UK Switches Off £235M Child Database 198
wdef writes "The UK's controversial ContactPoint database has actually been switched off! It's rare that we hear anything this sensible from government about an expensive, privacy-destroying, 'think of the children' solution: 'The government argued the system was disproportionate to the problem, so is looking at developing other solutions.' Perhaps the UK coalition government really is winding back Big Brother, as they had promised to do? Does seem unlikely."
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:1, Insightful)
Civil liberties?
I thought they were dismantling Labour's police state because the country is broke and the HAVE to.
Why does it seem unlikely? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bizarre though it may seem, some people get into politics to improve society.
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:5, Insightful)
The coalition is unpopular with a lot of Liberal Democrat voters (not sure what they'd prefer - probably for the LibDems to continue to be completely ineffectual, rather than to get at least some of their policies passed) and is in danger of a back-bench rebellion by the LibDem MPs who'd rather pander to popular opinion than get on with running the country.
Yes, correct. but I don't see the MPs doing anything about it because they all did vote to join the coalition.
They need to do some things about civil liberties to keep these people on side, and cancelling existing programs is one of the few things that won't alienate Conservative back benchers, who are typically against government spending of any kind.
Yes the conservatives by nature do want to cut spending. However, they are also the most 'liberal' (small l) party in parliament By this I mean they are against an Orwellian state. This is fundamentally different to the stance taken by Labour. Hence, scrapping ID cards, the introduction of the great repeals bill where they are asking the public which legislation they want scrapped, and scrapping crazy data bases.
So far, the coalition seems to be the best government the UK has had while I've been alive (although, to be fair, that's not exactly hard). Unfortunately, it's not clear how long it will manage to stay together.
Yes defiantly, they seem to be making sensible decisions most of the time. I think it will stay together for the full term, firstly because they are going to change the rules so that 55% of the MPs need to vote to for a dissolution. However no party can muster 55% of the votes in this parliament and secondly because Nick and Dave _believe_ they are doing the best thing for the country.
Also is it me or since the last government left office, have the stories on slashdot about the UK been positive. With the last government the stories were all about ID cards, locking people up for 90 days with no reason, random crazy terror legislation etc.. and now it is all about our freedoms and how the goverment is going to cut up this state from 1984.
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Lib-Dems had chose to form a coalition with Labour instead, it would have been most loudly objected to by natural Conservative supporters, who voted Liberal Democrat where their own candidate was a no-hoper. Sure, the right of the party wouldn't have been too pleased with the coalition but it would have been the Tory supporters, with their massive sense of entitlement that would be really annoyed.
Fundamentally it's a problem with the first past the post voting system, not some wide generalisation about party supporters of one side or another.
If the promise to have a referendum on Alternative Voting is delivered upon, and the electorate are intelligent enough to vote it in, then it will solve this predicament. It will make it always advantageous to vote for the party(s) you prefer, rather than voting tactically for a different party in the hope of keeping the villain of choice out.
Big gov vs small gov (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps the UK coalition government really is winding back Big Brother, as they had promised to do? Does seem unlikely
Yeah, right. Not that Cameron and Clegg are particularly bad for the country; but the situation right now is what dictates what the government does - Labour would have done exactly the same, give or take a few details. It makes no real difference.
But in my experience, when they talk about cutting back "big government" or "curbing the nanny state", what they mean is that they want to take power away from elected bodies who are in principle directly responsible to the people, and transfer it to some that are neither elected nor accountable. So we have less "nanny state" (ie. governmental bodies open to scrutiny under the FOIA) and more "private initiative" (ie. companies, which are not covered by the FOIA, and are governed by an impenetrable network of financial interests - who knows, perhaps they are people like Rupert Murdoch and Mohamed al Fayed, both of whom enjoy a certain notoriety in UK)
Being a democratically minded person myself, I don't really understand those that keep repeating the mantra about "Nanny State" and "Big Government". I suspect they are either the ones that would benefit directly from no being subjected to too much scrutiny, or just very, very naive.
Big Brother Toys == Much Moolah (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:2, Insightful)
To any independently minded person, it stinks of gerrymandering to change the rules of democracy in order to keep yourself in power. Like some third world dictatorship.
Any change to the rules is bound to favour one group over another, and could therefore be called gerrymandering. This change introduces a little damping or hysteresis into the system which otherwise could be unpleasantly unstable, If the Commons split 50/50, any MP has the power to bring down the government. Whether 5% is the right amount is debatable, but giving the system a little damping is, in my opinion, good engineering not gerrymandering.
The change makes, as is its intention, coalitions more possible. That, in my opinion, is a goof thing. I am fed up with the rush-to-the-left, rush-to-the-right swings that the current system (particularly FPTP voting) brings. A coalition can be a little to the left, a little to the right. Any driver will know that sharp changes in the steering occur only when the system is out of control or in danger of becoming so.Good driving is constant small adjustments - and so is good governing.
Good riddance (Score:4, Insightful)
As I recall, this database was supposedly super secure, comprehensive, etc. and a great way to aggregate all sorts of very sensitive information in one spot so all sorts of unrelated government agencies could access it. Yup, so secure that the politicians put in a specific provision allowing the families of politicians, celebrities, etc. to opt out of it, while the rest of the public were required to participate. Allegedly an audit trail would be kept re: accesses records, records but considering the somewhat less-than-stellar performance of most governments re: privacy protection, internal auditing, etc. it's probably for the best for this system to be scrapped and for CapGemini to go home.
Re:Big gov vs small gov (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, would that be the labour government that just finished putting the database in? How does that make any sense?
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:5, Insightful)
How have they sold off the NHS?
I've been hearing this from bitter labour voters since before the election and I have yet to hear about the UK scrapping the NHS in favour of the US insurance model, or any other radically right-wing policies.
Now, it's entirely possible that I missed it, as I emigrated to australia a month or so before the election, but to me all this Tory hatred I hear is just bitterness and fear-mongering from the section of the population that relied too heavily on labour handouts in the last parliament.
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well they are scrapping PCTs and replacing them with private companies, for one thing. It's just the thin end of the wedge. Once commissioning is in private hands, the government can shrug its shoulders to criticism and say there's nothing they can do about it.
Even assuming the best case (that the PCT replacements are *just* as efficient, it will cost millions over the next few years just to change everything over. Not that the new companies will be more efficient, of course. For all the fuss about 'beurocracy' now, can you imagine how much more there will be when one PCT is replaced by ten different organisations, all with their own chief executives, HR, etc etc? And of course, they will have to make profits, unlike the PCTs now.
No, what we're witnessing is the start of the destruction of the NHS, and organisation which, it should be remembered, is the most efficient healthcare system in the world (http://www.hc2d.co.uk/content.php?contentId=15254). It was a disaster under the last Tory government, and they seem set to mess it up again.
By the way, I'm no fan of New Labour either, but at least they prioritised healthcare. It's nothing to do with handouts and benefits.
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have yet to hear about the UK scrapping the NHS in favour of the US insurance model
Everything happens in stages. You need to pay [telegraph.co.uk] more attention [bbc.co.uk]. In brief: private outsourcing under the guise of choice. Fire people then re-hire them at a lower level as private contractors but at higher wage (in the short term, with no job security or concomitant organisational familiarity and loyalty). See also British Rail.
bitterness and fear-mongering from the section of the population that relied too heavily on labour handouts in the last parliament.
Are you seriously arguing that New Labour was the Party for the mythical Daily Hate Benefit Scrounger, possibly the least expensive source of wastage the government has to deal with?
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
+5 Actually Good Car Analogy
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which they did, without any doubt at all
Yes, they spent too much on unnecessary war, Trident, public-private partnerships, mid-level civil service bureaucracy, a tax system to favour offshoring and making it impossible for bankers to fail. The Tories are responding by cutting back on the social welfare system and privatising the NHS.
Which she did, I'm sorry if your sensibilities were offended, but she unloaded some deeply unprofitable industry from the state
Like British Gas? British Telecom? British Rail? Oh, that's right, what you actually meant is that some coal mines were making a loss, but you felt the need to generalise this to nationalised British industry in general.
Sorry, WTF? After the Iraq fiasco you're saying the Tories will invent enemies!?!?!!!
Pay more attention to history. After the Vietnam fiasco... after the Falklands fiasco... after the Cold War fiasco... after the Iraq (part 1) fiasco... after the Afghanistan fiasco...
People have already forgotten when the Liberal Democrats were the Party of "no war!" over Iraq. Notice the drastic conditions of coalition relating to Iraq? Thought not.
I was going to say that you're severely overestimating the public's ability to remember, but I think you're merely demonstrating the public.
Re:Spending money.... (Score:1, Insightful)
How can it cost GBP 41 million per annum to operate a database? ...never mind spending GBP 235 million just to to set it up. Judging from the Wikipedia article this thing is a pretty normal database. I'm sure there's an awfully good reason for the price tag, training personnel etc. but even then I'm having a hard time seeing how that GBP 235 million price tag came into being, so what am I missing here?
You obviously haven't read this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/rorycellanjones/2010/07/the_105m_website.html
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
No we cannot. The voters want:
1) Good education, health, well equipped armed forces, good infrastructure, a policeman on every street corner state subsidies to protect jobs (especially in marginal constituencies!), etc.
2) Low taxes
3) The elderly looked after, good state pensions, etc.
4) No immigration to balance out the ageing demographics
5) Civil liberties, fair trials, an end to the surveillance society
6) The government to monitor and stop everyone who MIGHT be a terrorist, paedophile or whatever
7) No interfering nanny state
8) The government to prevent every domestic crime and fix every dysfunctional family.
Brown managed the financial side of this with off balance sheet financing [moneyterms.co.uk] in the form of PFI,PPP and various other ways of hidden borrowing from the private sector, but the price for that has started materialising with the recession.
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm ... the UK is no longer IN Iraq - what would the demands be?
Well, let's look through the coalition document [cabinetoffice.gov.uk] to see what the main plans relating to war are:
We will take forward our shared resolve to safeguard the UK’s national security and support our Armed Forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Notice the lack of, "We consider that the war in Iraq was wrong and we will implement policies to stop us going into another such war"? Notice the very opposite of, "Afghanistan is another Iraq and we need to withdraw"?
There is no acknowledgement whatever that Iraq was, to the pre-government LDs, one of the most odious aspects of the Labour government. There is no indication that the (lack of) policy and law which allowed Iraq to happen needs fixing. Government doesn't fight wars, but it does send troops to war, so one of the LD's primary responsibilities would be to stop that sort of thing from happening again.
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
AV provides slightly more fair rules, but not enough. To show this most clearly, imagine there are only two parties, and one of the parties gets 50% + 1 of every single constituency. Then half the voters' votes are wasted. A much more fair outcome would give half the seats to the second party, and for that you'll need STV or party list. The Liberal Democrats wanted AV+, which is a combination of AV and party list wherein a party that gets too few constituency seats is awarded top-up seats to compensate. However, AV+ lost in the compromise because the Conservatives don't want proportional representation, and thus they arrived at plain old AV. As Australia shows, it's not enough: Australia uses AV and has a two plus a half party system (Labor on the one hand and National plus Liberal on the other), even with the Senate, which uses proper PR, to counterbalance it.
But if the AV referendum passes, perhaps it will lead to another about true PR. On the other hand, it could also become a reform without reform, discouraging voters and parties from considering better systems because "we already tried that and it didn't help".
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:4, Insightful)
No-one really wants AV, it won't pass, and, "we already asked the public about voting reform but they didn't want it".
Like the US, we are now ideologically a one Party state. It's enough to make me want Soviet democracy. The guaranteed job, housing, and higher education for the willing are icing on the cake.
Re:It is a Perverted Society that we Live In (Score:4, Insightful)
"abuse" != "exposure to sex"
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:4, Insightful)
You say no one wants it, but both Labour and the Liberals use it for internal leadership elections. So they acknowledge it's fairness. Labour and Cons don't want it for General Elections because it gives more of a chance to smaller parties than does FPTP.
If it's properly explained to the electorate, they should want it, because it gives them the opportunity to better express their preferences. If it doesn't pass it'll come down to ignorance and small c conservatism.
Of course many would prefer proportional representation to AV. But AV is a good compromise. It cuts out tactical voting, allows smaller parties more of a chance, but still delivers a decisive mandate to the winning party.
Re:Of course they are, for now... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course many would prefer proportional representation to AV. But AV is a good compromise. It cuts out tactical voting
Erm, no. Even assuming that people have an interest in ranking alternatives and regard a second choice as a choice at all - perhaps acceptable when you're talking about a close-knit system of high familiarities like MP leadership elections, but not for general elections - all it means is that tactics have to be more complex.
Consider the following outcome (and please correct me if I'm misunderstanding!):
49% vote 1st choice: A, 2nd choice: 20% B, 20% C, 9% D
48% vote 1st choice: B, 2nd choice: A
2% vote 1st choice: C, 2nd choice: B
1% vote 1st choice: D, 2nd choice: B
So party A has the most first choice votes, and party A has the most second choice votes. But party B gets in. Instead of making 49% of people completely happy and 48% slightly happy, you're making 48% completely happy and 33% slightly happy. Why are you giving the final say to the second choice of those who have voted for the least popular candidates?
Re:They discovered... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They discovered... (Score:2, Insightful)
All governments run at this level of efficiency, or worse. If the private sector can do something for a $1,000,000 then government can do the same thing for $10,000,000+.
FWIW, The UK government pays about twice as much in subsidies to various private rail companies as it paid to the single state owned, centralized British Rail before the miracle of efficiency called privatisation.