UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Nothing to hide, so nothing to fear? That's an incredibly lazy and weak justification for unwarranted monitoring of communications.Even relatively recent history provides plenty of examples of how these powers are abused by the authorities.
They built a new through way in Baku for the games. The cctv cameras went up before the asphalt went down.And no, they aren't meant to be crime deterrents.
Nothing to hide? - yes.Nothing to fear? - no, no, no. A thousand times no. There are nasty people in this world who want to extort money from the vulnerable, blow up people with different gods from them or different colour skin or do unthinkable things to kids.
Unwarranted monitoring of communications? We'd whinge plenty if the authorities had the chance to stop these things and didn't take that chance.
So we whine about surveillance and then whine when surveillance doesn't happen? And when someone points out the counter view we call it lazy, weak and unwarranted?
Ahem.
Marc wrote: "yes so CCTV isn't much of a crime prevention, whereas Bobbies on the Beat would be.And no, Blair & Brown increased CCTV surveillance way beyond anything the Tories dreamed of.
Just because all ..."
That's the point, right there. Hold that thought.
The public love the idea of "bobbies on the beat". It is comforting, olde worlde, it feels right. That's what we want. More bobbies on the beat. It such an obviously right thing to do, isn't it?
Ah no, it isn't. The reality is that a policeman walking a beat is an incredibly inefficient way of policing. They are very visible so the miscreants tend to be on their best behaviour when the police are around, and then go back to their nefarious ways afterwards. The chances of a walking policeman actually stopping a crime is very remote. And if they did spot something happening they might not be able to catch a bad guy on a bike or in a car.
It is far more cost effective to have CCTV cameras and police in cars. That way you can cover more ground and react more quickly. It is not an infringement of liberties. The CCTV cameras can't see much more than a bobby on the beat could.
But the public have this cosy image of "bobbies on the beat". That's what they want. Or at least that's what they think they want. Even if it isn't particularly effective.
And that, my friends, is one of the biggest problems we face. There is a massive gap between what the public think they want and what the experts know we need. And because some people don't trust experts any more, it is getting hard to close that gap.
CCTV cameras have been adopted by successive Governments because they work. But it's just one of many topics where the public don't understand what is going on, and manage to come up with some concocted reason why they don't like something.
Who is this 'we'? The people who want all this surveillance and the people who don't want it are very different.Even before we get into the ethics of it all, there's no real evidence that all this monitoring of communications makes much (if any) difference to the preventing of terrorist attacks.
I don't have too much of a problem with CCTV being put up in public spaces, but it's cost effectiveness is open to questioning.
Will aren't you bothered that Google Chrome can listen to your conversations? http://www.theguardian.com/technology...That your consumer profile is built up by an online seller like Amazon and they bombard you with tangentially related stuff to buy?
Now these are private corporations not governments it's true. But governments have shown they are not above snooping such as the NSA/Prism scandal. This is the surveillance I oppose, not CCTV cameras. I'm not aware that I have anything that needs hiding from my government, but even so, I assert I have a right to privacy, that details of my life are not readily available to them. Being a citizen of this once great nation should not involve any extracted declaration of any or every aspect of my life by my government.
It will be a question of time before medical history is readily accessible to authorities, with concomitant implications for health insurance.
This 'we' is everyone who wants the benefits of something like CCTV and surveillance but is not prepared to pay the costs. These are the techniques which the experts tells us they need in order to reduce crime, tackle terrorism and more or less make the world a nicer and cuddlier place. You want the world to be a safer, nicer and cuddlier place? Then listen to the advice of the experts.
The cost effectiveness of everything is open to questioning. That's the best way to do anything. Try a new approach and monitor its performance. It's how we learn.
And that approach of constant improvement is what got us to CCTV and limited surveillance - because both are much more cost effective than the alternatives. Neither is a panacea and both need to be combined with other policing and security measures, but that is true of most things.
You're talking about a 'we' that doesn't really exist and as the likes of Snowden have shown, the 'experts' have a nasty habit of going way beyond their remit.Crime is on a downward trend yet we've got our very own Prime Minister and Home Secretary bursting their guts to shove the Snooper's Charter though Parliament.
Crime is on a downwards trend? You are joking, right? The actual statistics show that overall numbers of crimes are falling but some crimes are on the increase. There is a general trend away from visible crimes and towards crimes that happen behind closed doors - sexual offences, fraud and possession of indecent images.So the Government picks on the total figure and claim that their policies are working. The opposition focuses on the crimes that are increasing and claims that the Government's policies aren't working. And I guess you would pick and choose whichever part of the statistics would support your current moan.
The decline in public order offences? Hmm ... might be linked to the use of CCTV cameras in public areas, perhaps?
An increase in less visible crimes? Hmm ... might be linked to a Government wanting more surveillance powers, perhaps?
Yes, I am talking about a 'we' that very much exists.
The decline has nothing to do with CCTV or government policies, and is in fact part of a general decline that has taken place all across the Western world.It began rising sometime in the 60s, climaxed in the 90s, and began falling again. It is still falling.
No-one really knows why.
Possession of indecent images may well have increased but that will be down to the technology now available. Sexual offences were taken far less seriously in the past and the definition of what is considered to be rape has changed.
Nothing justifies the sweeping powers that the current government, and the one before it, have tried to bring in.
Sadly Will I do understand both the Tories and their intentions all too well. And, like others here, I will never forgive the hardship and misery that they deliberately and with malice foisted on me and my family. I lost business then - not because I failed, but because her economic failures left the community I worked in wrecked - all the business that needed an accountant vanished. farms collapsed (I'm sure Jim recalls the terrible suicide rate in farmers then) Manufacturing business folded, wholesalers shut their doors...Thatcher's economic policies were all driven with one aim: to promote wealth, for the wealthy, in the small region of the UK where her core vote resided - the S East. Much of the remainder of the Uk became an economic desert, with no thought by her regime to the consequences. The North east in particular still hasn't recovered. many S wales valleys are still blighted by her legacy.
Who else recalls Lawson and Lamont as Chancellors, with their never ending short booms followed inevitably crippling recessions with rising unemployment? I have seen entire communities ravaged and destroyed economically, I have seen the councils forced to sell off their housing stock (by Thatcher) and then prohibited ( by the same woman) from replenishing those stocks for the benefit of those who could never afford to buy - not least because she had condemned them to a life on benefits by wrecking the small manufacturing businesses that provided their work.. You talk easily about houses being built, and they are - but only for the wealthy. There are few starter homes or low cost affordable homes built, as developers sit on enormous tracts of land to release it only for the best profits. Councils are prohibited from building more social housing, to drive tenants into the arms of unscrupulous landlords who now charge the highest average rents in the whole of Europe.
And yes, I hold labour guilty of not doing enough to reverse that housing issue, which is now causing a crisis. Local authorities need to be freed of that Thatcherite policy to build low cost affordable social housing.
Most of the recent 'jobs' lauded by Osborne are on zero hour contracts. For some, that's OK: but did you know that you can't get a mortgage if that's your source of income?
The link to Tories isn't tenuous, but obvious and appalling.
You're an expert in crime, are you? When you say "No-one really knows why" what you are actually saying is that you don't know.When a Government - any Government - introduces a new piece of legislation it nearly always has the backing of a hell of a lot of research that we sometimes don't get to see. The Government (of any colour) will be advised by people who have spent their careers developing an expertise that far outstrips anything that you or I can manage.
Sometimes experts get things wrong. Woopy doo. Everyone gets things wrong from time to time. The reality is that someone with expertise in a particular subject is more likely to get something right that an armchair expert who gets all his prejudices from the internet and trash newspaper articles.
"Nothing justifies the sweeping powers that the current government, and the one before it, have tried to bring in." ????
And your evidence for this is what exactly?
No, when I say "No-one really knows why" I mean precisely that. The trend I described has occurred across the Western World. So that's in the US, the UK, and Sweden, each of which have very different cultures and and very different approaches to crime prevention and policing... yet the trend occurred across each of those nations.This BBC article talks about it, along with a rather imaginative theory about why - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27...
And it's up to those who want their liberties infringed to offer the evidence for the effectiveness of things like The Snooper's Charter, rather than the other way round.
There's also the very real issue that these 'experts' abuse the very powers that they claim are so necessary to keep us safe, of which there is evidence in spades.
There are numerous reasons for the fall in crime - better home security, better car security, cheaper goods on sale etc etcAs for the nothing to hide, nothing to fear, it is feeble and as intellectually dishonest as you're ever likely to hear.
I've you've nothing to hide, you don't need people snooping on you or having to justify yourself with an ID card.
You'll find that local councils have abused anti-terror legislation on numerous occasions. I read that they spied on people not using their wheelie bins correctly!!
The lack of a written constitution does give people trouble. After all, in the USA, if the police arrive at your door, a person could point to their 4th amendment rights and say no entry without a search arrant. Years ago, we had a similar situation and my parents insisted they weren't getting in. The police tried to fob them off, but luckily, my parents stood their ground.
The trouble with trying to come up with explanations for why the crime rate fell, is that none of them explain why the crime rate rose in the first place.And the ease in which the police in the US can get warrants for no-knock raids is disturbing.
I'm rather conflicted on the CCTV issue, as both sides f the argument have their appeal.a) As a socialist, I am a firm believer in civil liberty being the foundation of our society. I believe the administration first has to demonstrate a pressing need for such intrusions into our privacy. They do not have any prima facie right to listen to all that we do, say or think...
b) I can see the contribution of CCTV first to public safety and then to security.
The threat to our open society is changing, that's something that - like it or not - we have to accept. The idea of a conventional army sweeping across europe is probably gone into the past, romantic (in some ways) as the vision of General Rommel sitting in the turret of his Panzerkampfwagon and shouting 'Angriff!' may be.
Nor are we too likely to face the outmoded ICBM vision of an attack. A: it's too costly for the aggressor, and b: the missile probably wouldn't go off anyway.
The scenario in The Fourth Protocol is much more probable, and we have to adjust our thinking to cope with that. And sadly it probably does mean CCTV, although on the upside I think it will be more effective in security terms than a Trident replacement will ever be
Its a bit frivolous but when you talk of crime rates, the reporting of them and guidelines change. Did you see where a 'crime' was reported this week of a school pupil throwing a biscuit at another and it was treated as an ABH. Figures can be manipulated according to ones agenda.
Indeed they can, Lynne.But what I'm referring to would require every police authority across the Western World to collude in a four-decade long conspiracy, starting in the 1960s, just so that the governments of the future could report a falling crime rate.
message 521:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jun 26, 2015 05:34AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "a) As a socialist, I am a firm believer in civil liberty being the foundation of our society."So why are so many Socialist governments repressive? Time after time, from Castro to Stalin, people have been, and continue to be, repressed by Socialists.
Why, after a legitimate government has been elected by the people, do we have Socialist marches in London that declare Tory Scum and demanding the government's downfall? Then you get hooded thugs attacking an MP for being Tory scum, and when they are informed that said MP was actually UKIP, to be berated as racist and continuing the attack.
The people marching in London weren't necessarily socialists and there's nothing wrong with a peaceful protest.
message 523:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jun 26, 2015 05:54AM)
(new)
Michael Cargill wrote: "The people marching in London weren't necessarily socialists and there's nothing wrong with a peaceful protest."So why did they protest, why didn't they vote the Labour Party into power when they had the chance?
They protested because they're entitled to.Some of them will have voted for Labour, some of them will have voted for someone else, some will have spoiled their ballot, some will not have voted at all.
Geoff, why not also ask why so many right wing government are repressive too? South Africa under aparteid, Chile under General Pinochet? Italy under Mussolini? Yep they were really progressive right wing governments, were they not? Time after time, people are repressed and murdered by the right wing governments.It's a failing of governments to be repressive, not political pursuasion
Also, after hearing Will say: Do we want to go back to the dark days of British rail: perhaps they were somewhat lighter than our current system - have you seen The Times headline? (That notorious lefty bunch!) £38 Billion Rail Network debacle...
So, privatisation has brought up a total mess, with the infrastructure in disarray and decaying, the Tory government suppressing the reports of their wildly inaccurate budget control, and promising improvements that are unlikely to be achieved this century...
Whilst the 'franchises' are bought up by the state owned railways of other countries who repatriate the profits to spend on the French and German networks instead of ours...
And the Pacer trains are now unlikely to be replaced. For those who do not know, the Pacer is actually a single decker bus with the running gear taken off, welded onto a diesel train bogie...* intended 30 years to be a 5 year replacement until new stock was built, they are still the only available rolling stock on many Northern (note that? Northern?) routes.
*No, I'm not exaggerating. Google it. British compromise at it's best.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Michael Cargill wrote: "The people marching in London weren't necessarily socialists and there's nothing wrong with a peaceful protest."So why did they protest, why didn't they vote the Labour Pa..."
Protest is a hallowed tradition, Geoff. You suggest I'm not genuinely in favour of civil liberty because I'm openly (and proudly) a socialist, yet then suggest that no one should be able to express their views peaceably in any way they like?
That's so Tory of you... Stifle dissent, it might be contagious
I still believe that better security is reducing crime rates. Most houses are like Fort Knox, these days.
Will wrote: "It's a failing of governments to be repressive, not political pursuasion..."
Absolutely true.
There are two problems with politicians who get their feet under the table, they start feeling a sense of entitlement (see expenses scandal as an example of that) and their mates start calling in favours.
There is a lot of sense in the policy of always voting for the party in opposition, just to ensure that nobody gets too comfortable
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "That's so Tory of you... Stifle dissent, it might be contagious"And there is the attack, Will and furthermore the disgusting slur that you think I am against free speech. I look forward to your immediate apology.
You assume I'm a Tory, how interesting. It's obvious that you are making an assumption without any evidence to support it.
At no time, in this column, anywhere, did I suggest in any way that peaceful protest is wrong. You made the incorrect assumption that I thought it was.
What I objected to was the attack on an MP because they incorrectly identified him as a Conservative. Will, do you condone that because the person is a Conservative it is perfectly acceptable to attack him?
The question I dared to ask, was why are they protesting instead of registering their preference at the ballot box?
You self professed belief that you are a Socialist leaves me indifferent. Proclamation is easy, action is more difficult. I would be interested to know if you are anything more than an armchair socialist.
I have stood up for my beliefs in the past and will do so again if the need arises.
Geoff, how do they know the protesters didn't register their preference at the ballot box?
message 531:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jun 26, 2015 11:31AM)
(new)
Michael Cargill wrote: "Geoff, how do they know the protesters didn't register their preference at the ballot box?"I don't, but clearly not enough did. But that is the way democracy works. If Labour won, would you see protests in the streets for the increase in spending?
I'm not sure what you mean.You're asking why they're protesting instead of voting, as if it's a binary choice between doing one or the other.
Whilst it is a right in this country to protest peacefully, this action has the appearance of sour grapes. I have garnered a lot of opinion on this subject from a wide range of people protests such as this, so soon after a general election makes the Socialist cause appear desperate.The Labour party was not elected because, among other things, the electorate did not trust the Labour Party. Most people from the left considered they betrayed their beliefs, whilst those people from the centre ground didn't trust them not to lurch to the left after the election.
Ironically, Scotland swept Labour from power because they were not left wing enough. However, had they matched the SNPs zeal for left wing politics, they would have been eviscerated in England.
Every time I see a Socialist led march into London, you can hear the Labour supporters despairing. You do not win elections by marching through London, but you sure can lose them.
Sour grapes? Precisely what emotion should they be displaying about something as important as who is running the country? It's not like a game of football where the opposition fans might grudgingly applaud a good performance by a player on the other team.Democracy is an every day thing and far too many people seem to view it as something akin to the Olympics, in that it's a series of one-off events that occur twice a decade.
The protesters weren't necessarily protesting against the Tories themselves, but some of the Tory policies.
The problem, Michael, is that most voters see it exactly as that. It deters them from voting Labour next time. You can rage at the people as much as you like, but the more you rave the worse it gets. The protesters may not be aiming at the Conservative party, but that's what everyone sees.
Then that's everyone's problem, not just the protester's.
I'm sorry you have taken offence Geoff: it was not my intention to be offensive to you personally - although you were keen enough to then have a pop at me, weren't you, and to suggest I might approve of violence? Sometyhing I find rather more offensive, and I hope you will have the grace to apologise in return.This is of course the Take it outside thread where normal politeness is suspended, and comments should not be taken personally.
I'm glad to hear that you do find violence abhorrent. Of course I apologise, no such intent was meant. My point, badly put on my part, was that the protest showed an example of an underlying, unpleasant tendency, that is disappointing.I quite agree with you Michael, however the effect at present is a problem for Labour.
Sadly most forms of political expression attractr those who take matters to an unacceptable level. That's always going to be the case although the expression of the extremism varies.I'm not sure that it is a problem actually.
Mostly these protests help to draw attention to the policies proposed that are in themselves abhorrent - let's take for example IDS's 'bedroom tax' policy. In itself, the concept is sensible and should be persued: in practice it is simply inhumane and immoral UNTIL an adequate supply of social or private housing at affordable rents with single bedrooms has been created. An interesting idea as ever introduced with little or no regard for the people on whom it impacts, no thoughts for the consequences and no interest in anything except money...
An issue that should be raised and dragged before the public eye. In the absence of a balanced press, such protest (akin to that which finally toppled Thatcher) will continue.
Interestingly Geoff, to take issue with an earlier point: the public did not reject the labour party: the tory majority is more than 75% built on their taking seats from the Lib Dems, whose vote inevitably imploded.
That's funny. Of course, the public rejected the Labour party. Their vote collapsed in Scotland because the SNP promised an impossible anti austerity policy.In England, young Ed did not impress as Prime Minister material. Laughable stunts like the ed-stone were downright silly. The party as a whole is trying to come to terms with life after its dinosaur left wing policies. This meant that some core Labour voters felt that Labour wasn't left enough for them - and the majority of voters in the middleground and right felt that Labour were still stuck too far to the left and hadn't got it about the economy.
UKIP imploded and were seen for the racist nut-jobs that they undoubtedly are.
The Conservatives ran the slickest campaign and worked the hardest. They didn't so much win the election as everyone else lost it. Especially Labour.
That, and the majority are starting to understand the need for austerity.
Will wrote: "let's take for example IDS's 'bedroom tax' policy. In itself, the concept is sensible and should be persued: in practice it is simply inhumane and immoral UNTIL an adequate supply of social or private housing at affordable rents with single bedrooms has been created..."There has been a lot of fuss about this in Cumbria because in rural areas you just don't get dwellings with only one bedroom. I realise it might be an area of specialist interest but in http://cumbriacvs.org.uk/wp-content/u...
the independent Cumbria Welfare Reform Commission 2014 made several comments. For example, the 'bedroom tax' is for Cumbria a major issue. But when they went round Cumbria discussing things in open meetings (and in private one to one sessions) the came to the conclusion that The impact of the Household Benefit Cap is likely to be small overall with around
120 households affected.
Also interesting was that whilst sanctions were a problem. Benefit delays, where the bureaucracy took far too long to actually do anything, was also a very serious problem.
Will wrote: "This 'we' is everyone who wants the benefits of something like CCTV and surveillance but is not prepared to pay the costs. These are the techniques which the experts tells us they need in order t..."
Will, when security & surveillance in the name of fighting terrorism reduces our freedoms and rights, then the terrorists have won a significant victory already, by changing our values, the lives we wish to pursue.
Quite agree Will that the Conservatives ran a slick campaign. Of course, we are now starting to see that the promises - for example, Trans Pennine Electrification - were just false to begin with. The jury is out on the 12 billion of welfare cuts until Osborne finally says something. Refusing to identify who he planned to hurt was a very smart political move on his part, as it allowed the conservatives to always suggest it would be someone else who took the pain...But I'm afraid we are never going to agree on your austerity views, nor will we agree that either economists back them (they simply do not) nor that they are widely accepted.
Five years of austerity has delivered no growth, no improvement in living standards and no genuine increase in employment.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Michael Cargill wrote: "Geoff, how do they know the protesters didn't register their preference at the ballot box?"I don't, but clearly not enough did. But that is the way democracy works. If L..."
our democracy does not work if only 24% of the electorate was sufficient to elect a majority government
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: "let's take for example IDS's 'bedroom tax' policy. In itself, the concept is sensible and should be persued: in practice it is simply inhumane and immoral UNTIL an adequate supply of s...The Conservatives ran the slickest campaign and worked the hardest. They didn't so much win the election as everyone else lost it. Especially Labour.
That, and the majority are starting to understand the need for austerity. "
The Conservative campaign was hardly slick, their own supporters said how lacklustre it was until Cameron rolled up his sleeves for the last fortnight. It was a campaign largely based on creating a spectre of an SNP-Labour alliance dominating Westminster which put the fear of god into middle England and UKIP voters who lost their nerve and demonstrated they feared Scots more than Europeans
As to the majority beginning to understand the need for austerity, no they are heaving a sigh of relief that the austerity doesn't really impinge on them. remember the clarion call of the last government that we're all in it together? We don't seem to hear that these days as we most definitely are not in it together and the Tories yet again target only a section of society
Marc wrote: "Will wrote: "This 'we' is everyone who wants the benefits of something like CCTV and surveillance but is not prepared to pay the costs. These are the techniques which the experts tells us they ne..."
That, Marc, is part of the theory of terrorism. Everyone should read some Marcuse, and the other nutters. That is the theory behind the evil crime in Tunisia today ( makes me want to go there for a holiday, as a show of support) - that the counter measures taken cause public unrest.
It's a balance, but you can't do nothing against such wicked behaviour.
And finally, if you want to see how so-called anti-terror powers are being used in non-terror clampdowns on free expression, liberty and journalism, how about the police's actions against journalists as reported here? 600 cases of using Ripa powers to harass domestic Uk journalistshttps://cpj.org/2015/02/uk-police-use...
http://rt.com/uk/193924-uk-journalist...
I have no doubt that the police and security services are abusing the powers they are granted. We've seen too many cases in the news of their reprehensible activity.But that's a failure of monitoring of use and abuse, not of the legislation and the technology per se. Obviously the administration must spend money on better monitoring. There's more than enough in the defence budget.
Sometimes some individual freedoms have to be limited for the general safety, we'll probably all agree on that (otherwise I would be free to run down UKIP Racists when they knock on my door with electioneering material) or spray Jehovah's Witnesses with used washing up water for the same offence.
Will it's more a point of if those powers of snooping are there, they will inevitably ( and have already been as above) be used in areas beyond security and terrorism. And I'm not saying we do nothing against terrorism, but I'm not willing to have my liberties uprooted to do it. If the government really wants to fight terrorism at home, then it needs a root and branch overhaul of our society, because when a certain section of the Muslim community are alienated by the crass empty materialism of our society, of the overtly sexualisation of images and our children, of economic and social emasculation, of the lack of any spiritual feel to our population and culture (not just Muslim spirituality, but any spirituality), of a world where everything is commodified, when humans are reduced to being consumer data captures, then this is an analysis I have plenty of sympathy with. I don't pick up a gun and then go overseas to shoot people, but it is the bedrock on which such recruitment is formed, especially when the narrative of neo-colonial sins of the US, UK & France is added to the mix (whether you agree with this basic narrative or not).
All of those perceptions were expressed by Mohammad Atta & the German cell that went on to bring down the Twin Towers in 9/11. That's 9 years ago this mindset was revealed and as societies, the West has done nothing to counter them.
You may pick up on my argument about the British way of life and liberties being undermined by anti-terror legislation where here I seem to be appealing for a different British way of life with far less consumerism, materialistic aspirations and the like, and you'd be right. I think Britain is better than that.
My husband has been saying almost the same as you Marc. He's also a lot more pessimistic of the outcome.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
And no, Blair & Brown increased CCTV surveillance way beyond anything the Tories dreamed of.
Just because all major parties support a policy doesn't make it right. Personally I'm against capital punishment as they are, but if you put it to the popular vote, I suspect the electorate would not be in sync with the politicians.
While like Jim I find the Tories utterly unpalatable, don't mistake me for a Labour supporter. At best they are a smidgeon better, but not to a degree that counts for much