Politics

Originally published here 5th March 2016

Keep watching Trump’s shrug of the shoulders. When faced with a question he doesn’t like, he shrugs as if to say the question is irrelevant, unimportant, and not worth answering.

He moves a lot. His body moves a lot compared to other politicians. He tells you with every gesture that he is free. He is free to admit things that other politicians will not admit, and to override objections with a shrug of his shoulders.

The myth is that Trump appeals to people who are self reliant. It’s not true. He appeals to people who are magnetically drawn to people who are free and powerful. People who are free and powerful will tell them what to do and will make them feel good about themselves.

Of course, that is not going to help you if you are part of a minority that is being picked on.

If you are in one of those groups, you have to look elsewhere for your saviour.

I joked a few days ago that Trump doesn’t know whether he is on The Apprentice or in a Republican Debate.

I don’t really think that’s true, but given power I think he is in danger of megalomania. He just doesn’t have a ‘stop’ button inside him.

On British TV last night they were discussing the description Trump gave at the Republican debate about the comparative size of his fingers and his manhood. The commentators were saying how low he has dragged debate.

I see it differently, I see a man who is free and who revels in the way his enemies squirm. I see a man who is constantly pointing out how stiff his opponents are. He portrays them as small people stuffed inside their suits.

People love to see that stuff.

So – to the question I posed in the title – is the US military the last defence against Trump?

Did you catch the interview with the ex-director of the CIA who doubted whether the US military would follow Trump’s orders.

I am not so sure. I think there are elements in the US military that could easily rally behind him.

After all, it is just fifty years since the carpet bombing of Laos and Cambodia.

I wrote this on 13 Mar 2016 before the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, which was on 23 June

Cameron Risks The Prosperity Of Britain

The parties to the drama:
David Cameron – prime minister
George Osborne – chancellor of the exchequer
Andrew Marr – television current affairs host

I watched part of Andrew Marr’s interview with George Osborne this morning. I was struck with how similar Osborne’s statements on the dangers of leaving the EU were to statements that David Cameron has been making over the past week or so.

I was waiting for Andrew Marr to follow up with the obvious question, but he didn’t. He kept pushing the same point, namely that the EU is a basket case and would we really be better off by staying in.

The obvious question that he didn’t ask is this.

In the lead up to the last election, Cameron promised a referendum on staying in the EU.

He promised he would go to the leaders of the EU and negotiate better terms.

He claims he has secured better terms, but no one agrees.

Now he and Osborne are trying to convince the British people to vote to stay in the EU in the upcoming referendum.

They talk about the shock to the economy and the terrible dangers and consequences if we leave.

But, and here’s the thing, whether or not Cameron had negotiated better terms we would still be facing what he says are terrible consequences if we leave.

So how could he ever have said what he did before he went to Brussels – which is that he would recommend leaving if he didn’t get the deal he wanted?

So, let’s see how Cameron might answer this.

He might say that he needed to convince the Europeans that he was serious about leaving, and a referendum was the only way to show that.

In fact he did say that before he went. He said he wanted the Europeans to understand he wasn’t just a politician playing political games.

What that means is that by his own assessment of the realities, he has put the future prosperity of Britain on the line and gambled that it would all work out OK in the end.

He has gambled that the British people will vote to stay within the EU, and that is not in his gift to decide.

Following on from my last article, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that the Investigatory Power Act is unlawful in that the mass collection of data is unlawful. Therefore the Act exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society, as required by the directive.

I am particularly happy that the court highlighted my concern about how much information about its citizens is simply too much.

In that connection, the court stated that:

with respect to retention, the retained data, taken as a whole, is liable to allow very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained.

The court also ruled that:

As regards the access of the competent national authorities to the retained data, the Court confirms that the national legislation concerned cannot be limited to requiring that access should be for one of the objectives referred to in the directive, even if that objective is to fight serious crime, but must also lay down the substantive and procedural conditions governing the access of the competent national authorities to the retained data.

In other words, it is not sufficient to limit after-the-fact access to the data: The data must not be collected at all except in a specific case where a serious crime can be shown to be likely.

The UK has just passed The Investigatory Powers Bill. It will become law once it receives the Royal assent – a formality.

It enables a wide range of public bodies to access the records of every person in the UK who connects to the internet. Internet service providers are obliged to keep a record of every site that their users access over the past year.

It’s the modern equivalent of the authorities accessing the record of the library books that a person borrowed.

I am not concerned with whether the authorities can access a person’s predilections for pop music or porn, prison breakouts or paedophilia.

I am, however, concerned that a Government or its agencies can access the records of interesting people. By that I mean that GCHQ could construct an algorithm that splits people into two camps.

There are those people who are interested in trivia – in the diversions of life – and little else. A Government can ignore those people – they aren’t going to object to much of anything.

And then there are a smaller number of people who have a broad range of interests. With the Investigatory Powers Bill the Government will know who its ‘thinking’ opposition is.

Of course, it is not this Government I am worried about. This Government is fair and open. But a more fascist government. If that came to pass they would have all the tools they needed to weed out the potential opposition.

Ah, but this is far fetched. Except that it has happened in other countries.

It can always happen here.