Reshufflitis breaks out in Westminster

The prospect, however slim, of a cabinet vacancy releases a predictable surge of stored up speculati

So the Crown Prosecution has announced it will declare tomorrow morning whether or not Chris Huhne, Energy Secretary, will be charged in relation to allegations - steadfastly denied - that he persuaded his ex-wife to take speeding points on his behalf.

Huhne's statements on this have been unambiguous and robust, so if it turns out the CPS thinks there is a case to pursue he will be in trouble. A prosecution doesn't necessarily mean the man is guilty - he has the right to remain innocent until proven otherwise.

But the noises coming out of Downing Street and Lib Dem high command suggest a sword would quickly be offered for the Energy Secretary to fall upon. He could always use the old line of not wanting the whole business to be a distraction for the government, a position wholly consistent with protestations of innocence.

And indeed the CPS might well say there is insufficient evidence and Huhne can get on with his business (although there is no doubt he has been politically damaged by the accusations either way).

One reason why tomorrow's announcement is anticipated with inordinate excitement in Westminster is the high levels of pent up reshuffle energy. David Cameron has famously avoided swapping ministers between portfolios in the restless way that was Tony Blair's preferred management style. There were some movements and promotions when Liam Fox resigned last year but it was hardly a great re-ordering of the pack. There are good reasons why Cameron hates reshuffles. He wants ministers to actually master their briefs, which takes time. And he heads a coalition, which means a delicate balance of Lib Dems and Tories has to be maintained.

If Huhne has to go - and this is, I hasten to add, veering off a little prematurely into the realms of speculation - a vacancy would be created for David Laws to return to the cabinet, although it is uncertain he would want the Energy portfolio. There has been a fair amonunt of speculation that a lower ranking Lib Dem might up up for elevation. Edward Davey at the Business Department is often tipped for promotion.

But there is a feeling around government that it might, at last, be time for a more ambitious round of musical chairs. Crucially, anxiety about the passage and presentation of health reforms in Downing Street is approaching the status of panic. There is very little confidence left in Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, to explain to people what exactly it is he means to do to the NHS, let alone persuade them it is a good idea. Might a forced reshuffle provide an opportunity to put the Department of Health portfolio into a pair of hands somewhat safer than Lansley's have proved to be?

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former 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