Elliot Fudge

Brexit is the priority; but we still need a radical manifesto

19/04/2017

As Conservative members up and down the country prepare for the second election campaign in two years, it seems to many that the result is already a foregone conclusion. A larger Tory majority is highly likely.

With things as they stand, the election is set to be fought over Brexit and will see the Lib Dems gain in many areas. With the new parliament now set to stretch well beyond the conclusion of article 50 negotiations, the new manifesto must show that the Conservatives are not just willing to campaign on successfully negotiating Brexit alone, but that Theresa May’s government is ready and willing to seize the opportunities that a global Britain presents.

Whatever result the election returns in six weeks’ time; the Prime Minister must be willing to show that it is her government that is best positioned to seize the new and exciting opportunities at hand. Although Brexit is the priority, the Party must use this new manifesto for radical thinking.

Liberalisation of planning laws is long overdue, for example. Although the recent white paper has alleviated some fears, tight restrictions over the building of houses on the green belt still mean that the construction of new homes is limited and unlikely to herald much change to the ongoing crisis in the housing sector. It is essential that more houses are built and easing planning restrictions will facilitate this.

The housing crisis, combined with the triple lock on pensions, does little to create a country that “works for everyone”, but instead rigs the country against the younger generations. Contrary to received wisdom, many young people are attracted to the Conservative Party. An ICM poll from March showed the Party ahead comfortably amongst people between the ages of 18 and 24; we have to exploit this and build upon it. The youthful, tech-savvy voters are the future and shouldn’t be neglected. Instead of securing the largely already safe votes of the over 65’s, Mrs May should look to embrace a radical manifesto to appeal to the increasingly apathetic young generations.

In her speech calling for the snap election, Mrs May referred to the House of Lords alongside arguably the buzzword of 2016: “unelected”. There are few people that will argue that the House of Lords isn’t in need of serious reform, and in the spirit of bringing democracy closer to the people, one viable option could be to see a jury style system introduced.

To many, the House of Lords is an extension of the establishment system that rewards friends with devalued peerages; a network of cronyism. Furthermore, the House of Lords has shown itself to be no friend of Brexit, and have vowed to fight the process every step of the way. According to polls, the single largest reason for Britons voting to leave the European Union last summer was for a more democratic country. If Mrs May is willing to deliver sovereignty to Britain from Brussels, then so too should the political system be brought closer to the people.

Regarding Defence policy; Mrs May would also do well to pay attention to inescapable geopolitical tensions. The armed forces of the UK are pitifully weak and in a world where the balance of power seems at its frailest since the cold war as eastern powers become more and more prominent, this matters even more. As Russia and China grow stronger and with North Korea looking nuclear, Europe appears precariously undefended. With so many of Britain’s neighbours and friends failing to meet NATO commitments, an independent Britain must look to restore its armed forces.

British troops have already been deployed to Eastern Europe to counter the ever growing threat of Russian escalation and yet an investigation by the Sunday Times earlier this year found gaping holes within UK defence. Malfunctioning drones and ships that could be heard from 100 miles away were two particularly troubling findings.

The Prime Minister has understood the desire for change; for free trade, open markets and a more workable meritocracy. Her desire to push forward the grammar schools programme demonstrates her understanding of the desire for change, so the new manifesto must not stop there.

Housing restrictions, the triple lock and reform of the House of Lords are all issues that would go towards creating a fairer country for all. The Conservative Party manifesto must reflect the real change desired by the British people and with May’s tenure now set to extend beyond Britain’s exit from the European Union, the conservatives must present themselves as the party best suited to hit the ground running and to capitalise on the new opportunities that a global Britain will present.

Brexit must bring change. June’s general election is an opportunity for Theresa May to present herself as the candidate best suited to do this.

Elliot is an English student studying in Southampton.Follow him on Twitter: @Elliott_Fudge

Follow @con4lib on Twitter

Like Conservatives for Liberty on Facebook

The views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Conservatives for Liberty

The Snooper’s Charter must be repealed

Elliot Fudge / Blog / 1 comment

06/12/2016

The Snooper’s Charter was passed with very little resistance, a sad incitement of illiberal Britain. The Bill will make the UK the only European or Commonwealth country to retain records of every citizen’s internet browsing history

When Apple refused to unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernadino shooters, an alarm was clearly triggered in Theresa May’s brain. In response, she quickly drafted changes to the Snooper’s Charter which now force private companies to retain and hand over the information of the British public if asked to do so.

The charter has now become the most authoritarian Bill in the west, violating the privacy of the British public in a way that even some authoritarian countries haven’t done, and will certainly see Britain slip down the human freedom index. The only amendment proposed by MP’s has been to exempt themselves from the charter’s draconian principles.

The Bill contains many troubling clauses and passages, the full extent of which we may not fully understand until they are used in action. For example, section 217 states that communication companies must inform the government in advance of any new products and services that will be released, and must allow the government the right to demand ‘technical’ changes. Translated from Orwellian newspeak to mean something like free governmental bypasses and backdoors.

Call histories, browsing history, encryption and the ability to remain anonymous have now become the interest of the government. There are still questions regarding the use of that information once in the hands of the government, but it’s likely they will remain unanswered until the full scale of the Bill is revealed and the fine print is understood fully. For example, how could confidential information be used when dealing with the government and given the underhand ability of recent Conservative governments, are there absolute assurances that said confidential information will not end up in the hands of insurance companies and the like?

The Bill has faced little opposition as it has passed smoothly through the halls of government to where we currently stand: Amber Rudd praising the one of the most authoritarian Bills in British history.

The primary stated use of the Snooper’s Charter has been to counter the ever-growing and increasingly mobile world of modern terrorism, but this argument is nothing more than a platitude. It would be like banning all cartoonists under a counter-terrorism motive. After all, the wrong expression of freedom may ‘induce’ terrorism and therefore the solution must be the eradicate the field altogether.

The government now retains the ability to spy on the private information of citizens due to the actions of a tiny minority. While some may argue along the lines of, “Well if you have nothing to hide, you surely have nothing to fear?” I would ask in return, “Would you give your house keys to the authorities to freely enter in and out of your house to ‘check-up’ on you?” The answer is clearly no. The Snooper’s Charter doesn’t create a physical presence in the same way a security guard or police officer entering each and every house at will would, and so we retain the belief that it perhaps isn’t as bad as it sounds.

This Bill is, put analogously, a cybernetic officer entering in and out of our private property. The fact that the dispute between the FBI and Apple made front page news in America, yet this far more intrusive Bill has passed without so much as a peep is a sad reflection of the direction of travel Britain is heading in.

Running in the Libertarian primaries before the American election, tech entrepreneur John McAfee made a point of highlighting the inefficiencies of American cybersecurity. In response to why he felt America is at risk from Chinese cyberattacks, he highlighted developing technologies that allowed the Chinese to spy on patterns, rather than individual conversations, and how easily these patterns can be used to devise intentions.

In relation to the UK, a similar system could be introduced in order to maintain surveillance of individuals perceived to be a risk or on a watch list, while maintaining and conserving the freedoms of the populace at large. Such a system would revolve around the following.

While observing high risk individuals, the government keeps a record of:

Who is making a call
Whom they are calling
What is the time of the call
What is the duration of the call
What are the locations of the parties

From these patterns alone, and to use McAfee’s written example for Business Insider, we could come to the following conclusion:

“Let’s assume that we are able to monitor the phones of a husband and wife and the only information we have are the phones’ locations, whether a call is being placed, and the time and duration of the call… Let’s say that with regularity, the husband places a call whenever the wife is out of hearing range and quickly hangs up just before the wife returns to hearing range. This pattern might be sufficient information to assume with a high probability that the husband is having an affair, or possibly has a gambling problem. If at this point a single additional data point is added — the number being called — and it is discovered to be the wife of a neighbor, or a gambling parlor, then it’s clearly time for a sit-down.”

In this admittedly oversimplified example, the ability to highlight patterns rather than spy on the personal phone call history could be suggestive of the most likely conclusion. A similar system could be implemented when addressing cybersecurity.

When a high-risk individual visits a site with known ties to extreme elements or content, and depending on the locations and whether the visits come from a multitude of different locations or internet cafes, a likely conclusion could be that said individual is attempting to avoid attracting attention, and security forces can decide how to proceed from there. While these examples are obviously oversimplified and gloss over a variety of other factors, it highlights the ability of new technologies to combat cyberterrorism, while maintaining freedom for the public.

The Snooper’s Charter is a travesty and should be repealed immediately. In an age of technological enlightenment, governments future and present must look to modern alternatives and must embrace modern technologies to deal with age-old problems.

Surveillance of patterns, rather than studying of personal information, preserves the freedom of the overwhelming majority, and to some extent even the target. While change will come generationally, more effort should be made by the current government, including the apparently delighted Amber Rudd, to embrace new and better ways of addressing this issue rather than the draconian, illiberal and concerning ways that this current government is currently addressing it.

Repeal the Snooper’s Charter and adopt an alternative.

Sign the petition to Repeal the Investigatory Powers Act