Fake news - don't believe the experts

The Pope backs a Trump presidency. Even for those who don’t pay close attention to what Pope Francis says, either on Twitter or elsewhere, it’s unlikely given many of the statements the now President-elect Trump made during the campaign that the Pontiff would have expressed such an endorsement. However, this of course is what happened. Whether people saw it through Facebook or on other forms of social media, it is estimated around 30 million Americans saw this headline. Even when the Vatican was forced to deny the claim, the response was supposedly only seen by around 10 per cent of the original story. Facts have all of a sudden become blurred and it’s becoming exceptionally difficult to persuade people on the truth otherwise.

We’ve all become aware of the so-called ‘post-truth’ world where facts are subordinate to emotions. Michael Gove famously said during the EU referendum campaign that people were fed up of listening to experts. Even when the Bank of England, OECD and the Government were telling voters that they were better off than before the economic downturn of 2008, a lot of people simply assessed their own lives rather than the numbers to make their own judgement. Opinions often hold stronger political capital than the facts and arguably, since the economic crash, who can blame them.

People could argue that ‘fake news’ has always existed. If a football team loses, how often have we heard the losing manager blame the officials to set a different news agenda? In the real world, to what extent are companies, newspapers or politicians using spin, contriving their story to suit an agenda of their own? They all do, however, these examples are all accountable in some shape or form. Companies to their shareholders and customers, newspapers to their readers and the law and government ultimately to the electorate and Parliament.

There is nothing wrong with people seeking opinions on issues that matter to them most or suit their own political feelings. Just as someone with intentions to vote for the Conservative Party are more than likely to read the Daily Telegraph or read a blog such as Conservative Home, a Manchester United fan is unlikely to be regularly reading Leeds United fan forums. Opinions are underpinned by ideologies and healthy debate, but they aren’t immune to scrutiny and facts.   

The growth in social media and blogs has changed all that. Politicians and sportspeople share their news, observations and experiences online. When Sir Bradley Wiggins retired recently, he did it to his 100,000 Facebook followers. Given some of the accusations being thrown at him and Team Sky of late, surely you’re better telling fans who have followed your career online than to the BBC Sports Editor who may be more interested in newsworthy events. Certainly, there’ll be a handful who are likely to throw a few strong words at you, but they’re a small minority. They’re ultimately in control.

The real concern is that with more people now getting their news from social media, to what extent does this withstand the scrutiny of more traditional forms of media? Naturally people tend to migrate to environments where people share their own views. The so-called echo-chambers mean that people often become immune to criticism or the opposing view. Supporters of Jeremy Corbyn spring to mind, why should they listen to the likes of the mainstream media if they’re bias and puppets of capitalism. Nor do they appear to listen to some of the facts or responses from opinion polls and focus groups.

However, as Gove and Trump suggest. Why should you listen to these facts that suit your own argument? Ever since the Brexit vote, every time a new piece of economic data has been released showing increasing business and consumer confidence and economic growth, the media outlets that championed a Leave vote have been quick to highlight how wrong the Remain camp were. It may just be a case that it’s not that people are fed up of listening to experts, it’s that the experts haven’t always been right in the first place so I’ll take their view with a  pinch of salt.

Fake news is part of this broader narrative. People have a distrust of traditional forms of media and they’re no longer willing to sit and watch evening news bulletins or simply turn the obvious places for their news. They’re looking at Facebook and sharing links from organisations where the rigours and scrutiny of a newsroom are certainly not as strong. They’ll share videos of political speeches that neglect to provide the other side of the argument or simply push the most alarming of facts that are likely to lead more people to share this. For those creating the content, why wouldn’t you? In a matter of days, you have the potential of getting millions of people through to your website. Think of all the advertising revenue you could make. Additionally, if I’m Donald Trump and I tweet something, it’s going to be seen by millions of people online. It’s also going to be reported by traditional news outlets, another opportunity to ignore some the facts.

There is no simple way to change this overnight. Part of the problem in America may be that public sector broadcasting is not as strong as say the BBC. A real look needs to be taken by the looks of Facebook over editorial being shared. The solution will be among the traditional news organisations working with social media. This isn’t and shouldn’t be a way of inhibiting free speech, but it should be a way of highlighting overtly when facts are disputed. 

United, Van Gaal, Guardiola and me.

While SkySports' coverage of the transfer deadline day may have now become an insipid affair to what was once considered to be genuinely interesting and entertaining, undoubtedly the story emerging out of Manchester City today is probably the most significant football news event this year. The appointment of Pep Guardiola as manager is an enormous statement for the club. Not only does it represent a profound declaration of intent among other clubs in England and across the rest of Europe, but it also highlights the relative decline in footballing means of their city rivals Manchester United.

There are plenty of column inches already highlighting why Louis van Gaal should not remain as United's manager. His poor relationship and handling of the media, his tactical intransigence and oddities, the turgid and boring football, his poor grasp and understanding of English.

Van Gaal is not entirely culpable, in fact, it is fair to say that while the current prevailing winds are far from conducive and will likely lead to his dismissal or otherwise early departure, he brought in a degree of stability to a side unnerved following David Moyes' short stint as manager. Additionally, while United's style is far removed from the teams Old Trafford was used to watching, van Gaal has strengthened United's defensive base, overseen the emergence of Chris Smalling as a international defender and brought back Champions League football (albeit with an early group stage exit to the Europe League).

United old boys have been quick to put the boot in where possible. Most notably, Paul Scholes in his punditry for BT Sport did not hide his conceit towards the style and attitude of the manager. Rio Ferdinand and former Liverpool player, manager and now pundit Graeme Souness have questioned whether United have lost their edge and leaders within the dressing room. Gary Neville pointed out that United fans should recognise that the United of old was just that, in the past. Former CEO David Gill also publicly stated that the quality of football was not what Old Trafford expect.

I think many fans recognise this and understand that 'pragmatic' football is essential for picking up points. I think United fans also recognise that the huge investment, sale of squad players and the exodus of senior players in recent years was necessary. By all means, the loss of the likes of Darren Fletcher, Jonny Evans, Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra may not be ideal in terms of the match and trophy winning experience, but nonetheless, underinvestment over the medium term only allows rivals to catch up with you.

What United fans will not understand or like is why has it come to this. Why is supposedly the world's third richest club and England's most successful team slipping away from Europe and England's elite? Was Guardiola's decision a reflection of the current state of affairs? City have a better squad, bigger transfer budget, better infrastructure, while United have withered. Was United a viable option for a coach like Pep?

Why didn't United try to sign the likes of Dele Ali when he emerged last season? Would the likes of Harry Kane prefer to remain at Tottenham rather than move to Manchester? After the failed signing of Angel Di Maria, would the world's best snub United for the lights of London or other European capitals?

There are fundamental issues that need to be addressed and while the inexorable commercial success only shows what canny a investment the Glazer Family made they should also be aware that the success of the business is driven by the long term achievements of the club. I don't believe United will dissipate and fail to challenge in future, but I do worry that bad decisions and failure to acknowledge and address them is undermining the club's footballing future.

Van Gaal's tenure as manager at times was amusing, but is ultimately flawed. United will not only need a new manager come next season, but a reflection of what it wants to be.

Politics, bloody hell - General Election 2015

Politics, bloody hell. For those waking up this morning and seeing vast swathes of England stay blue and Scotland transformed from a sea of Labour red into SNP yellow, it was all a bit unbelievable. From the early exit polls last night suggesting a significant Conservative lead, to the defeats of Messrs Balls, Farage, Cable and both Danny and Douglas Alexander, no one would have thought it possible even yesterday afternoon.

As one Glaswegian pensioner will reap the rewards of his £30,000 bet on a Conservative majority at 7/1 odds, Liberal Democrats will be pondering what next following their party’s devastation in the polls and its remaining contingent within the Commons. Nick Clegg, who clung on to his seat in Sheffield Hallam, now finds himself among only 8 Lib Dem MPs on the green benches. Politics may be poorer without the expertise of now former MPs and ministers Steve Webb and Ed Davey, but perhaps more importantly, the depth in future leadership talent and diversity is diminished. The Lib Dems is now a motley crew of eight white men. Additionally, the belief that Lib Dem MPs were always the most effective and best at entrenching MPs into seats, now seems apocryphal as the South West and Northern Scotland seats voted the incumbents out. There will be many questions for the new leader, possibly Tim Farron or Norman Lamb, but perhaps first it will be establishing what the party represents and how does engage with voters again?

If history decides to remember Nick Clegg and coalition, then it may yet judge the administration, relationships and day-to-day workings kindly, yet the bloodbath inflicted on the junior partner may set a precedent for future coalitions and whether parties will be happy to put the national interest first in return for electoral annihilation.

And what of Labour? For Ed Miliband, who managed to confound critics and commentators up until polling day, there will naturally be questions to whether he decides to remain in Parliament, represent the people of Doncaster North from the backbenches or support the next Labour administration from within the Shadow Cabinet. Questions have already been asked of polling data, but it appears as The Times’s leader writer and former Tony Blair speech writer Philip Collins points out, the truths of being behind in the polls on economic credibility and leadership remain true. When undecided voters went to the polling stations, they thought hard and they voted against a leftist government led by Miliband. Labour may have been able to energise activists, but the strategy fell flat on the doorsteps. Scotland, once the home of Labour and the talent that served in Westminster is no more. The Independence referendum only highlighted the open wound that Labour ultimately relied upon, yet neglected. The insurgent SNP, who had an average 1500 activists in every seat, represented something different, had done their homework and had two ebullient leaders in Salmon and Sturgeon.

The next leader will now be decided, but who will be best in attempting to soothe voters north of the border, if possible. As well as the challenge from UKIP as traditional Labour voters in northern constituencies endorsed the anti-EU party instead of the party of their parents. Similar to the Lib Dems there are questions about how to engage voters as well as having policies and messages on immigration, the economy and the EU. Most importantly people will ask whether the party concludes that electoral defeat shifts the party further left or to the centre.

For UKIP, a party that in spite of taking 12 per cent of the vote, it comes away with one MP, the libertarian and non-stereotypical Ukipper Douglas Carswell. It’s greater cause remains around Britain’s membership in Europe, but it may be banging the drum for proportional representation, a system that could have seen it return more than 80 MPs if it had been in place yesterday. While the party may now point to the next General Election in 2020, what will the party look like if there is no Nigel Farage to lead? While more money and administration could potentially help it cross the line in many seats, do the likes of Suzanne Evans or Paul Nuttall have the personality and ability to speak to the electorate as Nigel did? An incredible return from the anti-EU party, but undoubtedly frustration as the share of the vote has no impact on its MP numbers.

The biggest constitutional question of a generation reopens and just as Parliament kicked out George Galloway, it welcomes another firebrand in former SNP leader Alex Salmond. One question is how the party will work when it comes to voting through legislation? Will it slow the process down and frustrate the Conservative government? What role will individual MPs play on select committees? Many of its returning MPs, one who is 20, have no prior political experience. How will they adapt to life in Parliament? How will the relationship work between Westminster MPs and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon? The party’s transformation since arguably its nadir only eight months ago has changed how we think of politics, how it is conducted but also where power now lies and will lie in future. What can and will Scottish unionist voters do? Whether this Parliament sows the seeds or cements the end of the United Kingdom, the SNP will most certainly be playing on the day-to-day workings of Parliament.

For the Conservatives, David Cameron can remove the chip of his shoulder that his party had failed to win a majority since 1992. While some may point out that Cameron would prefer to rule as part of a coaltion, something the PM would of course deny, he will now find that many enemies to the right of his party will keep their mouths firmly shut for a few months or years. The win will allow him to fill all ministerial posts with colleagues who previously were passed over for Lib Dems MPS. This for many is an opportunity to build a Conservative alliance and demonstrate that the party remains a broad church. Other will wait for fractions as working with a tiny majority and the debate on Europe comes to a crux. In truth, it's a debate for another day and a nice problem to have.

This election was forecast to be boring and likely to be drawn out for months. Yet, today's news has shown nothing further than how fascinating yet brutal politics can be. A fantastic day, yet with so much to consider in the coming months, it will only get more interesting as the battles start again.

Politics 2015: understanding the outcome

“Hello young man, do you know we’ve soon got an election coming up?”

Ha, thought I, he obviously was unaware of the type of company of I worked for.

“I am.” I said.

“Well can I ask, will you be voting for UKIP? There are many young people like you now joining our party.”

Oh my goodness, I thought. I am being cajoled/ harassed into voting UKIP by a canvasser using nudge theory, on my own doorstep!

“I’m not.” I said, with my arms folded. “I’m really not quite sure why voting for UKIP would be in my interest, indeed for the rest of the country.”

I’ll be honest, I’ve normally got a lot of time for people who go knocking on doors to talk about politics. 

Yes, it’s quite self-serving i.e. they’re just looking for voter intention and data for their own records, but it is quite a task to knock on the majority of doors in a constituency and ask what people care about and dislike.

“Well...” said the man.

If I was guessing, he was in his late sixties. He wore a tweed jacket, had slightly unkempt grey hair, merrily rotund. Overall quite friendly.

“It’s in all our interest because we no longer have control of our borders, we no longer have control to make our own rules. It’s all in done in Brussels now you see.”

Wow, I thought, he’s gone straight for the nuclear argument. He didn’t even ask me how long I’d lived here, where I worked or if I had any particular concerns about the local area.

“So, what do you suggest?” I retorted. “We pull out entirely? I’m all for reforming the place, very much so, but I’ve yet to hear how the transition period would work.”

Then came the numbers. The costs. The statistics. The data.

In the end, it was a case of agreeing to disagree, but here was a UKIP man on our doorstep. That was pretty unheard of in Harrogate. I remember once upon a time seeing them drive around the town centre with a megaphone attached to their car, reeling off number after number. This was in the years after The Referendum Party, when UKIP weren’t even considered to be on the fringes, but quite extreme. Now we’re in a world where they have the UK’s biggest representation within the EU Parliament and are considered to be ‘mainstream’. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by his appearance.

Yet, we’re still adjusting to it all. The left look on in glee as the right splinters and the Conservatives are dragged between their traditional base and the election winning centre ground, whereas the right are savouring the shambolic state of centre left politics led by Ed Miliband and his day-to-day issues. While the Lib Dems may have a place in Government after the next election, who’s not to say that power may lie from within the clutches of either Nigel Farage or the SNP’s Nicola Sturgeon, if not in this election, then perhaps 2020.

The leaders' debate 2010.

There are no absolute truths in politics and the shape of the 2015 General election is becoming very interesting and completely unexplainable. A recent poll now puts the Conservatives ahead of the Labour Party by three points, but even in an economic recovery can we expect a Tory majority? Though some cruelly argue that a corpse could have done better against Gordon Brown in the 2010 election, is it likely that Conservatives will be able to maintain all their current seats, as well as gain the 40 or so more needed to gain a majority? The polls suggest it is unlikely.

The loyalty towards Labour’s Ed Miliband appears hollow and more importantly do voters have a real idea of what a Labour-led government would do with almost six months to go? Even the so-called 35% strategy may be pushing it at this rate.

Then there are the Lib Dems. Notoriously entrenched in the seats they hold and formidable grassroots campaigners, another ‘unknown unknown’ in this election is to whether they will be able to hold on to as many seats they forecast. Opinion polls before the 2010 election gave them a healthy 23%, yet they have slumped on average to this Parliament to a mere 7%. Will the public punish them for being part of the Government? Or will they claw on and fight?

The new SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon

Politicians and commentators often hint at the suggestion that when a General Election comes round and things ultimately get serious, people always revert to the mainstream parties. There is an historic precedence to this and who can disagree with facts. Yet, we don’t have that certainty and politicians are hesitant to jump to a conclusion that there will be a regression to the mean. Call it an end to ‘three party politics’ or as the UKIP MP Douglas Carswell calls it ‘iDemocracy’, times are changing.

What is interesting to see is that the emergence of UKIP and SNP and their subsequent rise is not simply down to the state of affairs from the established parties or a mood of anti-Westminster. Both SNP and UKIP, have successfully used a mixture of old and new campaigning techniques, along with a charismatic and likeable leader, to not only to get themselves recognised, but have a voice at the table. The question for the long-term is whether their campaigning can bring in support, money, votes and ultimately policies.

I did not go away and vote UKIP in the European elections. Yet, I went away and told numerous people that I spoke to one of their campaigners. Politics works in funny ways and until May 7 and the counting thereafter, we may only really have an idea then to what new politics really is.

UKIP - A party without real policy?

UKIP leader Nigel Farage’s confirmation that he will be standing as a candidate in the Kent seat of Thanet South came as no surprise for those who follow the travails of the UK’s fourth party. In a week, where Mayor of London Boris Johnson confirmed that he too was looking for a seat ahead of the 2015 election, the House of Commons may become a more colourful place if the votes go the way of these two gents next year.

Yet, while the papers may cover firstly where Boris may stand and secondly, whether he will make a serious stand for the leadership post-2015, what of UKIP and has their bubble burst since the European elections? No doubt, much of the party’s success has come off the back of general antipathy towards the three main parties, but many commentators have said that May 2014 will be the party’s apex.

Will Farage finally be elected in Westminster? (Spectator picture)

Indeed, some point that the momentum was lost when the charismatic Farage decided not to stand in the seat of Newark, following the resignation of Conservative MP Patrick Mercer. In the following months, the UKIP leader has reshuffled his pack and arguably strengthened his frontbench with the appointments of Patrick O’Flynn and Steven Woolfe. Yet, the party remains relatively quiet in the press. After sustained attacks on party candidates in the run up to the EU vote, UKIP has dropped off the radar and most publicity has dissipated.

This is partly down to the fact that both Parliaments in Westminster and Brussels are in recess. Additionally, this UKIP are now regrouping and setting their strategy for 2015. Farage’s announcement is the first in this news cycle, but the second is the fact that the party is planning to host its party conference at Doncaster racecourse. Doncaster’s MP being the Labour leader Ed Miliband.

Polling from Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft continues to show that UKIP voters continue to affect the overall performance and possibility of a Conservative majority, but it is and should be alarming to Labour MPs too. While their policy agenda is by no means concrete and partly feeds off the uncertainties of voters, as well as the general backlash to incumbent parties, UKIP is able to tap into the concerns of what we may call traditional Labour voters. White working class voters, who feel politicians have ignored their concerns on immigration, welfare and jobs. UKIP is having an impact in Northern communities where Conservatives gave up the ghost a long time ago.

So with these announcements, should we expect much come May? There remain serious questions to whether UKIP has the concentration and funding to sustain support across 650 seats. Nigel Farage says the party will be putting candidates in every seat, but is this a sensible idea? Surely the leader would be best advised targeting particular seats and finally putting UKIP’s flag in the likes of Kent, Essex, Rotherham, Portsmouth or Boston? There remains a question also of follow through. Will those voters who ticked the UKIP box last May, make the same decision come the General Election? By no means can the three main parties sit back and take this attitude, the Conservatives must continue to knock-on doors and reiterate their own message and the holes in the UKIP message too. It would be foolish to simply think that voters will revert back accordingly.

Naturally the question about the UKIP is whether they are serious political force? Are they a party full of interesting ideas that could change the economic fortunes of Britons up and down the country? Or are they simply a group of basket cases, who will continue to give the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour Party a bloody nose at by-elections? The scrutiny will continue to grow and when the majority of voters come to decide a month before the polls, the question is whether UKIP’s lack of credibility shines through or if they really are a party they can trust. 

I’ve just got to get a message to UKIP: what is your communications strategy?

If you were to ask the British public who they think the most recognisable British politician was in this country, then I’d guess there would be an argument between Prime Minister David Cameron and Mayor of London Boris Johnson. You may agree or disagree, or indeed wonder where the inimitable, tweed wearing, lager-chugging UKIP leader Nigel Farage would place in such a poll.

Farage is known to like a cigarette and tipple

Beyond the YouTube videos of his performances in the European Parliament and appearances on Question Time, the UKIP leader has made a name for himself in recent years. From taking his party to a second place finish in the 2009 European elections and a near-victory in the Eastleigh by-election in 2013, Farage’s star continues to rise. Despite press criticism about holding an offshore account in the Isle of Man as well as an incident in an Edinburgh pub, Farage currently upholds the notion of being the Teflon politician. Beyond Boris, it’s hard to think of anyone as popular.

However; while the polls may position UKIP well ahead of this year’s European elections and next year’s General Election, there remain questions about UKIP’s party organisation, as well as its ability to create a coherent communications strategy.

Reports of former BNP members standing as UKIP candidates as well as MEP Godfrey Bloom getting into hot water over his ‘sluts’ comments have not only put the party on the front pages for entirely the wrong reasons, it has highlighted the weakness in its communications and legitimacy as a new player.

Farage remains an asset, yet at the same time, his dominance highlights the party’s weakness. When he stood down briefly as party leader in 2009 to be replaced by Lord Pearson, the party failed to generate a coherent message in the Westminster elections and win any seats. Since his re-election, the party has been quick to put forward the likes of Paul Nuttall, Gerrard Batten and Diane James as spokespeople, partly to cover the media demands for comment, but also to show the party is more than one person. At the start of the year, Daily Express lead writer Patrick O’Flynn confirmed that he would not only be standing as an MEP, but is to become its director of communications.

O’Flynn’s experience and pedigree may be welcomed by party members but does it really resolve anything in the long term? The Express may sympathise with many of the party’s ideas, but can it be transposed elsewhere? Will he be able to co-ordinate a clear structure and effective strategy beyond the EU elections and into 2015?

The problem so far has been that greater success has led to greater scrutiny. Voters may like the alternative approach of the party and see them as a vehicle to protest against the traditional big three, but what will happen when they see their abysmal voting records in Brussels and Strasbourg. Or ask what their policies are beyond Europe and immigration?

Questions will have to be asked whether politically UKIP’s poll ratings can be sustained and whether ultimately it can put up a decent challenge in Westminster. It does not mean that the London-elite should brush UKIP off. It would be stupid and frankly naïve. Politicians should focus on their own policies before they make sweeping statements about UKIP.

If O’Flynn and Farage have one target to make real noise, it won’t just be winning the European elections in May, it will be placing Farage in the leaders’ debates before 2015. If they can do that, then my word, how it could reshape the political landscape. 

Prism: A Catcher in the Spy

The headlines over the past few months have demonstrated to politicians and the public alike that the world of spying has very much evolved. Gone are the days of Harry Lime of The Third Man or a Cold War Le Carré thriller. We now know that whilst spying remains as secret as ever, it is done on an enormous and technologically driven scale.

The exposé in The Guardian over the summer, through the leaking of data by the now exiled American contractor Edward Snowden, demonstrated the amount of secret information absorbed by the National Security Agency (NSA) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the US and UK’s respective intelligence agencies. The newspaper revealed how both governments have the capacity and indeed routinely monitored the emails, social messaging and top secret correspondence of foreign governments and individuals.

The ‘Prism’ as it is now known, facilitated these agencies to mine and monitor every single email or online message between any two individuals on the planet. In mainland Europe, governments have been up in arms. The Belgian Government has demanded answers to both the US and UK to whether they spied on its national telecoms company. It is the same with Germany, who also learned that the NSA was snooping on its citizens’ emails and online messaging. France is now pushing for consumer protection regulation in Europe that would alert any individual to potential NSA surveillance. Yet, in Britain, it has been brushed under the carpet. There was indeed coverage of Edward Snowden’s subsequent asylum claims and minimal coverage about the Guardian destroying hard drives demanded back by GCHQ, but beyond that very little more.

Edward Snowden: public enemy number one?

Indeed, this week there were allegations from Westminster questioning whether The Guardian had been irresponsible in exposing national secrets. Conservative MPs, Dr Liam Fox and Julian Smith asked for an investigation into the newspaper’s behaviour, which indeed was subsequently granted by the Prime Minister and will be led by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

So the question is why? Why is there such little outcry? What makes Britain a different case and is The Guardian irresponsible?

The nature of terrorism and evolution of cyber-warfare nowadays, means that government agencies are no longer monitoring huge movements, but a handful of targeted suspects. In their eyes, for the protection of innocent civilians, they need to monitor all their email traffic and other communication channels of those individuals. The question for Britons to answer is whether they feel safer in the knowledge that the Government is tracking potential terrorists who may be looking to repeat similar Nairobi-style attacks on the streets of London or Leeds? Most would no doubt say yes and would find it difficult not to endorse. But if they were asked simply, do you find it acceptable that Government can monitor everything you do and say online? Then they are more than likely say no.

The question is ultimately philosophical, but also cultural. For those in the UK, there are memories of Russian spies, Irish Nationalists and of late Islamic terrorists. The dichotomy between spying and citizen safety is less obvious for Brits because of this past. Yet for the likes of Germany, who lived with a cruel and omniscient secret police, the Gestapo and latterly the Stasi, the liberty of individual is primacy. Indeed, in America, libertarians are just as suspicious of the role of Government. Snowden was by no means of the same mould as Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, a man with a huge distrust of Governments on the left. Snowden is very much libertarian and believed that it was not in the government’s mandate to spy on its citizens. His motives were seen to be in the defence of the individual.

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger: Hero or villain?

Yet there appears to be no such vocal libertarian political thinking in the UK. More questions are being asked of The Guardian because politicians now feel that their actions have jeopardised the nature of how spy agencies conduct their work. The Guardian has indeed argued otherwise, but as other newspapers have argued the actions of Guardian journalists may have threatened ongoing operations. Have potential threats now disappeared under the radar?

The question in the grand scheme of things, which is difficult to answer, is whether in the loss of liberty we become safer or indeed, the loss of liberty itself is not a price worth paying. There is no right answer, but whilst we may now have an idea of what government can do. Will it make us safer?