ID Cards – gone
Biometric Passports – no
Database of our kids – gone
Peaceful protest restrictions – out
Plus plenty of other stuff, all good with me (like, for example, an elected House of Lords (partial anyway)) all announced today by Nick Clegg.

I hope they're serious, and i hope they get on with it. This is is exactly what we need, imo. I don't want to live in Orwell's future.

Edit – that's George Orwell, not the duck.

Database of our kids – gone

Leaving less regulated databases in each local authority holding much more sensitive data….

All databases are regulated by Data Protection Act – at least we won't have a detailed profile of every UK person held nationwide.

It was all in the plan!

8)

Now we're talking, all hail the new government, all hail the great repeal bill! Lets make Britain Great again!

Yup, it all sounded pretty positive.
The sceptic in me isn't totally convinced, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt for the moment.

Now they just need to add the Digital Economy Bill to that list!

At least they're saying the right thing, the doing is a different matter. But – they're not likely to do without saying first!

All databases are regulated by Data Protection Act – at least we won't have a detailed profile of every UK person held nationwide.

So I can move across county borders /database lines so that my neglect of my children/abuse/criminality etc is never fully noticed.
FWIW CAF will be nationwide to prevent this and is absolutley essential for the protection of at risk /vulnerable children. Not all databases are bad.
The databases for CAF is highly restricted we need to do writter requests at present to the Data Controller for our organisation. Our database has sensitive info though on every young person in the county aged 13-19.
I agree with the removal of the rest

Yup, it all sounded pretty positive.
The sceptic in me isn't totally convinced, but I'll give them the benefit of doubt for the moment.

Took the words right out of my mouth. It's certainly a good start, though, and demonstrates a much more appealing approach to Government than has been evident over the last few decades.

All sounds good, i am sure the all the criminals and illegal immigrants will be doing kart-wheels! 🙄

I believe that the crimina DNA database in England and Wales will be brought into line with the Scottish system so that your details will only be kept if you are actually convicted of a crime. Not sure if this has been announced but I remember it being mentioned earlier.

Junkyard, while I agree that not all databases are bad I'm puzzled as to why a database containing sensitive information about every young person in the country is needed. I can see an argument for keeping data on some young people (i.e. those at risk) but why everyone?

As for an elected second chamber, I'm not entirely convinced that this a good idea. The fact that the members of the upper house don't have to bow to public opinion is a strengh as they can come up with considered opinions without having to pay any heed to tabloid headlines. They have also done their best to try to curb the excesses of the commons which in the past few years has been no bad thing. As ever with this sort of thing the devil will be in the detail.

The Socialist in me is twitching, and looking on in hope more thaqn expectation. Political reform is the biggy, and I still can't see Turkeys voting for Christmas. Pretty sure the bill if it ever comes will be a free vote, and the majority of MPs are LAbour/Tory and therefore stand to lose out. Therefore its probably dead in the water before it starts IMHO.

Out of interest anyone watch BBC breakfast this am? Disadvantaged kids 7 times less likely to get to university etc etc. System gravitates against them blah blah. Thats the real problem. Basically we need to kick out the jobs for the boys, and get on with getting the best out of the best people. Can't see the Oxbridge/Eton crowd going along with that, sadly.

OT: Berm Bandit – Read Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers for an interesting insight into how opportunity is (virtually) everything when it comes to getting on in life – and it takes several generations and quite a lot of luck and circumstance to change the pattern.

Can't see the Oxbridge/Eton crowd going along with that, sadly.

Agreed.

This coalition government now provides an excellent opportunity for the wealth and privilege gap in this country to get even larger!

Basically we need to kick out the jobs for the boys, and get on with getting the best out of the best people. Can't see the Oxbridge/Eton crowd going along with that, sadly.

Out of interest is that really the case in most industries (or even academia)? I've never felt any benefit of it sadly 😉

And I think it need pointing out yet again that many Labour politicians (particularly the more senior ones) hardly match the romantic image of the working class lad/lass done good…

Nothing like waiting a few weeks or so to see eh?

I can't see how you think the Lib Dems are representing the upper class elite. They specifically undertake to assist the lower paid. I hope they manage it.

Database of our kids – gone

If you are refering to Contact Point I understand that all it does is gleen basic contact information form other LA databases so that when you look a child up you can see who their school/doctor/health visitor/social worker is. I don't think personal information is available through it (not sure about home address though).

It doesn't hold any more information than is already present, but it means a social worker can quickly find the appropriate contacts rather than spend a morning phoning round various governmental bodies to establish this basic info.

Note: access to these databases is tightly restricted – not available to general public.

Pretty sure the bill if it ever comes will be a free vote, and the majority of MPs are LAbour/Tory and therefore stand to lose out. Therefore its probably dead in the water before it starts IMHO.

One of the Lib Dems was saying the other day that the Tories would be whipped on this vote, and so the bill should get passed to hold the referendum on electoral reform.

That doesn't however stop the Tories campaigning against it at the referendum.

Junkyard, while I agree that not all databases are bad I'm puzzled as to why a database containing sensitive information about every young person in the country is needed. I can see an argument for keeping data on some young people (i.e. those at risk) but why everyone?

I see your point but we have Young people move here – usually vulnerable and confused and with issues it takes about 2 months to do a data transfer from the previous area to find out all the issues etc. One example was a guy with learning difficulties moving here from a care home to "live " with his girlfriend and Mum when all they wanted was his benefits. It was not obvious form meeting him thathehad a disability or that he was that vulnerable.
We have the database of everyone anyway – National Insurance, tax for example the better question is what we should do with these /who should have access. I agree with the countrywide database but with only a very limited number of people who can access it in every area for child protection issues. This is pretty much what CAF does – this is more a register of the at risk/vulenrable kids than every kid as it stops the need for a natiowide database whislt still allowing child protection/vulnerability/ TAC issues to be checked nationally. Each Local Authority should have aperson [ orpersons] who can check the dtabase and apaper record kept as to why the check was made. The database then records who hss searched for whom etc.
Abusers are clever and they move area when it looks like they may get found out and then services start again with no knowledge.

Out of interest is that really the case in most industries (or even academia)? I've never felt any benefit of it sadly

And I think it need pointing out yet again that many Labour politicians (particularly the more senior ones) hardly match the romantic image of the working class lad/lass done good…

Well that really is the point clubber. What you are saying is that you can't now get on even there without the privilege by and large. Personally, that’s why I've always like Preser, because he was a warts and all guy and clearly human. If you follow his career he was also vilified for it, presumably for being an upstart, (see the comments just today about him “Being caught playing crochet”.)

Personally I’ve got no problems at all with people making their way in life and doing well for themselves, but I do have a problem with inequality of opportunity. In essence my view is that if you limit your recruitment to a very limited selection, say one family for example, it is inevitable that you will not get the best calibre person available for your position. Expand that out across GB plc, and you can clearly see the problem.

What I would prefer to see is bright kids being fast tracked, less able kids being supported, and a clear recognition, that every individual has potential. It is everyone’s responsibility to help them find it. Anything less and you will find in time that we will be the cheap manufacturing base for the world, on low wages and doing low skill labour. Remember we still talk about 50% university attendance as an aspiration, FFS!!!

Politics is a very different 'industry' to most others though and there is undoubtedly an element of the old boys network there (as far as I can work out it's because politicians aren't really held to account on performance and seems to attract people who still act like kids in the playground…) I don't think you can take that as the norm elsewhere.

Most industries these days are too competitive for people to be able to play the old boys' network game as they need people who can actually perform…

clubber – look at the preponderance of public school and oxbridge graduates in the boardrooms and the preponderance of white men.

Its clear that the old boys network still exists.

In our boardroom we have an English man, Scottish Man, American and a French man.

Its a complete joke.

"Oxbridge/Eton crowd going along with that, sadly. "

I resent the idea that just because you went to Cambridge you automaticaly become a worse person and obviously somehow have gained that place at the expense of the transexual lesbian addopted offspring of an imigrant yorkshire coal miner*.

I was offered a place, I made a lot of good friends at the interviews, and supprise supprise they were all completely normal people**.

*everyone is equal, the transexual lesbian addopted offspring of an imigrant yorkshire coal miner, does in fact have an equal chance of getting in, if they are as academicaly successfull and get through the interviews and assessments.

** the interviews are streamed, first evening/day is the state schools and less elite public schools, second evening/day was the eaton, repton, etc crowd. Guess which group ended up down the pub getting mashed the night before the engineering maths exam 😀

they were all completely normal people

[cough]rubbish[/cough] 😉

clubber – look at the preponderance of public school and oxbridge graduates in the boardrooms and the preponderance of white men.

In our boardroom we have an Italian (at the top), a many Scots (Several coloured) and a few English. YMMV.

Its clear that the old boys network still exists.

Of course to some extent people will prefer the status quo, but I dont think it's quite as insidious as you make out, just a case of fewer go for it through the continued perception that they'd have no chance…

I can't see how you think the Lib Dems are representing the upper class elite.

Other than the fact that Clegg is, of course, a millionaire.

Wonder who amongst you will be saying 'hurrah for the coalition' when the cost of borrowing starts going through the roof.

Wonder who amongst you will be saying 'hurrah for the coalition' when the cost of borrowing starts going through the roof.

Would have happened anyway.

clubber – look at the preponderance of public school and oxbridge graduates in the boardrooms and the preponderance of white men.

Well the 'men' bit of it is far more complex than just 'old boys network' – there's all sorts of issues about women's equality at work plus the 'typical' expectation for mother to either stay at home or work less than full time.

As to 'white', well that's down to socioeconomic issues just as much if not more than the old boys network I'd bet. I suppose that you could argue that they're connected but then as far as my experience suggests, there are plenty of white men in the board rooms who aren't from public school background (maybe this is less true in the big bluechip companies but across the wider range of companies in the country rather than just 'headline' ones) though they are typically white and not from very deprived areas (eg maybe working class background but not from the stereotypical 'sink estates'). Non-white people are disproportionately represented in the poorer areas so that tends to follow.

Ermm.. surely interest rates were so low that they can only go up – it's a one way bet.

There's a big difference in going up as they're bound to do and 'going through the roof'. I just don't trust the tories to run the economy well.

Yes, after all Labour would never induce a debt fuelled consumer led boom and bust whilst presiding over the demise of industry and putting all the eggs in the city of London basket and wasting North Sea gas on electricity production. Nope.

Now they just need to add the Digital Economy Bill to that list!

Quite. Highly pernicious, and utterly wrong-headed. Like way to much NewLab legislation

everyone is equal, the transexual lesbian addopted offspring of an imigrant yorkshire coal miner, does in fact have an equal chance of getting in, if they are as academicaly successfull and get through the interviews and assessments.

Unfortunately due to the inequities of the education system – amazingly you get a better education if you pay £25 k per year for it- they dont actually have an equal chance of passing the exam do they. Most stste schoolds dont do a lot of latin or classics either. It is why the intake of Oxbridge does not represent the % of people in state v private schools. It has amuch higher intake from private schools. In a sense you have the equality of opportunity at the selection point for oxbridge but no equality for the precedding years of education as the fee paying people get a far superior education

Most stste schoolds dont do a lot of latin or classics either.

Well they used to…

boom and bust and the tory government go hand in hand. You know, let the economy manage itself and all that.

to go back to the OP i do find this all very amusing.

One of the reasons for labour not getting elected at the end of the 80s / early 90s was the idea they were soft on crime – a call made very often.

Labour made a deliberate shift to a more authoritarian stance to paint The conservatives as soft on crime and force the conservatives into some very uncomfortable places either supporting authoritarian legislation ( which they mainly did) or being painted as soft on crime.

Now we have the situation where the libertarian wing of the tories can join with the liberals to take a much more liberal stance and outflank labour, capturing what is traditional Labour ground

How long before the tories are being painted as soft on crime by the Murdoch press?

Very funny how this one has played out. Of course the human rights act still sees a Tory party at its authoritarian best – they really do not like anyone to be able to challenge government. That one will be interesting

Seriously, the Malcolm Gladwell book is very enlightening on this subject. For example he shows examples where the quality of schools is shown up to be far more of a class, money in the family and cultural difference than anything else. The intrinsic "quality" of the school can be an illusion. And its an enjoyable read too.

Despite the tory rhetoric pre-election, haven't they quietly dropped the bit about trying to get rid of the Euro Human Rights act and said that the UK one they're proposing will conform to it?

EDIT – quick google confirms it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/19/human-rights-act-human-rights

Perhaps the reason why people are not going to the "top" universities is because they cannot afford to?

I mean, since grants to go to uni have died a death, who can really afford it without significant help from their parents?

The main reason for that is quite simply that there's a limited pot of money and too many people going to university to share it between!

Some years ago we had less people going to uni and could afford to subsidise people from the poorest backgrounds – since then we've dumbed down the universities and manipulated civil service entry requirements to make a degree a prerequisite in posts where 20 years ago a BTEC or HNC was enough, then forced more people to uni on made up courses in pursuit of the mythical 50% goal.

Jobs for the boys? nah, destruction of social mobility through misguided social engineering!