The "post-Dave" era: Telegraph authorises attack on Cameron

Deputy Editor Benedict Brogan spells out just how far the Tory Party has gone towards replacing their leader.

Prompted by Boris Johnson's now-infamous interview with Eddie Mair on The Andrew Marr Show, the Telegraph has run a column today by its Deputy Editor, Benedict Brogan, which explores the possibility that David Cameron's tenure as Tory Party leader is near its end.

Brogan writes:

The threat of plots against [Cameron] has dissipated in recent weeks, in part because even the most irreconcilable MPs accept that defenestrating a prime minister in the middle of an economic crisis would be not just bad for the party, but for the nation. Mentally, though, Tories behave as if Mr Cameron has already been ushered into the departure lounge. Those with ambition are willingly taking part in the beauty contest that has been underway for months. If we added up every MP who has at some point urged a friend to let it be known – “quietly, you understand” – that if the circumstances were right . . . then we would reach 20 without too much difficulty.

The Conservative conversation is no longer about Mr Cameron, but about who will succeed him in a leadership contest now predicated on defeat in 2015, and whether that person will be the one to put Britain back on its feet.

He heavily implies that the Telegraph has intelligence that the 20 MPs required to trigger a leadership contest are already assembled, and are now just waiting for a good time and an emerging alternative. He goes on to consider Boris Johnson, Theresa May and MPs of the 2010 intake as possible challengers for Cameron's crown, and eventually concludes that "unless he can win back his party’s attention, the search for his successor will only intensify".

Coming from such an established right-wing commentator as Brogan, it's not hard to see how his identification of a "post-Dave" state of mind in the party will stick. The implication, too, is that if you are a Tory MP and you're considering a leadership challenge, the Telegraph would like to hear from you.

David Cameron delivering his speech on immigration in Ipswich earlier this week. Photograph: Getty Images

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

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