Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Government Privacy Politics

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg 'Kills' Snoopers Charter 47

Posted by timothy
from the just-glancing dept.
judgecorp writes "The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has effectively 'killed' the Communications Data Bill which would have required service providers to share personal communications data with the police. Clegg has withdrawn the support of the Liberal Democrat Party (part of the Coalition in power in the UK) from the so-called 'Snooper's Charter.' The announcement is timed to block the measure from the Queen's Speech on 8 May, which introduces the next programme of planned legislation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg 'Kills' Snoopers Charter

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Well, I never (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, 2013 @09:05AM (#43545235)

    Lilly livered little Cleggy has actually some use.

    Don't count your chickens yet: Clegg has said he'll withdraw support. This is the guy who signed a pledge not to increase tuition fees and then almost as soon as the coalition had been formed backed them being roughly tripled.

  • Re:Well, I never (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, 2013 @09:20AM (#43545327)

    Lilly livered little Cleggy has actually some use.

    Don't count your chickens yet: Clegg has said he'll withdraw support. This is the guy who signed a pledge not to increase tuition fees and then almost as soon as the coalition had been formed backed them being roughly tripled.

    "backed" is a bit strong and he didn't 'sign a pledge', it was in their Manifesto which may be splitting hairs, but let's not forget that was if his party got in sole power. They didn't. They had to compromise. He was naive, the coalition is not 50/50. It's more like 90/10 in favour of the other party (for those of non-UK and who care). What he didn't do was defy the rise after the fact (much).

    Now that the election is only a couple of years away and the fixed term parliament (that was bought in) is pretty much likely to go the distance, Nick Clegg and the LibDems don't have anything (more) to lose and a lot to gain.

    I think you will see more of this as we get nearer the election. I don't particularly have string feelings for Nick Clegg but by Christ, theirs was the only party to care about our deomcratci system enough to try to push much needed Lords Reform - scuppered by their coalition partners, also get rid of the ridiculous first-past-the-post voting system (yes AV was a silly compromise which in the end they didn't get either) again scuppered by their coaltion partners they give a damn about Freedoms of Joe Public and still push for Human Rights for instance, the Blue party would have those excised from statute as soon as look at you and the Red party would put us under evem more surveillance and government scrutiny on our every day lives.

    Sorry but most of the adult population without kids (or kids past university age) simply don't give a shit about tuition fees.

    If you look past the stupid media portrayals of the lib dems (who are not all Nick Clegg) you'll see they have a good record for the the little person.

  • New law (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Enigmafan (263737) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @09:24AM (#43545375)

    And in a few months a new law will be proposed: 'The anti-terrorist and anti-child porn law for public protection', that requires ISP's to do exactly the same.

  • Re:Well, I never (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RadioElectric (1060098) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @10:43AM (#43546045)
    The new system is "a fairer alternative" to the previous system for people on low incomes however. The number of people from the lowest economic stratum applying to university has increased under the new system. One of the major issues it has introduced, claims that young people can "no longer afford to go to university", is an atrocious lie that will cause more harm than the system it is attempting to attack.

    I have problems with how the change in funding arrangements will affect universities structurally (further marketisation) but to the students it is arguably a better deal. The only case I am aware of where it does cause problems is where students are taking a second undergraduate degree (which the state is not obliged to give them a cushy loan for).
  • Re:Well, I never (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rageaholic (728509) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @12:27PM (#43547037)
    Yes, they could have used their influence to stop pretty much everything the Tories have done. And if they had the coalition would have fallen apart, and no one would have taken them seriously as a party they could have done business with in the future. They made some bad decisions, especially in the beginning but as the minority partner in the coalition I think they have actually done pretty well. Of course I'd rather have seen them let the Tories form a minority government then screw them at every turn. But they really wanted to get their electoral reform ideas through.
  • Re:Well, I never (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, 2013 @12:44PM (#43547229)

    The pledge was written by the NUS. Not the Liberal Democrats.

    I doubt they were too concerned with the wording for what was, in effect, a PR stunt that was most likely sprung on them.

    They're manifesto is what they should be held to.

    I'm not forgiving the hypocrisy of they're actions, but you must recognise that life in the UK would be a lot worse right now if not fopr their influence.

    p.s. If you do choose to reply to this, please don't pressume you know how I vote.

I am the wandering glitch -- catch me if you can.

Working...