clear majority. Britain has a hung Parliament for the first time in 36 years. (link via Channel 4 News)

Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister - but for how much longer? Should Brown resign?

The Conservative Party has the most votes and the most seats and have the right to govern but the Conservatives are 20 short of the 326 seat threshold for an outright majority.

Brown is waiting to see if David Cameron will be able to form a government with the Liberal Democrats. Their leader, Nick Clegg, now has the nickname "Kingmaker" because both the Tories and the Labour parties need the Liberal Democrat's support to to form a government.

Nick Clegg announced today that the Tories have earned the right to govern (the Conservative Party has most votes and most seats) by coalition, and that he had promised he would support the Party that got the most votes. Nick Clegg is doing the honourable thing, even though he knows it's not a popular decision.

And Brown acknowledged that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have the first chance to establish a coalition but also made it clear that he would be willing to form a coalition with Nick Clegg, if the Liberal Democrats and Conservative deal breaks down.

Mr Cameron spoke today about a possible deal: "I want to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats. I want us to work together in tackling our country's big and urgent problems - the debt crisis, our deep social problems and our broken political system." David Cameron also pointed out their common agreement about issues such as civil liberties and getting rid of the ID cards.

So, is a Conservative/Liberal Democrats coalition a real possibility? I have to say that I'm hoping it is. I'm particularly happy about the promise to get rid of the ID cards.

What are your thoughts about the election? Did you vote? There were reports about some people who tried to vote but were turned away at 10pm when the polling stations closed even though they arrived well before closing time. Were you one of those people who were turned away?

What do you think about a hung Parliament?

Do you think a Conservative/Lib Dems coalition could work?

Do you think another Genaral Election will be called soon? 

It will be very interesting to see what happens next!

UK General Election 2010: The Final Leadership Debate

Eight million people watched the final leaders' debate last night between the leaders of the three main parties:

• The incumbent Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown  
• The leader of the Opposition and Conservative Party leader, David Cameron
• The leader of the Liberal Democrats party, Nick Clegg

The theme of last night's debate was about economic issues.

The questions from audience members were about spending cuts, taxes, taxpayers funding the banks while ordinary people are worse off, how to rebuild the country's manufacturing industries, immigration, housing, abuse of the benefits system, and education.

In his opening remark, Gordon Brown made a passing reference to his embarrassing blunder on Wednesday (when he left his microphone on after an encounter with a woman in Rochdale so he was heard calling her 'a bigoted woman') :

"There's a lot to this job, and as you saw yesterday I don't get all of it right. But I do know how to run the economy in the good times and in the bad.”

All three leaders seemed in a fighting spirit and there were times when some of the bickering seemed to be quite intense, particularly when Brown and Cameron had a heated exchange about inheritance tax.

The discussion about immigration was interesting but it had all been said before in a previous debate. I'm still shocked that Nick Clegg proposes an amnesty for illegal immigrants. It's rather a slap in the face for those of us (like me) who came here legally.

About housing. Cameron said stamp duty should be removed for the first £250,000 and that there should be changes to planning rules so more houses could be built. Clegg proposed converting empty properties into more homes. Brown stressed the need to get building societies and banks to start lending again.

I've only mentioned a few points from the debate. A full transcript of last night's leaders' debate is available on the BBC website.

I wonder if any of the televised debates had much impact on voters. Did you watch last night's debate? Did it change your views in any way about how you would vote?

UK General Election 2010 - the second televised leaders' debate

Tonight was the second televised leaders' debate between the leaders of the three main parties:

• The incumbent Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown
• The leader of the Opposition and Conservative Party leader David Cameron
• The leader of the Liberal Democrats party, Nick Clegg

The theme of tonight's debate was about international affairs.

I thought all three party leaders seemed more aggresive and determined. The debate was definitely much more animated and intense than last week's debate.

I was surprised when they talked a bit about MPs expenses since they discussed that in the first debate and they really just repeated what they said last week. 

At one point in tonight's debate, all three leaders were quibbling about Britain's relationship with America. Then when Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg started to banter back and forth, Gordon Brown stood there with a big grin on his face and then Brown told the audience: "They remind me of my two young boys squabbling at bathtime." Then he said, "'I am afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti- American."

The immigration issue was discussed at length. Gordon Brown said (bragged more like) that there will be identity cards for foreigners coming into the UK.

I want to know how that is going to help. How do identity cards for foreign nationals make a difference to immigration? Gordon Brown is obsessed with ID cards!

Gordon Brown and David Cameron both disagreed with Nick Clegg about his plans for immigration amnesty. Brown said that the points system was working and Cameron said that we need to have a cap on people coming from outside the European Union for economic reasons.

Climate change and Environmental issues were also discussed. I was pleased to hear David Cameron say, "I've come out very strongly against the third runway at Heathrow. We should be going for high speed rail instead."

What did you think of the second debate?

UK General Election 2010 - the first televised leaders' debate

Last night was the (first of three) live televised debates between the leaders of the three main parties:

The incumbent Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown
The leader of the Opposition and Conservative Party leader David Cameron
The leader of the Liberal Democrats party, Nick Clegg

This was an historic event since it was the first live television debate in a UK election.

It was a long debate - run without a break for 90 minutes - and I thought it was moderated very well by Alastair Stewart. I didn't like the the lack of audience noise though (no audience applause was allowed). It was like the audience wasn't there. The topics discussed were Immigration; the National Health Service (NHS); Education; Law and Order; and Political reform.

Nick Clegg appeared to be the most relaxed and speaking much more candidly than Mr Brown and Mr Cameron. And I was very pleased when Nick Clegg mentioned scrapping both identity cards and the National Programme for IT. He talked about the expense of the ID cards and how that money could be spent on more police officers on the streets. So true.

When the debate turned to political reform, Gordon Brown turned to David Cameron and said, "Please no more hereditary MPs." I was pleased to hear David Cameron's retort, "You've had 13 years to reform the House of Lords." Quite.

It was noticeable (and quite funny) how often Gordon Brown said, ""I agree with Nick". Hilarious! It wasn't exactly a subtle way to show that he's courting Nick and the Liberal Democrats for their votes!

Nick Clegg has been hailed as the winner of the first televised leaders' debate.

I enjoyed watching the debate, however, I don't think I learned any new information about the respective policies of each party leader so even though it was interesting to watch and probably inevitable that this sort of tv debate would happen here, I'm not sure of its usefulness. To me, it's the policies that matter, not how the person "looks" on tv.

Did you watch the debate? Do you think the tv debate is a good idea? Who do you think "won" the debate? Did the debate change the way you will vote?

If you missed it, you can watch the debate again:

The First Election Debate on ITV1: 15th April 2010

May 6th General Election!

The Prime Minister has (finally) called a General Election. It will be held on Thursday 6 May

Unfortunately, I can't vote because I'm not a British citizen (yet) but if I could vote, the parties' stand on freedom would certainly be a deciding vote for me. If you think it's an important issue too, you might like to use a handy pdf with a list of 10 questions to ask candidates about civil liberties (via the Guardian). I would also like to know more from each party about their stance regarding citizenship equality.

Of course, there are other important issues too, such as the economy, education, and the NHS.

Will you be voting? What issues are you most concerned about?

ContactPoint children's database suffers security breaches

ContactPoint database suffers 'serious' security breaches during trial phase The controversial database containing personal details of all 11 million children in England has suffered at least three security breaches even before its nationwide launch. (link via Telegraph) I've written about the ContactPoint database before. I've always been against the idea but of course that doesn't matter. Parents don't have a say - unless you are a celebrity or a politician because they are concerned about the security of their children's details, and they can opt out!! And surprise, surprise! The big fear was that it wouldn't be secure (no database is 100% secure) and sure enough there have been at least three security breaches already - before its nationwide launch! I wonder how the parents in England that supported the idea of the database, feel about it now. Can there be anyone who still believes ContactPoint is a good idea?

BBC Caves in to Carter Ruck Threats Over Trafigura Film

Via Iain Dale's Diary: BBC Caves in to Carter Ruck Threats Over Trafigura Film Carter-Ruck have succeeded in persuading the BBC to remove all reference to the Trafigura story from its website, according to the New Statesman. Newsnight. Trafigura. Law firm Carter-Ruck. Private Eye. Toxic waste. Twitter. And I repeat the same request as Iain Dale asked: Could I encourage every single UK blogger to embed this video in their blogs too?

An Open Letter to my Readers

Dear Readers, I am asking for your help in an important matter regarding British Citizenship which affects me (and many others in the same situation). This past summer (July) the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, was passed through Parliament and approved for implementation in 2010. A small but vital part of the Bill was regarding an amendment to the law to give British nationality to people born before February 1961 whose mothers were born in the UK. Up until 2002, if you had a British father, you got a right to citizenship, but not if you had a British mother. In 2002, they changed that law, but they only backdated it to 1961. This latest law amends that inequality but it still discriminates! My mother is English and I was born in the USA before 1961. While it's true that the law regarding children born abroad to British mothers before 1961 was amended, it continues to discriminate because I will have to register and pay a fee of £540 plus attend a citizenship ceremony before I can claim my British Citizenship by descent. However, if my father had been British, I could claim my British Citizenship by descent without registration, without the ceremony and without the exhorbitant fee. Why shouldn't my British mother be able to pass on her citizenship the same way British fathers can?! The amended law still discriminates!! How can you help? Two very easy ways: 1. If you are British or you live in the UK, please sign this petition to: stop the gender and age discrimination in the Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UKmothers/ We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop the gender and age discrimination in the Borders, Immigration & Citizenship Bill which does not allow UK mothers to pass on their citizenship to their children regardless of where or when they were born.. The Borders, Immigration & Citizenship Bill requires all those born abroad to a UK mother prior to 1983 to register with the UKBA and pay an exorbitant fee (presently in excess of £500) before they can apply for a UK passport. Anyone born in the same circumstances after 1983 or at anytime to a UK father can simply complete a passport application without the need to register. The registration/fee is required regardless of country of residence so that even someone who has lived in the UK for most of their lives, is a taxpayer, a home owner and has known no other country, still has to register and pay the fee. 2. Tell everyone about the petition. Please help spread the word via blogs, forums, twitter, facebook, etc. The more publicity the better. Please help me (and others like me in the same situation) by signing the petition. Thank you very much to everyone for your support. Kind regards to all my readers, Maureen P.S. An important reminder regarding the petition to No 10: You must give your name, address (which will not be published) and your email address. You will receive an email - click link to confirm. You must click the link in the email from the Number 10 Petitions system to confirm your signature on the petition or your name won't show!

England: Prescription Promise Campaign

The British Heart Foundation has a campaign to fight for free prescriptions in England: Gordon Brown promised last year to make prescriptions free for all those with long term conditions in the coming years so we have joined forces with 18 other charities representing people with long term conditions as part of the Prescription Promise Campaign. Prescriptions are free in Wales and will be in Scotland and Northern Ireland by 2011.

The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill

I've been glued to the TV this afternoon and evening watching the MPs as they are discussing amendments to the the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill. The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill transfers 4,500 HM Revenue and Customs officers to the UK Borders Agency and introduces a requirement for immigrants to earn British citizenship. It's also making important changes in the law to give British nationality to people born before February 1961 whose mothers were born in the UK. This is the part of the bill that will directly affect me since my mother is British and I was born in the USA before 1961: Children of British mothers - proposed changes to law on citizenship A person who has a British mother currently has a right to register as a British citizen under section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 if: he or she was born between 7 February 1961 and 1 January 1983; and he or she would have become a British citizen if women had been able to pass on citizenship in the same way as men at that time. The Government has proposed changes to the law, to allow people born before the 1961 date to British mothers to be registered as British citizens. These proposals are set out in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill which is currently being debated in Parliament. If successful, this Bill will extend the provisions of section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981 to those born before 1961. This amendment should correct this discriminatory law, however in reality, it doesn't since there is a registration fee of £540 to claim my British citizenship by descent. If my father had been British and/or I was younger, I would automatically have been granted my British citizenship (without paying a fee) so why should I have to now pay a fee to claim what should be my right? The bill is very convoluted with a lot of different issues, not just the particular one that I'm concerned about. The bill is so huge that it should have been divided up into separate bills. And there should be much more time allowed to discuss each point properly, rather than trying to rush through the reading in one day. Phil Woolas (Minister of State for borders and immigration) outlined his proposals for the "transitional arrangements" for those already with Indefinite Leave to Remain (or having applied for ILR). The commencement date for the changeover from the present system to the new "probationary citizenship" pathway is July 2011. He proposed that those on ILR (or having applied for it) at that time will be able to apply for citizenship under the old rules. I noticed that Chris Huhne (Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department) made some very scathing remarks about this bill: "This bill proves that quantity does not equal quality" "...inaccessible and ill thoughtout" "...a pudding without a theme" "...it's piecemeal legislation that results in many anomalies and inconsistencies" "...jigsaw puzzle legislation" "Another trust me, I'm a minister bill" "...a hotchpotch of provisions." And Damian Green (the shadow immigration minister) said there was "Severe disappointment" about this bill. Indeed, I agree with that view! This is the third reading of this bill. I listened intently to the discussion and after all that time and effort, at 10pm the speaker announced that there isn't supposed to be debate after 10pm. So it looks like they will have to continue the debate another day. It was obvious that they were really trying to rush the bill through today. It sure doesn't seem like the right way to go about making changes to laws. Related post from my blog: Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill: Children of British mothers (lots of comments from people in the same situation)

ID Cards: the political spin about scrapping them

The recent announcement by Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, that the Government would be scrapping plans for compulsory ID cards, was welcome news to just about everyone. And I think most people assumed the Government had seen sense at last and believed that it really was the end of the ID cards scheme. However, people seemed to forget that their personal details would still be stored on the National Identity Register when they obtained or renewed a passport (and almost everyone in Britain has a passport). And today an article in The Guardian by Mr Johnson, reveals the real view of Government: We need identity cards, and soon Identity fraud costs the UK £1.2bn, and untold misery, each year. ID cards are a cheap and effective way of fighting back [Really? How does an ID card fight identity fraud? It's based on a central database and the Government doesn't exactly have a good record with keeping data safe!] and in the article, Mr Johnson declares that "...despite the headlines that would have readers think otherwise, I'm not scrapping identity cards...". So there you have it. The real story is that nothing has changed - apart from saying the cards will be "voluntary" - and personal details will still be stored on a National Identity Register. Edited to add this update: This is an excerpt from PoliticsHome News today (Monday, 6 July, 2009) The Home Secretary has insisted that rather than scrapping ID cards, the government is accelerating the introduction of the scheme, saying it would be "completely ludicrous" to abandon the plans. "We haven't scrapped cards. What we're doing is acclerating their introduction," he said. And please read the comments following the article. I agree with the comment that it is absolute madness for the Labour party to go ahead with this very expensive scheme in the midst of a recession. I also agree with the comment about how this is a spiteful policy by the Labour party to get the ID cards/database in place so that the Conservative Party who are against the scheme, will be forced to waste the money when they get into power and scrap it as they have promised they will do.

Historic day: House of Commons Speaker, Michael Martin quits

This news is quite remarkable and makes today a historic one: Speaker Michael Martin quits: I will step down on June 21 Michael Martin announced his resignation as Speaker of the House of Commons today, the first Speaker to be forced from office for more than 300 years. (link via timesonline.co.uk) It was all over in just 35 seconds: Mr Martin said: “I always feel the House is at its best when it is united. In order that unity can be retained I have decided I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday 21 June. “This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday 22 June. “That is all I have to say on this matter.” Profile: Michael Martin (link via politics.co.uk) And now the big question is: Who will be the next Speaker? (link via FT.com/Westminster Blog) What do you think of all this? Do you think the resignation of Michael Martin will be enough to start to rebuild public trust in Parliament in the aftermath of the MPs' expense claims scandal?

ConservativeHome launches anti-BNP web campaign

ConservativeHome launches anti-BNP web campaign: There's Nothing British About the BNP Sign the petition: Online petition - There's nothing British about the BNP

Smeargate: the Downing Street emails scandal

This Easter weekend has been a big weekend for news in British politics. Gordon Brown’s key adviser Damian McBride was forced to resign after an email he sent smearing top Conservatives fell into the hands of a prominent blogger. Damian McBride was forced to resign after an email he sent smearing top Conservatives fell into the hands of a prominent blogger. Here Christopher Hope, The Daily Telegraph's Whitehall Editor, explains the background to the scandal, and how The Daily Telegraph came to have a hand in the downfall of one of Gordon Brown's top aides. The downfall of Damian McBride has its roots in a speech by Communities secretary Hazel Blears last November, when she warned of the increasing powers of rightwing bloggers to influence political debate. In her speech she complained about a "spreading corrosive cynicism... by people with disdain for the political system and politicians. The most popular blogs are right-wing, ranging from the considered Tory views of Iain Dale to the vicious nihilism of Guido Fawkes." (link via telegraph.co.uk) I don't profess to understand everything about British politics but without a doubt I can see that this dirty tricks scandal is despicable! One thing I can say though is thank goodness for free speech and the power of blogs, particularly political blogs such as Guido Fawkes' Blog and Iain Dale's Diary.

The health secretary, Alan Johnson states that Gordon Brown does not have to apologise for emails sent by his aide proposing a smear campaign against David Cameron. (link via guardian.co.uk)

What do you think? Do you think Gordon Brown should apologise? If you are a supporter of the Labour party, has it changed your views about the party? What are your thoughts about the whole scandal? And what do you think about British politics?

Labour plans compulsory volunteer work for under-19s (but surely, it can't be voluntary if it's compulsory!)

Gordon Brown has a plan to keep young people busy by making them do volunteer work: Labour plans compulsory community service for youngsters Manifesto pledge for under-19s to do 50 hours' voluntary work Every young person will have to do 50 hours' voluntary work by the age of 19 if Labour wins the next election. Gordon Brown said a plan for compulsory community service would be included in Labour's manifesto. Under the scheme, the work – which could include helping charities in the UK and abroad – is likely to become part of the national curriculum. (link via guardian. co.uk) Now there are lots of questions that immediately spring to my mind about this plan. Firstly, how can it be called volunteer work if it's compulsory? Isn't "compulsory volunteer work" an oxymoron? And what level of service would these young people (under-19s) be providing if they are being forced to do it? And how would the "volunteers" be organized and supervised? And how would the "compulsory" part of the plan be enforced? And how would their achievements be evaluated? And wouldn't this plan make young people feel rather used? I should think they would feel as though they are looked upon as a source of free manpower disguised as "volunteers". And finally, isn't it infringing on their "right" to spend their own time as they see fit rather than be required to do volunteer work 'outside the school day'? What about the children who have planned lots of after-school activities and busy weekends with their families? Do parents get a say in this? What are your thoughts about Gordon Brown's volunteer plan for children? Do you think it's a good idea?

Did President Obama bow to King Abdullah? And does it matter if he did?

Oh my. This is a hot blogging subject! I read a lot of blogs and I've noticed there is an ongoing discussion about whether President Obama bowed to King Abdullah at a formal reception for the G-20 Summit last week in London. I've watched the video many times and I have to say that it certainly looked like he did bow. And he didn't bow to Queen Elizabeth II. I wonder though. Does it matter if he bowed to King Abdullah? I know it's a breach of protocol but is it really worth everyone getting upset over? What do you think? Controversy Over Obama's Saudi Bow. Watch the video: Barack Obama meets the Queen (notice the slight head incline - not a bow):

Britain's top anti-terror chief resigns after blunder re: top secret papers

After being photographed outside 10 Downing Street, holding a document marked "Secret" that outlined details of an undercover operation, the news yesterday that Britain's top anti-terrorism official resigned is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that Bob Quick made such a serious blunder. It's not as if he wasn't expecting to find a horde of photographers standing in Downing Street! That plus Steve Back, the photographer who took the picture of Bob Quick's briefing note on the terror raids in the north west of England said that he had tried to warn the Government before that photographers were able to read top secret papers when people go through the door of 10 Downing Street. (links via telegraph.co.uk) To carry top secret papers tucked under his arm like that was a highly embarrassing and potentially dangerous blunder! Why on earth didn't he have the papers covered up or better yet, put away safely inside a locked briefcase? We get all this surveillance in the name of security (CCTV. databases. etc.) and yet the head of anti-terrorism makes a stupid and dangerous mistake that could have put a lot of innocent people's lives at risk. And no, I'm not exaggerating. This is from BBC News, Politics, Martha Kearney's week: What would be a trivial matter for most people - letting a document be photographed - is a matter of life and death for the country's most senior counter-terrorism officer. That was the view of Sir Chris Fox, the former head of the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Internet monitoring starts today in the UK

Net firms start storing user data Details of user e-mails and net phone calls will be stored by internet service providers (ISPs) from Monday under an EU directive. (link via BBC News) Henry Porter has written a scathing piece in the Guardian about this sinister plan: Using Europe to erode our privacy An EU directive compelling ISPs to retain information on individuals has been brought in without a debate in parliament (excerpt): Today, an EU directive comes into force which will compel all internet service providers to retain information from all emails and website visits. Data from phone calls and text messages will also be stored and made available to the government, its agencies and local authorities. Having seen how local officials have abused anti-terrorist laws, it's not hard to imagine the damage to privacy that will ensure. These powers were brought in by a statutory instrument and so were not debated by either house. The accepted view is that the Home Office now bypasses parliament by lobbying Europe directly in the knowledge that the measures they desire will go undebated and unscrutinised, then be smuggled into British law as a European directive. It is difficult to think of anything that makes the House of Commons look more feckless or more redundant. I hate all this surveillance in the name of security. What are your thoughts? Do you feel safer knowing that all emails and data from phone calls and text messages will be stored and made available to the government, its agencies and local authorities? Or do you think (as I do) this is a step too far and that this invasion of our privacy is a dangerous assault on our personal freedom? And the way this EU directive was brought into power without being debated in parliament, does rather make a mockery of the House of Commons, doesn't it? Related post from my blog: Gov't plans 'Big Brother' database for phones & e-mails in UK

Government reneges on promise for free bus pass in England for the over-60s

Last year - in April - I wrote about this offer in a post on my old blog: Free bus travel for over 60s anywhere in England As of April 1st. 2008 everyone aged over 60, or eligible as disabled, can get free off-peak* bus travel on local buses anywhere in England. (Over 60s in Scotland and Wales already get free national bus travel at any time of the day) *Off-peak is travel between 9.30am and 11pm weekdays and anytime during the weekend. It was good news but it didn't last long. This is the news about the scheme today: End of the road for free go-anywhere bus pass for the over-60s Are you 60 or over and do you fancy a free trip to the seaside? Grab your coat because this weekend is your last opportunity to take advantage of a benefit that the Government is quietly withdrawing. From next Wednesday - April Fool's Day - bus passes issued to the elderly and disabled will no longer be valid on hundreds of services. A year ago, ministers trumpeted the Government's generosity in giving 11 million people free travel on all local buses and coaches in England. Now pass holders will once again have to pay on coaches, park-and-ride buses, open-top bus tours and any services intended “primarily for tourism”. (link via timesonline.co.uk) Charming! And I bet the offer hasn't been changed in Scotland and Wales! Why is it we always get short-changed in England?! I thought it was bad enough that the offer was limited to off-peak bus travel in England - considering that over 60s in Scotland and Wales already were getting free national bus travel at any time of the day - but now most of the offer for over 60s in England has been withdrawn. I think this is outrageous! I am fed up with this Labour government! Edited to add a link from DirectGov (the website of the UK government for its citizens, providing information and online services for the public all in one place): There hasn't been any mention in the news about the free bus service being withdrawn or changed anywhere else in the UK apart from England so I assume this information from the goverment is still correct: Bus passes and coach travel for over 60s Local bus travel in Wales In Wales, if you're over 60, you're entitled to a free bus pass from your local authority. You can use it at any time of the day and are entitled to travel on all local bus services in Wales. The pass can also be used on some long-distance services. Local bus travel in Scotland In Scotland everyone 60 or over is entitled to free local bus and scheduled long-distance coach services within Scotland at any time of the day, including the morning rush hour. This scheme is run by Transport Scotland and you need to apply for a National Entitlement Card to travel for free.