Beware of the Dolores Umbridges of the world

We should be more scared of the Dolores Umbridges of the world than of any number of death-eating terrorists. These are the people who tell us that we have nothing to fear from their new laws – because they would never abuse them in the ways imagined. Yet both the admission and the threat are implicit - the admission that the powers might be draconian in the ‘wrong’ hands and the threat that we should be fearful of ever voting for anyone else (“Mother knows best, Mother will protect you” – and in the end we become a nation of Sharon Matthews, doped out of our minds on propaganda and cowering under our metaphorical beds).

Terrorism, while devastating to individuals, families and communities (as the horrific events in Mumbai show) is as nothing compared with state sponsored terror – just look at Sudan, Zimbabwe, Chechnya etc.

Even now in this country we see the creeping, insidious low level terror of an increasingly draconian society: can you remember when Dixon of Dock Green turned into Judge Dredd; when traffic wardens went from being figures of fun/ridicule to being sources of fear and intimidation, when putting out your bins stopped being a convenience and became a cause of concern, when people stopped gently correcting minor infringements of civil behaviour and started using the jackboot ASBO (based on hearsay not evidence) to intimidate and criminalise those with whom they disagree?

When terrorism becomes institutionalised, then all our liberties are threatened and with them our modern, society of enlightened self-interest: particularly when you have a government apparently willing to "do anything" and "whatever it takes" to stay in power.

However, rather than face up to the charge that their ‘progressive’ policies are in fact regressive and leaving us vulnerable to attack from within, this government takes the route of all desperate regimes, which is to disparage dissent. To give just a few examples, they have dismissed well founded questions and criticisms of policies and actions as:
“unpatriotic”
“party political”
“despicable”
“unwarranted speculation”
“playing politics with security”
“a council of despair”
“dangerous”
“undermining public respect for politician”
“alarmist”
“sanctimonious cant”.

As a first step to countering this reluctance to engage with the issues, we urgently need to de-politicise the Civil Service. The best way would be to make the Civil Service answerable to Parliament, not the government of the day. All reports and papers would be made freely available to all members of parliament. If that is a step to far then at the very least the shadow cabinet should see exactly what the real cabinet sees from civil servants (obviously internal party documents could stay confidential). This way the opposition and parliament would be as well briefed as the government. Debate would be better informed and more open. There would be no need for leaks. Perhaps then we would have had a more open debate about the merits of bidding for the Olympics – and maybe even a more informed debate on the issue of WMD in Iraq.

Richard Feynman urged research scientists to publish all their results - not just the ones that supported a particular view - an impartial Civil Service should do the same.