The Open Rights Group has reported (pdf) on the May 2007 local and Scottish e-voting.

In short: We don't know what any of the software actually did. Nor does anyone else.

People ask questions about whether e-voting is secure. And vendors will always say, often truthfully, that their systems are secure: at least as secure as paper ballots. Developing secure e-voting systems is not rocket science.

Security is the wrong question to ask. It has a specific meaning, and many many computer systems, banking, ecommerce and so on, are easily secure enough. Yes, there is an arms race between the security people and those who would gain access to secure systems. Yes, many many home computers are compromised, and are therefore an unsuitable platform for e-voting. Nonetheless, security is not the issue.

What is the issue? In a word: transparency. The functions of a locked steel box are transparent: it keeps the objects put in it, unchanged, until they are taken out again. The functions of a computer are not. A computer could be doing absolutely anything with the virtual objects it is trusted with protecting. Without looking shifty.

The problem with computers is not that they are incapable of doing the job, but they are too capable. It is not that they cannot produce an audit trail, but that they could produce a completely fictional audit trail. The only systems that deserve any consideration are those with a paper audit trail - such as the optical scan system used in Scotland.

In Sheffield ... on the night of the count no breakdown of votes from different channels was provided to attendees: these were kept in sealed envelopes and declared ‘ballot boxes’. Officers then manually added figures together using pencil and paper before presenting the figures to candidates and agents. Understandably agents at the count felt that the numbers had ‘just appeared’ and were unhappy the process had not been more transparent.

...because the numbers had 'just appeared'. They were probably the correct numbers, but how is it possible to tell? If we had had independent international observers at this election, what could they possibly say about it?

Alistair Graham is quoted in the report:

I should like to put this question to you. How does DCA or the Electoral Commission know about the extent of electoral fraud when neither of them have kept any statistics nor have undertaken any research on the issue? Is it that, in their obsession with increasing participation at all costs, they have turned a blind eye to the risks of electoral fraud and its consequences on the integrity of our democratic system?

Amen.

In pondering how to open this post, I've tried to find a way of expressing my view without repeating a story that has become depressing in its familiarity: the sheer disappointment still felt over Labour's failure to live up to the promise of the 1997 general election. As Liberal Democrats, we knew that the Conservative government needed to go; it was corrupt, sleazy, self-obsessed and incompetent. Tony Blair was no liberal, but he promised to learn from the past and avoid the mistakes of his predecessors, Labour and Tory alike. Foreign policy would no longer be a matter of horse-trading amongst self-interested powers, but would be about ethics, human rights and global peace and security. The sleaze of the Major era would be replaced by a new spirit of openness embodied by the Freedom of Information Act. And liberties at home would be secured by the Human Rights Act.

On this, and far too many other issues, Labour have betrayed their own values and the values of the people who elected and supported them. Even their own early successes such as the Freedom of Information act are at risk of being watered down, and John Reid has spent most of his tenure as Home Secretary trying to undo the work of the Human Rights Act. The Iraq war was prosecuted under a lie which demonstrated abject contempt for the British people and, to this day, Tony Blair refuses to admit that this was wrong.

But if the descent of Labour needed any further demonstration, the Al Yamamah case provides it. In this case, the government called off an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office into alleged bribes paid by BAe to the Saudi Arabian government. These allegations, if confirmed, would indicate a serious breach of both British law and various international treaties. Moreover, they would indicate a level of corruption at the heart of the British defence establishment, in connection with an undemocratic Middle-Eastern government; the very kinds of dodgy arms deals that Labour's 'ethical foreign policy and 'whiter-than-white' stance was supposed to combat.

Worst of all, the decision displays contempt for the law. The government should not have the power to shut down police investigations because they become politically embarrassing; if bribes have been paid then the SFO should uncover this and bring whatever evidence they have to court. This is how justice in Britain is supposed to work - in the interests of truth, honesty and fairness, not secrecy, deceit and corruption.

I don't mind admitting that I cheered when Labour came to power in 1997. But the breath of fresh air has given way to the stale smell of corruption, deceit and sleaze. We can have no trust in a government that behaves in this manner, and their betrayal of progressive values must rank as the greatest disappointment in recent political history.

Faced with growing concern about social cohesion, integration and immigration, two government ministers have proposed the idea of a 'Britain Day' as part of the solution.

Said Immigration Minister Stephen Byrne:

"At a time when we face the threat of a new extremism, I just think it's important now for the law-abiding majority to stand up for the values that we've got in common.

"One of the ways that we can do that is just taking a bit of time out each year to actually celebrate what we're proudest of in this country."

I'm all in favour of celebrating common values, particularly those values which form Britain's liberal heritage. But does having a special day for these help to promote them, or relegate them to a perfunctory celebration once a year? I suspect that the latter is more likely. Even if it were made a public holiday, the effect would be minimal; people would appreciate the extra day off work far more than they would appreciate the supposed purpose of the day itself.

The Fabian Society think-tank has proposed some other ideas to help boost feelings of citizenship:

Other suggestions for how Britain Day might take shape, made in the pamphlet for the left-of-centre think tank the Fabian Society, include:

# Celebrating civic values, local heritage and opportunities to get involved in local life

# Holding local "citizenship ceremonies"

# Celebrating and promoting voluntary work in communities

# Showing a debt of gratitude to war veterans who helped to secure freedoms

# The Queen's state opening of Parliament speech could be followed by a "State of the Nation" address from the prime minister

These suggestions range from the blandly meaningless (how does one 'celebrate civic values'?) to the redundant (we already have a day for showing our debt of gratitude for war veterans and this should be promoted not sidelined) to the downright obnoxious (the notion that we should make the Prime Minister even more like the US President). Worst of all, they are all entirely ceremonial, promoting the image or appearance of citizenship, rather than actually promoting responsibility or civic power. There is something quite worrying about the idea of this government in particular talking about the protection of freedoms, civic values and local heritage when they seem to be determined to undermine these. I am reminded of Ralph Waldo Emerson's aphorism that "the louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

If the government really wanted to promote citizenship, it could start by giving some power away to communities themselves. 'Communities' are another subject that the government talks a lot about, without doing the simple, real things which would actually empower these communities. British identities have always been multi-layered and local identities have always been the best route to identification with Britain as a whole. Let's make local democracy count for something again, and let local identities be the main route to integration and cohesion.

Instead of 'celebrations' of our rights, how about reinforcing those rights? Of course, this would require that the government stop trying to erode them first! Our rights, customs and values have to be something that we live with every day, not merely abstract ideas which we wheel out once a year to pretend that our country still observes them. Values must be real, practical and universally applied, not superficially recognised once a year.

At the Lib Dem Spring Conference, Ming Campbell set five tests for Gordon Brown, a set of criteria by which Brown could be examined on Lib Dem values of liberty, fairness and responsibility.

As Brown moves closer to taking over from Tony Blair, he is increasingly asserting his own views and his own policies. This weekend, he announced an intention to press ahead with new anti-terrorism legislation, and in doing so issued an implicit challenge of his own: will Ming's Liberal Democrats accept a compromise on the length of detention without charge? For it is the increase in this period, above and beyond the 28 days already agreed, that forms a major part of Brown's plans:

Mr Brown wants to give police more powers - including holding suspects without charge for more than 28 days - when he takes over as prime minister.

Civil liberties campaigners warn the plan amounts to "internment".

But in a speech earlier, Mr Brown insisted he would bring in safeguards, including a judicial review of detention every seven days.

Brown is obviously trying to pitch this as a 'middle way' between the Blair/Reid authoritarianism and the libertarian objections of the Liberal Democrats and, on occasion, the Conservatives. The BBC seem to have taken this line, and have entitled their story 'Brown pledge to protect liberties', a strange title given that the first major proposal of Brown's mentioned in the story is a further erosion of liberty. Brown's 'protection' of liberty seems to consist mostly of judicial review:

He added: "We will have to consider further legislation to do so. I think that is where the public will need to recognise that we have got a new security problem."

But he said he would make sure that "at no point will our British traditions of supporting and defending civil liberties be put at risk.

"There has got to be independent judicial oversight. There has got to be proper parliamentary accountability.

"We should give the police the power to question people so we can both prevent incidents and get to the bottom of some of these very, very strange dealings."

Judicial oversight and parliamentary accountability are obviously good things. But judicial oversight is something we should have already, and parliamentary accountability is something that any responsible government should accept on all matters. These things should not be offered as sweeteners to a deal that is fundamentally unpalatable to the majority of people, indeed to a majority of MPs, who in 2005 defeated the government's last attempt at allowing detention without charge for 90 days.

Brown does offer some positive steps - the admission of phone-tap evidence in court would allow much more straightforward prosecution of terrorist suspects, removing some of the need for the grey areas of control orders and detention without charge. But the test for Ming is this: will he accept a 'consensus' on the 'need' for harsher laws in return for claiming some success in influencing Brown? After all, allowing phone-tap evidence in court is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy and any improvement in judicial and parliamentary oversight will be welcomed by the party. Nick Clegg's comment on the matter is somewhat ambiguous:

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said Mr Brown "appears a little more concerned about parliamentary accountability than his predecessor".

But he added: "It now remains to be seen whether this is just a procedural fig-leaf for more authoritarian measures or part of a genuine shift in guaranteeing and not undermining our fundamental civil liberties."

Lord Carlile goes further, seeming to suggest that a need for consensus might trump possible objections:

Lord Carlile told the BBC: "I do think it is time for the political parties to get together and to try to reach a consensus with the government, so we can move forward on terrorism legislation on the basis of fitness for purpose, rather than having a hot political debate about these desperately difficult and important matters."

It is to be hoped that a compromise is not about to be struck. For many Liberal Democrats, this is a test of principle. If Ming gives any support, even in the context of a supposedly more liberal-friendly approach from Gordon Brown, to the idea of extending the detention period beyond 28 days, he will have failed a key test in the eyes of his own supporters and party members. Britain needed the Liberal Democrats to stand firm against Tony Blair's plans in 2005, and Britain needs the Liberal Democrats to stand just as firm against Gordon Brown's attempt to revive those plans.

Sometimes reading the news can be a depressing experience. Wars, famine, disasters, crime and disease abound around the world. But what really makes me angry is nonsense like this:

Britain needs to do more to promote good manners, Tony Blair's "respect czar" Louise Casey has said.

The government adviser said politeness was now missing "right across society" and schools, companies and the media all had a role to play.

Given all of the serious problems in the world today, is this really the best use of anyone's time or money?

That politeness is a good thing should be obvious to anyone with sense. That there is not enough politeness is also apparent. But the vague notion that "Britain needs to do more" - who is "Britain" exactly? Ms Casey doesn't seem to sure on that herself:

Ms Casey said London buses could remind passengers to give up seats to pregnant women and suggested TV soap operas may portray a less gloomy side of life.

Which I suppose is a bit of a downer for pregnant women in Sheffield or Glasgow, who presumably will just have to get used to standing. As for the idea that TV soap operas should be less gloomy, the answer is simple. People watch what they choose to watch, and if they choose to watch the current crop of soap operas then that's their own choice. Personally, I don't watch any of them, but I would hardly be fearful that an hour of Eastenders a week would turn me into a scowling anti-social lout. The notion that a government busybody should be determining our TV programming is a pernicious one and deserves to be challenged simply on the grounds that it's none of their business.

Ms Casey goes on:

"We need a greater sense it's OK to be decent," she told the Daily Telegraph.

"It's important to help old ladies across the road. The greatest pleasure you can give yourself is to help somebody else."

"You're not the nerd if you don't throw your rubbish on the floor - you're the person who's making Britain the country we all want to live in."

Ms Casey said a rise in single-parent families and less church-going and neighbourliness were all possible factors in falling levels of politeness.

But she added bad behaviour transcended class and recalled being behind a new four-wheel drive vehicle in the wealthy Highgate area of north London.

"I watched the driver toss rubbish out of the window, I felt such anger," she told the paper.

"Right across society, whether they're rich or poor, people can behave really nastily."

One almost has to laugh. I can imagine that she means well, and is making an honest and heartfelt attempt to grapple with society's ills. But so far, her prescription adds up to helping old ladies across the street, not littering, happier TV programmes, pregnant women being given seats on buses (but only in London, apparently), marriage and church-going. These are opinions that she is entitled to, but it's impossible for me to see the justification for the government paying her to promote these opinions in any official capacity.

If we really want a more polite society, the first step is accepting the idea of personal responsibility, and that means getting rid of government busybodies trying to tell us how to behave.

There has recently been a considerable furore over Cardinal Keith O'Brien's attack on the Abortion Act:

Cardinal O'Brien said: "We are killing - in our country - the equivalent of a classroom of kids every single day.

"Can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres a day in our country going on and on. And when's it going to stop?

"I can't change the teachings of Jesus Christ. I can't change the 10 Commandments. That's what I'm ordained to teach and to preach: 'Thou shalt not kill."'

Emotive stuff, but none of it can come as a surprise. These are the long-held views of the Catholic Church, and views which they have every right to hold. The Abortion Act has been in place for 40 years and has withstood plenty of religiously-inspired criticism in that time. Is anything different now?

Writing for the Guardian's Comment is Free, Tim Luckhurst thinks that there is something different:

Keith O'Brien's provocative speech is a warning. The church wants powers over abortion devolved to Holyrood because it believes MSPs can be persuaded to return Scotland to the dark ages. There is too much evidence that it may be right for any pragmatic liberal to persist in the myth of devolution as a promoter of progressive values.

This presents liberals with a quandary. In general, the liberal view of abortion is that it is a matter for personal morality, not for the state to ban or promote. In any case, abortions occurred before the Abortion Act legalised the procedure, and would continue to occur if the Act were repealed; the only difference is the safety of the procedure itself. But liberals are also in favour of devolution - power should be held as close to the people as possible. Luckhurst appears to have made his judgement: the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted with powers over abortion, lest it decide to ban it.

Is he right? There are two answers that liberals could give to his concern:

1) If abortion is a basic human right - the right of control over one's own body - then any ban on abortion would be invalid. But this is a legal, not a political question, and it's a question which may not have a clear answer at this point in time. Liberals have never believed that democracy has the power to trump human rights - we cannot vote to enslave our fellow citizens, even if 99% of the population voted for it. Part of the role of the law is to ensure that government does not go beyond reasonable bounds in regulating our activities; this is what the concept of rights is all about. If there is a right to abortion then, yes, the Scottish Parliament would have to accept that it cannot ban the procedure.

2) Even if we do not see abortion as an absolute right, it is not clear that a ban on abortion in Scotland would have any real effect. It would merely mean that women wanting abortions would have to travel to other parts of the UK to get them. In this case, the strength of devolution is shown: if one devolved area makes a law that its citizens disagree with, they have the possibility of travelling to other areas where the law is different. By allowing this variation in laws we, at least in part, insure against the possibility of oppressive laws. It is unlikely that an anti-abortion law in Scotland would survive for long given the impossibility of enforcing it upon the people of Scotland.

Furthermore, I think Luckhurst is being sensationalist in suggesting that a ban on abortion is likely. It is not, and would be vigorously contested if it were raised. To use this vague possibility as a stick to beat the concept of devolution with is nonsensical. Devolution is here to stay, and we have to learn to live with the debates that this brings, even if it means fighting old battles over again to confirm our principles.

I've joined the growing ranks of Lib Dems (including Ming!) who are using Facebook.

For the uninitiated, Facebook is a 'social networking' service, similar to MySpace although, based on my limited experience of the two, far superior to its more famous competitor. It looks like a good way of keeping in touch with what other people of similar interests are up to.

If you're interested, you can find my profile here.