PMQs review: Cameron turns Brown and Miliband turns red

Cameron is sounding ever more like Gordon Brown, while Miliband is turning left.

As the economy continues to struggle, David Cameron is sounding ever more like his predecessor. Asked by Ed Miliband at today's PMQs to respond to growth of just 0.5 per cent in the last 12 months, Cameron replied that any growth should be welcomed amid the "global storm in the world economy". The man who once mocked Gordon Brown for blaming "global conditions" for weak growth now steals his lines.

Miliband went on to ask his favourite question: does the Prime Minister know how many businesses have been helped by the [insert failing growth policy]? In the case of the Business Growth Fund, which has five offices and 50 staff, the answer was just two. From there, as Miliband raised the subject of FTSE 100 directors' pay, the exchanges descended into a noisy squabble over who had taxed the rich the most, over who had been meanest to the bankers.

Cameron pointed to the rise in capital gains tax, the new levy on non-domiciles and the tax deal agred with Switzerland. Miliband reminded him that it was the last Labour government that introduced the 50p tax rate, which the Tories want to abolish. His full-throated support for the top rate (the fourth highest in the world) will raise eyebrows in Westminster but never forget that, as poll after poll has confirmed, most voters favour it.

That wasn't the only moment when Ed sounded redder than he has for some time. For the first time, he echoed the language of the St Paul's protesters, accusing Cameron of always favouring the 1 per cent over "the 99 per cent". It was further evidence that the Labour leader believes the political spectrum is shifting leftwards. If he is right (as we must hope is), the political rewards could be great.

It was left to Alistair Darling to sound a sombre note and remind the House that the Greek crisis is entering its terrifying endgame. As he urged Cameron to persuade the G20 to produce more details on the alarmingly vague rescue package, events in Westminster suddenly felt a lot smaller.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496