This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/25/snoopers-charter-nick-clegg-liberal-democrat

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The snooper's charter has reminded Nick Clegg, finally, he is a liberal The snooper's charter has reminded Nick Clegg, finally, he is a liberal
(5 months later)
For the past few months, Theresa May, the home secretary, and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, have been in negotiations over the shape of a possible new bill to monitor the websites we visit and people we email. The Home Office had wanted to get a bill into next month's Queen's speech, but this morning Clegg vetoed the plans and announced that, while the Liberal Democrats were in government, they would not happen.For the past few months, Theresa May, the home secretary, and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, have been in negotiations over the shape of a possible new bill to monitor the websites we visit and people we email. The Home Office had wanted to get a bill into next month's Queen's speech, but this morning Clegg vetoed the plans and announced that, while the Liberal Democrats were in government, they would not happen.
When, just over a year ago, sources close to the home secretary first briefed journalists of the government's plan, Liberal Democrat activists reacted with fury. Their anger was such that a hastily arranged conference call with key government figures was held with activists, with the aim of reassuring the already bruised troops. Instead, the call simply made the situation worse, with special advisers failing to see the fundamental civil libertarian objections to such a proposal, and instead trying to explain why such a change was necessary.When, just over a year ago, sources close to the home secretary first briefed journalists of the government's plan, Liberal Democrat activists reacted with fury. Their anger was such that a hastily arranged conference call with key government figures was held with activists, with the aim of reassuring the already bruised troops. Instead, the call simply made the situation worse, with special advisers failing to see the fundamental civil libertarian objections to such a proposal, and instead trying to explain why such a change was necessary.
However, as the Home Office's proposals became more concrete, Clegg and his advisers grasped the problem and forced the proposed bill to be published in draft form to allow a committee of both houses of parliament to consider it. The draft bill proposed extensions to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), which currently governs the accessibility of so-called communications data – who contacted whom, and when and how they did so – in order to incorporate technology that has developed since Ripa was passed, particularly email, web browsing, social media and voice-over internet protocol services (such as Skype).However, as the Home Office's proposals became more concrete, Clegg and his advisers grasped the problem and forced the proposed bill to be published in draft form to allow a committee of both houses of parliament to consider it. The draft bill proposed extensions to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), which currently governs the accessibility of so-called communications data – who contacted whom, and when and how they did so – in order to incorporate technology that has developed since Ripa was passed, particularly email, web browsing, social media and voice-over internet protocol services (such as Skype).
The committee's report, published last November, was excoriating. It concluded that the case for a bill with such a wide scope had not been made and expressed severe doubts about whether it was even possible to hold such vast quantities of data in a secure way. It also dismissed the home office's estimated cost of £1.8bn as hopelessly unrealistic; Lib Dem peer Lord Marks QC thought it would be closer to £11.1bn.The committee's report, published last November, was excoriating. It concluded that the case for a bill with such a wide scope had not been made and expressed severe doubts about whether it was even possible to hold such vast quantities of data in a secure way. It also dismissed the home office's estimated cost of £1.8bn as hopelessly unrealistic; Lib Dem peer Lord Marks QC thought it would be closer to £11.1bn.
Most worrying of all, the committee had concerns over whether it was even possible to collect this communications data without collecting the actual content of communications, given the blurred distinction between the two in many modern communication methods. And it repeated many of the criticisms that have made of the current regulatory system, which has done nothing to stem the massive number of requests for access to data made by a total of 600 public authorities. There were 500,000 such requests in 2011 alone.Most worrying of all, the committee had concerns over whether it was even possible to collect this communications data without collecting the actual content of communications, given the blurred distinction between the two in many modern communication methods. And it repeated many of the criticisms that have made of the current regulatory system, which has done nothing to stem the massive number of requests for access to data made by a total of 600 public authorities. There were 500,000 such requests in 2011 alone.
It was unsurprising, but wholly welcome, then, that Clegg sent the unworkable, illiberal and expensive draft bill back to the Home Office drawing board.It was unsurprising, but wholly welcome, then, that Clegg sent the unworkable, illiberal and expensive draft bill back to the Home Office drawing board.
However, Clegg then found himself in an acutely tricky situation. On the one hand he had led the Home Office up the garden path of stating that he believed that some sort of change was necessary. Yet on the other he had a party membership still reeling from the "secret courts" fiasco and who want to see the party leadership stand firm on an issue – civil liberties – which most see as a defining one for the party.However, Clegg then found himself in an acutely tricky situation. On the one hand he had led the Home Office up the garden path of stating that he believed that some sort of change was necessary. Yet on the other he had a party membership still reeling from the "secret courts" fiasco and who want to see the party leadership stand firm on an issue – civil liberties – which most see as a defining one for the party.
There was deep frustration among Liberal Democrats that Clegg initially made the same mistake over this bill as he did with the justice and security bill, where he allowed things to get so far that he felt opposing them was not an option. Party members were broadly willing to forgive Clegg over the tuition fees debacle given that we had just entered government and were still finding our feet, but two years on Liberal Democrats rightly expect the leadership to spot these issues in advance and pre-empt such problems.There was deep frustration among Liberal Democrats that Clegg initially made the same mistake over this bill as he did with the justice and security bill, where he allowed things to get so far that he felt opposing them was not an option. Party members were broadly willing to forgive Clegg over the tuition fees debacle given that we had just entered government and were still finding our feet, but two years on Liberal Democrats rightly expect the leadership to spot these issues in advance and pre-empt such problems.
So making the same errors with the snooper's charter was likely to try the patience of an almost wholly united membership to an intolerable extent. Passing a bill that did anything other than reduce the state's gaze over our private lives would have been met not just with contempt but also with lost members and, more dangerously for Clegg, quite probably questions over his leadership.So making the same errors with the snooper's charter was likely to try the patience of an almost wholly united membership to an intolerable extent. Passing a bill that did anything other than reduce the state's gaze over our private lives would have been met not just with contempt but also with lost members and, more dangerously for Clegg, quite probably questions over his leadership.
If this sounds hyperbolic to some it is because they do not appreciate how Liberal Democrats feel over civil liberties. It is the issue that motivated many members to get involved in politics in the first place, and until now has been seen as a shibboleth; a core part of the definition of what it is to be a Liberal Democrat. A communications data bill that looked anything like its draft version would have threatened that identity, and coming so soon after secret courts could conceivably have threatened Clegg's leadership too. That is why, on this occasion at least, Clegg was willing to echo the sentiments of the late Liberal campaigner, Harry Willcock: "I'm a liberal, and I'm against this sort of thing."If this sounds hyperbolic to some it is because they do not appreciate how Liberal Democrats feel over civil liberties. It is the issue that motivated many members to get involved in politics in the first place, and until now has been seen as a shibboleth; a core part of the definition of what it is to be a Liberal Democrat. A communications data bill that looked anything like its draft version would have threatened that identity, and coming so soon after secret courts could conceivably have threatened Clegg's leadership too. That is why, on this occasion at least, Clegg was willing to echo the sentiments of the late Liberal campaigner, Harry Willcock: "I'm a liberal, and I'm against this sort of thing."
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.