Imagine it: The federal government tracking you in real time, while compiling a database with information on your speed, route, and destination; where you were when; how many times you went to a certain location; and just about anything else related to your travels in your own car.
The idea of systems to track where cars are already exists. There are lots of schemes whereby the real time location, speed and other matters (such as whether people are using seat belts) can be tracked.
I have had a "tracker" on my car for a number of years as a tool for finding the car if it is stolen.
Within the context of politicians having inherent conflicts of interest - which is why we have the separation of the estates of government - Charles Clarke's idea that he should be able to impose sanctions upon people is badly flawed.
The arguments that the Labour Party use for keeping detailed records of people in a centralised ID database apply the same to the idea of compulsory tracking. There are already arguments that car tracking should be compulsory (and linked to road pricing). You can already imagine Charles Clarke and David Blunkett type arguments as to why we need human tracking as well.
The technology is straightforward. People need to keep with them a mobile phone or PDA that can be used to track where they are. The government keeps records of all of this. Anyone that Charles Clarke decides is a suspected terrorist is required to have a chip implanted that does the same.
All of this technology already exists (apart from the implanted chip - but that is not difficult).
What do we have at the moment:
The same government is likely to institute laws requiring cars to be tracked and it is a small step from here to track people.
With all of the mass media in operation it would seem surprising that Tyranny could be established by stealth. From my perspective, however, this is something that is happening gradually. It is the gradual nature of this change that makes it insidious.
Somehow all the traditional understanding of the need for checks and balances has disappeared and been replaced by the concept of "the best of all possible governments" and "trust Tony".
The idea of systems to track where cars are already exists. There are lots of schemes whereby the real time location, speed and other matters (such as whether people are using seat belts) can be tracked.
I have had a "tracker" on my car for a number of years as a tool for finding the car if it is stolen.
Within the context of politicians having inherent conflicts of interest - which is why we have the separation of the estates of government - Charles Clarke's idea that he should be able to impose sanctions upon people is badly flawed.
The arguments that the Labour Party use for keeping detailed records of people in a centralised ID database apply the same to the idea of compulsory tracking. There are already arguments that car tracking should be compulsory (and linked to road pricing). You can already imagine Charles Clarke and David Blunkett type arguments as to why we need human tracking as well.
The technology is straightforward. People need to keep with them a mobile phone or PDA that can be used to track where they are. The government keeps records of all of this. Anyone that Charles Clarke decides is a suspected terrorist is required to have a chip implanted that does the same.
All of this technology already exists (apart from the implanted chip - but that is not difficult).
What do we have at the moment:
- A government that believes that politicians should decide who is locked up/punished rather than judges.
- A government that has instituted laws that mean policians who are rude can be sacked.
- A government that has changed the electoral procedure so that possibly 50% of votes in some areas are fraudulent and strangely enough it is the party in government that generally benefits from this.
The same government is likely to institute laws requiring cars to be tracked and it is a small step from here to track people.
With all of the mass media in operation it would seem surprising that Tyranny could be established by stealth. From my perspective, however, this is something that is happening gradually. It is the gradual nature of this change that makes it insidious.
Somehow all the traditional understanding of the need for checks and balances has disappeared and been replaced by the concept of "the best of all possible governments" and "trust Tony".
Comments
I have accepted that some people voted for this legislation without understanding exactly what the consequences were.
Still means we are getting "Tyrranny by stealth".
I raised concerns immediately and my party has also supported me in this process. I have been in touch with various people such as (Lord) Chris Rennard and (Lord) Tony Greaves - who both share my concerns and are doing things about it.
If some people in the party were so naive as to believe the Labour lies then that's part of life. I think after Iraq Labour's lies will be tested against reality rather than trusted.
In any event the lead on this came from Labour.
viz the "Labour Government"
It doesn't matter which way they voted way back when - the argument does not shift.
In any event I am not a clone of Charles Kennedy.
The first part of this is a formal recognition by government that the current situation is unacceptable.
Firstly, the Home Office Working Party on Electoral procedures drew up the recommendations on voting. They were a group of politicians and civil servants from local and national government. See http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_localgov/documents/page/odpm_locgov_605344.pdf for a listing of members. I think it qualifies as an independent review of the system.
The Liberal Democrats voted with the government on the substantive elements of the Bill. There were votes against the government line on the electoral register, but the second reading of the bill went through backed by Lembit Opik, Norman Baker, Simon Hughes and David Heath - amongst others. No LibDems voted against the bill at the second reading.
If it was a Labour conspiracy, the Liberal Democrats connived at it. If we take John's view of the reform, then the only party with a good record on the RPA is the Tory party - they opposed it fairly thoroughly.
Simon Hughes, in particular, seems to have been more exercised by the opportunity for the free distribution of a mayoral election address in London than by any concerns over the safety of voting.