When I wrote recently about the upcoming election in the UK there were comments to the effect that Michael Howard, the Home Secretary under the prior Conservative Government, was a pretty dark act, that any vote for John Kenedy and the Liberal Democrats would be a wasted vote, and anything but a Labor win would be a very bad thing, along with some hand waving about getting Tony Blair dumped by a backbench revolt or ... the stroke of the Good Fairy's Wand.
I've been following the debate on the powers of arrest the Blair government wants. To back up, at IETF-48 (Pittsburg, '00) we decided to ignore a national government's statement that no standard require strong cryptography. That national government was the government of the United States, then still elected. At IETF-51 (London, '01) we decided to ignore a national government's statement that any machine protected by strong cryptography was subject to pre-emptive search and seizure. That national government was the government of the United Kingdom.
Watching the back and forth between Michael Howard and Tony Blair, we were struck by Blair's statement that the terrorist threat now endangering all the UK electorate was unprecedented. We each turned to the other and said "But the IRA killed hundred of Brits during the bombing campaigns."
In Tony Blair's crazed modern history of the British Isles, handfulls of spooky Arabs two thousand kilometers from London are a greater threat than the hundreds of Irish Republicans who've bombed London and every other major urban area.
Michael Howard's response was interesting. He rejected the current exceptionalism, the elevation of the Arab to Super Evil Genius, and talked about the limits to power during his time as Home Secretary when "terrorist" ment "IRA". That made up my mind.
The problem with Blair is that he seems to be Labor, albeit New Labor, that is somewhere to the economic right of the DLC when translated into American, but he's really something else. He's trafficking exagerated threat into extraordinary state powers. Listening to him, you'd think that al Quida was created for the purpose of pumping up the Labor Party.
i lived and worked in London the year of the coal strike. I haven't forgotten Thatcher. But the authoritarian boot is on Labor's (New) foot.
Posted by EBW at March 13, 2005 09:17 PM | TrackBackShow me the Conservatives voting against any authoritarian measure that the Labour government pushes, and I'll say you're right. But until then, I can't believe even rhetorical examples like this validate a belief that Blair is more police state than the Conservatives.
(also, this is before all the other important aspects Labor brings to the table.)
Posted by: Tony Vila at March 14, 2005 04:28 PMThe sunset provision is a substantive difference between Labor (none) and the Conservatives (8 months).
The standard of proof provision is a substantive difference between Labor (low) and the Conservatives (hig).
This is where you write "You are right" and then go on to argue that an open-ended low standard of proof authoritarian regime with benefits is better, for some objective framework, than a finite-term high standard of proof authoritarian regime without benefits.
Cheers.
Posted by: Eric at March 14, 2005 06:45 PM