Ed Miliband ditching the "command and control" politics of the New Labour years

He wants it to be all about grassroots, community campaigning.

There are a couple of interesting hints about Labour's strategy going into the 2015 general election in the Independent today. Andrew Grice secured what appears to have been a much-interrupted interview with Ed Miliband on a train to Carlisle, and the Labour leader was keen to put the focus on Labour's efforts at community organising and grassroots campaigning.

Miliband said:

It’s not just about winning elections… It’s about constructing a real political movement. It’s a change from machine politics to grassroots politics.

A seemingly bland bit of politician-speak, but Labour are also investing cash in this strategy - as Grice points out, by the end of this year, Labour will have employed 170 full-time organisers in its 106 target seats, who in turn will recruit and train volunteer organisers in time for the 2015 election.

There was also a mention for David Miliband's Movement for Change campaign group, which he set up in conjuntion with American political guru Arnie Graf. David may be off to New York, but it seems like his grassroots organisation is about to become pretty important to Labour as the party moves away from the centralised election strategies of the New Labour years.

As my colleague George Eaton's recent interview with American journalist Sasha Issenberg reveals, the more data you have on your potential voters, the more likely you are to be able to target your persuasive messages at them effectively. By getting more organisers and volunteers out on the doorstep early on in the election cycle, Labour should be able to collect information that will pay dividends when the polls open in two years' time.
 

Ed Miliband claims his "One Nation" message is cutting through. 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