“I will agree to take a DWP Incapacity Benefit lie detector test but only if 10 members of the Cabinet including Blair and Blunkett will do the same at a televised event.”

Go on - you know it makes sense

via Chicken Yoghurt.

In recent weeks I’ve also been rather remiss in keeping up with the madness that John Hemming and the Birmingham Liberal Democrats - not something I need worry about two much as Political Hack has been doing his usual sterling job of keeping up with the action which includes, in no particular order:

Sacking Talib Hussain, the only Asian cabinet member of Birmingham City Council for preferring to stick with fiscal probity rather bung a political expedient sum of cash to a Bangladeshi organisation who failed to produce any accounts.

This same councillor resigning the Lib Dem whip to become an independent, although its speculated he may shortly be heading over to the Lib Dems erstwhile ‘mates’ come election-time - RESPECT - and their motley band of assorted Kashmiri separatists.

Screwing up or delaying, unnecessarily, everything from plans for a new Central Library in Birmingham, to the Metro extension through Birmingham City Centre to the relocation of the Royal College of Organists to Brum - this latter issue being one in which Hemming has previous form having been hauled off to the Standards Board for leaking confidential information about their proposed move to Brum to him drinking buddy at the Birmingham Post.

The suspension of the Lib Dems Perry Barr and Ladywood branch by the regional party - presumably in anticipation of the customary purge of Talib Hussain’s supporters.

Meanwhile, Hemming - ever the self-publicist - has been voting for himself in the News of the Screws’ very own ‘Love Rat of the Year’ competition - which has to be about as sad as it can possibly get short of applying for a place on next year’s ‘Celebrity Love Island’.

However, its his latest publicity stunt - reporting Gordon Brown to the Information Commissioner’s office for refusing to release confidential data used in Treasury economic models which has particularly draw my attention for a couple of reasons.

As was well documented during his failed attempt to force the government to change the postal voting system via judicial review prior to the general election, John’s basic grasp of law is pretty loose at the best of times - as noted here and here, where I basically told him in advance of his application for judicial review being heard not only that it would fail but also why, being right on both counts.

This time around Hemming has managed to issue a press release about his pitiful challenge to the Chancellor in which he states:

“John Hemming MP, a computer specialist, has hacked in to the Treasury’s Economic Modelling Computer System. He has been told, however, that the calculations for the Budget are secret. He has therefore taken the Chancellor to the Secrets Watchdog (Information Commissioner) to get him to reveal his workings.”

A statement which clearly implies that he has somehow gained unauthorised access to the Treasury’s economic modelling system - which from what I can tell runs on Borland’s Interbase database system unless things have changed in the last couple of years - a statement which if actually true would bring Hemming within the provisions of this:

1.-(1) A person is guilty of an offence if-

1. he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer;
2. the access he intends to secure is unauthorised; and
3. he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case.

(2) The intent a person has to have to commit an offence under this section need not be directed at-

1. any particular program or data;
2. a program or data of any particular kind; or
3. a program or data held in any particular computer.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.

This being the relevant section of the 1990 Computer Misuse Act which deals with hacking to obtain unauthorised access to a computer system - actually modifying data having gained unauthorised access or gaining access with a view to committing further offences carrys with it a penalty of up to five years imprisonment and the last time I looked, I donlt recall parliamentary privilege covering criminal offences committed while an MP.

So, it would seem we have two possible scenarios here for starters - when John states that he ‘hacked’ into the Treasury system, he must either be:

a) Bullshitting like mad in order to make the story sound much more attractive than it really is, or

b) Making a public confession of a criminal offence which carrys a basic sentence of up to six months imprisonment.

Either way, this seems something that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards might wish to enquire into, let alone the technical staff who manage Parliament’s IT network.

As for Hemming ‘complaint’ to the Information Commissioner, it true Parliamentary style I think it worth referring him to the text of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, specifically section 29(1) which states:

29. - (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-

(a) the economic interests of the United Kingdom or of any part of the United Kingdom, or

(b) the financial interests of any administration in the United Kingdom, as defined by section 28(2).

Now, I’m no economist but even I can see that releasing the input data and assumptions John is requesting could have a significant prejudical effect on the economic interests of the UK, particularly in relation to exchange rates, currency markets and trading on the Stock Exchange, particular the ‘futures’ market - all of which John should well know as on of his key business interests in share-trading software.

John may well be the scrupulous kind of fellow for whom such information is of primarily academic and political interest but others with less in the way of scruples would no doubt see this data rather more in terms of providing a possible competative edge in the markets - explicit knowledge of an assumption on, say, exchange rates, interest rates or currency supply, used in drawing up the budget could, in the hands of an expert trader, allow them to play the market to their own massive advantage.

One also has to consider that with access to the Treasury’s economic modelling software, the data fed to it as inputs and its outputs, of course, one might well be in a position to extrapolate what goes in-between input and output - the precise nature of models being used within the software. Again, what currency speculator or volume trader wouldn’t give their right arm for access to those exact models and to be able to run their economic simulations using the Treasury’s own model.

As should be obvious by now, the answer to John’s request was ‘no’ and will stay ‘no’ - not even the Information Commissioner will overrule the Treasury when the British economy is at stake.

And finally…

Hemming is seemingly under pressure to step down as chair of Birmingham Strategic Partnership - a story on which I’m sure Poltical Hack may have some thoughts in due course.

Never a dull moment, eh?

UPDATE: Under a bit of mild cross-examination, Hemming has now gone on to state that his claim to have ‘hacked’ a Treasury computer system is, as he describes it, ‘hyperbole’ - or, at least that’s what I think he’s saying? Oh fuck it, this is what he’s actually said, work it out for yourself:

“Oddly enough some Hacking is legal. Hence a “programming exploit” can be entirely legal. It can also be Hyperbole. It was, however, not illegal.”

Which, when translated into English seems to suggest that he’s basically bullshitting in the hope of gaining more undeserved publicity.

If John’s so keen on ‘ethical hacking’ as it appear, perhaps he’d like to do a ‘job’ on the computers over at his old mates, the Phoenix Consortium’s offices and find out just what happened to all the fucking money… at least that would serve some sort of useful purpose.

Not given much of a mention to Justin over at Chicken Yoghurt of late, which is most remiss of me as he is consitently one of the best bloggers on the UK scene.

To redress matters, therefore, I should point you all in the direction of this piece on the ‘Minister of Lurve’s’ [that’s Blunkett, if you don’t know already] plans for welfare reform which can be summed up succintly as:

“Go out and get a job, you workshy lazy bastard!”

With his inimitable timing, Blunkett manages to hold forth on the future of welfare benefits at around the same time as it emerges that a combination of benefit fraud and departmental incompetence is costing the taxpayer £3 billion a year, thereby proving his timing to be as good as it ever was during his affair with Kimberley Quinn:

“You want me to do what? Withdraw? What makes you think a member of the Cabinet would ever do a thing like that?

Look, Kimberley. We took a collective decision to go in and having made that decision we have a duty to see things through right to the end. The British people would expect nothing less from a member of its government…”

Justin notes one or two rather scary developments, particularly a piece in the Telegraph which suggests that the DWP might use ‘lie detectors’ to assess whether telephone callers may be intending to commit fraud, which elicited this bizarre comment from a Mr Unknown Spokesman of the DWP:

“The [lie detector] idea is that we nip fraud right in the bud. Before you make your fraudulent claim, we will have detected that you are lying and the claim will not go any further.”

Which presumably means that as the article also quotes a American expert in voice stress analysis technology as commenting about current equipment that - “you could have obtained better results by flipping a coin” - suggests that the DWP think they’ll be getting their kit direct from ‘Q’ division and that Blunkett’s unlikely to be phoning the office too often if it is installed.

In fact, based on their apparent confidence in this technology I fully expect an announcement in the not too distant future that the DWP will also be introducing Laser Nose-length Analysis into one-to-one interviews with claimants as everyone knows that your nose grows if you tell a lie - at least such a system will be no less reliable than a lie detector.

I suppose we should only be grateful he hasn’t mentioned ID cards as well - although you have to suspect that’s where he’s slowly heading when starts talking about the Housing Benefit system being a mess ven though the real problem is pretty simple.

1. The Tories deregulated the rental property market and removed fair rent controls.

2, The Tories then found out the hard way that when you do that and you sell off council housing then, lo and behold, rents spiral upwards which increases the bill for housing benefit.

3. The Tories then introduce complex rules about only paying a ‘fair market rent’ irrespective of the actual rent that landlords are charging, requiring individual assessments of the property involved by a housing officer in each and every claim that’s made.

Can anyone else spot the common denominator here?

To cap this rant off, its worth noting Chris’s excellent comparison between Blunkett’s ‘principles of welfare reform’ and the principles outlined in the Beveridge report which led to the creation of the welfare state - the more things change, the more things stay the same, eh.

“The BBC wants to increase the licence fee by 2.3% above inflation to boost its programmes and digital services” - says, not unsurprisingly, BBC Online before swimming headlong into the waters of disingenuity by adding:

“If the government accepts the BBC’s proposal, the fee would rise by £3.14 per year until 2013, not including inflation. The current fee is £126.50.”

Note the interesting spin in both statements; the licence will increase by a stated figure [2.3% which equals, supposedly, a mere £3.14 a year]… errrmmm, plus inflation, not that we want to make too much of that last bit.

Look more closely, however, and you find that the figure of £3.14 being quoted is actually an average increase over and above inflation and that, as is the case in compound interest calculations, the actual yearly increase will go up year on year as the principle figure to which the 2.3% rise is applied - the actual cost of the licence fee itself, increases each year…

And then there’s the list matter of this 2.3% increase being applied on top of inflation - what’s called in the trade a ‘Retail Price Index’ underpin the figure for which is, by tradition, taken from the November RPI figure that is also used by government for its calculations for annual increases in welfare benefits rate and state pensions, amongst other things.

All of which, as the Media Guardian demonstrates, means that any figures quoted for the actual rises the public will face can, at this stage, only be guesswork.

Interestingly both the BBC’s quoted figures [a rise to £150.50 by 2013] and the Guardian’s [up to £176.46 by 2013) are incorrect. For some reason the BBC seem to think that inflation, as measured by the RPI, will be running at a mere 0.5% between 2007 and 2013, a figure which would, no doubt, delight the Chancellor (whoever it is by then) and the Bank of England but which I’m sure anyone would concede is unrealistic to say the least. Meanwhile the dear old Graun has just its numbers entirely wrong and applied an inflation rate of 3.1% per annum while citing the Bank of England’s 2.5% target.

[Calculated correctly using the Bank of England target rate, the actual licence fee by 2013 works out to be 170.24, and average annual increase of just short of £7 per year - £6.96 for precision freaks and economists give or take any rounding errors along the way]

I think the obvious conclusion to begin with here is that, when it comes to upping the licence fee, the BBC speaks ‘with forked tongue’ and fingers firmly crossed behind their backs - let’s just hope that someone on the Commons select committee is rather better at maths than they are.

In fact, lets do a little more than hope as a quick scan of the Parliament website reveals that the members of the Culture, Media & Sport select committee are:

Labour: Janet Anderson, Paul Farrelly, Mike Hall, Alan Keen, Rosemary McKenna, Helen Southworth

Tory: John Whittingdale (Chair), Nigel Evans, Tim Yeo

Lib Dem: Adrian Sanders

Plaid Cymru: Adam Price

The other interesting point about the Beeb’s own coverage of its request for more money is that when it says, in a report filed at 10:19am today, that “The corporation is to present its bid for the next licence fee settlement to a House of Commons select committee”, what it neglects to mention is this:

“The Culture, Media and Sport Committee are considering the following inquiries:

- BBC Report and Accounts 2004-05
- Analogue Switch-Off
- London Olympics 2012

The Committee will be taking oral evidence from the BBC on Tuesday 11 October at 11.00am in the Grimond Room, Portcullis House on the BBC Report and Accounts for 2004-05.”

Might be worth a look at the Parliament channel to see if this select committee has been covered, otherwise the minutes of the session should appear here at some point - not sure if turnaround is as quick as Hansard.

How else can one account for an article in today’s Grauniad in which Polly Toynbee starts out by castigating the Tories:

First remember those toxic Tory posters. “It’s not racist to want to control immigration” was, in true BNP style, plastered across areas with large ethnic minorities. Recall the Tory manifesto pledge to withdraw from the 1951 UN refugee convention and cap the number of refugees allowed in regardless of their plight.

Before going to argue that:

But the new skills advisory body should at least forbid importation of semi-skilled workers unless employers have done everything imaginable to recruit and train locally; even then they should pay a fee towards training.

She can try all she likes to dress up her arguments in low-grade economics and faux socialism but her argument comes down to one thing - limit immigration because Johnny Foreigner is coming here and taking all our [low-paid] jobs.

Funny, where have I heard that one before?

Axiom #9: Wages are set by the supply and demand for labour, so immigration drives down wages by increasing supply.

Establishment economists have this odd quirk: they teach all day that the price of any given commodity is determined by its supply and demand, and then they conveniently forget this when it comes to labour. Why? Because obviously the establishment wants labour to be as cheap as possible. It is in the interest of the average British worker to minimise the supply and maximise the demand for his labour. The BNP will not allow immigration to Britain and will implement the orderly repatriation of past immigrants.

British National Party - General Election Manifesto 2005

And, of course…

7 We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.

8 Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

Nazi Party Manifesto - 1932/3

Ein Volk. Ein Reich. Eh, Polly?

Hat Tip: Tim Worstall - who makes much the same point if a little less stridently.

Update: Chris at Stumbling and Mumbling takes up Tim’s invitation to comment and nails down the lid on Polly’s arguments with style.

All in all, not a bad morning’s work.

Update: It seems both Owen Barder and New Economist think my throwaway ‘Ein Volk. Ein Reich.’ comment a little over the top and a tad on the harsh side.

In response to both I should note a couple of things. First I don’t particular consider Toynbee a racist nor I am really suggesting that with my comments. Aside from her economic illiteracy, which everyone cited here has noted, she has a marked tendency not to think through their comments fully, her article here being a case in point as it finds here lambasting the Tories for the thinly veiled prejudice of their pre-election stance on immigration and noting its similarities with BNP policy before going on to argue a case on economic migration straight out the BNP’s own manifesto - the extract from the Nazi Manifesto was simply to illustrate Tim’s point about putting the ‘National’ in ‘National Socialist’.

The other thing to note here is that the one thing I’m certainly not is an economist - I can work my way quite happily through the basics and can spot a fair bit of obvious economic stupidity - but otherwise I tend to let folks like Tim and Chris, who do really know their stuff, to that kind of thing.

What I am, however, by education is a psychologist (not practicing and not a therapist, I might note, so if you have problems then take ‘em elsewhere) and I certainly do understand pretty well the value that a sudden shock to the sensibilities can have if applied with sufficient force.

I dare say Polly, in holding forth on immigration, probably had no idea how closely her thoughts mirror current BNP policy nor the economic policies of pre-war Nazi Germany. Who knows, with a bit of luck this, now, five way exchange may have filtered back to her and, with a bit of luck, the realisation that there are nasty undercurrents to her comments may prove a mildly chastening experience. It’s almost certainly too much to hope she might actually read this and think to herself ‘oooooh shit!’ but we can live in hope.

Now if only the econmonist can get her take a few basic classes in that subject then things will really be on the up.