Osborne surfaces as Duncan Smith petition passes 100,000 signatures

A rare speech from the submarine Chancellor as more than 118,000 people challenge his cabinet colleague to live on £53 a week.

With the government under fire on welfare, the submarine Chancellor has surfaced. George Osborne will give a rare speech today attacking the "vested interests" opposed to welfare reform while boasting that the changes announced in the Budget mean that 90 per cent of working households (around 14m households) will be better off by an average of £300 a year. Osborne's figures, however, do not include unemployed families (a jobless couple without children will lose around £150 a year) and Labour is rightly pointing to the fact that the average family will be £891 worse off a year as a result of the cumulative effect of tax and benefit changes introduced since 2010.

Expect Ed Balls and co. to also take yet another opportunity to remind voters that the biggest tax cut of all has gone to the highest earners. The reduction in the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p this Saturday will benefit the UK's 13,000 income millionaires by an average of £100,769 a year and all high earners by at least £42,000. Whether or not they accept the economic logic behind the tax cut, an increasing number of Tory MPs recognise that it has made every austerity measure that much harder to justify.

Meanwhile, Iain Duncan Smith's claim that he could live on £53 a week (fisked by Alex yesterday) has given every journalist in the land a licence to ask the Work and Pensions Secretary's colleagues whether they could match his frugality. Treasury minister Greg Clark told Radio 5 Live this morning that anyone earning "the comfortable wage" that an MP has would "certainly struggle" to live on that amount and Osborne can expect to be asked the same question if and when he takes questions after his speech to Morrisons workers.

The petition challenging Duncan Smith to "prove his claim" has garnered more than 118,000 signatures - in excess of the 100,000 required to trigger a debate in Parliament (although it was not put forward for consideration). And the Chancellor's dubious description of the benefits system as "generous" (prompting the inevitable rejoinder: have you tried living on £71 a week?) means he is vulnerable to similar scorn. 

George Osborne leaves number 11 Downing Street in central London on March 19, 2013. Photograph: Getty Images.

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