NationStates Jolt Archive

Bah, I had a small sliver of hope that when Blunkett left (the best early Christmas present I have ever got) this moronic ID scheme would stop in its tracks. However even that was dashed, Labour decided to bring in another bearded tosser to replace the bearded tosser that resigned.

To the actual news.

A move to deny the ID card bill a second reading was rejected 306 to 93. Apparently there was a 'rebellion,' but you wouldn't think it from the result.

bah fucking humbug

Emmigration looks more and more appealing. Only where to?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4110559.stm
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/140/140850_rebel_mps_fail_to_block_id_plan.html

Why the **** did they replace David "I'm tough, you know" Blunkett with Charles "I'm not listening" Clarke? He was the worst education minister in years and now he's home secretary? WTF?

What on earth made you think that an entire government's policy was being dictated by one bearded man? Of course ID cards are still on the agenda.

He was the worst education minister in years

Here here

What on earth made you think that an entire government's policy was being dictated by one bearded man? Of course ID cards are still on the agenda.
Actually, they've just replaced one hardline dickhead with another, so that doesn't really back up your statement. However, Tony Blair was never going to replace Blunkett with someone completely different, so still, it's no surprise.

It was very interesting to see the look back at Blunkett's career on the news, and the things he used to say. It goes for all the Labour ministers, but they have completely turned their back on their old politics. Especially when you get Charles Clarke accusing opponents of ID cards of "liberal woolly thinking".

It will cost £85 to get an ID card, more than you pay for a driving licence or passport. It will be no easier to prevent forgery, yet everytime you change your details (address, surname, etc), you will have to shell out £85 again for the privilege (for something that is free for a passport or driving licence).

I'm sorry, but I have no interest in spending a sizeable chunk of my wagepacket on something that serves no discernible purpose.

Here here
Ironically, David Blunkett was quite a good education minister.

LOL you're going to move country just because you don't like the idea of having an ID card? Well matey make sure you don't move to just about anywhere on continental Europe because I'm afraid they all have ID cards too! (and do you know what? Life goes on!)

Why does everyone hate the ID card thing so much? The only people who have anything to fear from it are terrorists, idenitiy thiefs etc. People who dont break the law like this have nothing to fear from them

I given up with politics. I'm not old enough to vote, but when I am I won't bother. What's the point? The government will push these sort of things through regardless of what the electorate want. It's become a complete waste of time.

Why does everyone hate the ID card thing so much? The only people who have anything to fear from it are terrorists, idenitiy thiefs etc. People who dont break the law like this have nothing to fear from them
Um, read my post about how much it will cost.

I'm sorry, but I have no interest in spending a sizeable chunk of my wagepacket on something that serves no discernible purpose.

I agree with this completely, though personally I'd like to add ".... apart from beer."

Why does everyone hate the ID card thing so much? The only people who have anything to fear from it are terrorists, idenitiy thiefs etc. People who dont break the law like this have nothing to fear from them
So would you be willing to have a CCTV camera put up in your bedroom? After all, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

Actually, they've just replaced one hardline dickhead with another, so that doesn't really back up your statement. However, Tony Blair was never going to replace Blunkett with someone completely different, so still, it's no surprise...


I absolutely agree. The whole ID cards scheme is farcical and doesn't seem to be serving any real purpose. Clarke said they would make us "a bit safer with no real infringement of our civil liberties"! So not really any safer but with our civil liberties infringed a bit then...

All I meant about Blunkett was that it's a government policy not his so it was unlikely to be dropped when he was.

I agree with this completely, though personally I'd like to add ".... apart from beer."
Beer has a discernible purpose. ID cards will offer nothing we do not already have.

I given up with politics. I'm not old enough to vote, but when I am I won't bother. What's the point? The government will push these sort of things through regardless of what the electorate want. It's become a complete waste of time.

Please don't give up on politics. The only way things will get changed is if people who don't agree with the government vote against them. Spoil your ballot if you have to - at least you'll have made your voice heard

I given up with politics. I'm not old enough to vote, but when I am I won't bother. What's the point? The government will push these sort of things through regardless of what the electorate want. It's become a complete waste of time.

The problem with British politics is no matter who you vote for the government always gets in.

So would you be willing to have a CCTV camera put up in your bedroom? After all, if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about.

Thats significently diffrent. With an ID card all it does is proves who I am. I see no problem with that.

I absolutely agree. The whole ID cards scheme is farcical and doesn't seem to be serving any real purpose. Clarke said they would make us "a bit safer with no real infringement of our civil liberties"! So not really any safer but with our civil liberties infringed a bit then...

All I meant about Blunkett was that it's a government policy not his so it was unlikely to be dropped when he was.
Yes, I know, but he is one of the hardline nuts on this issue, so I'm sure he was one of the driving forces behind it. But, like you say, it's in Tony's favour too. His main grip on power is through making the public afraid of terrorism, and this policy will only help that.

Why does everyone hate the ID card thing so much? The only people who have anything to fear from it are terrorists, idenitiy thiefs etc. People who dont break the law like this have nothing to fear from them

It's really simple: my life and identity are none of the government's business. They have no right to know who I am, what I look like, where I go, with whom I associate, what I read, what I watch, what I do, how much money I earn, what I think, what I feel, what I buy, or where I live. If they want to accuse me of a crime, they can then ask my name. Otherwise they can damned well leave me alone, 'cos the government has nothing to offer me.

:sniper:

The fact that it will make identity fraud EASIER due to the amount of personal information stored on it, as well as the cost. Here's the thing though. The Government literally has no right to do this. In a democracy, which is supposed to be what the UK is, even though under Blair it's far more of an elected dicator than ever before, the people are in charge.
Most people are against ID cards! That, I'm afraid, should be reason enough to scrap them. Unfortunately, in Blairs Britain (I'm getting tired of that phrase) public opinion is just another obstacle. And then to charge us for the privelige!


I reserve the right to be wrong at any point of my argument.

Thats significently diffrent. With an ID card all it does is proves who I am. I see no problem with that.
Apart from the fact we already have passports and dirving licences to serve that very purpose. Why should I spend my hard-earned money on proving something I can already prove? Do you really think ID cards will be any less forgeable?

I given up with politics. I'm not old enough to vote, but when I am I won't bother. What's the point? The government will push these sort of things through regardless of what the electorate want. It's become a complete waste of time.


Um, I've seen no opinion polls with a massive majority against ID cards. Some even suggest there's a majority in favour of the scheme.

Beer has a discernible purpose.

Maybe it does. Problem is I can never remember what it was the next morning.

Maybe it does. Problem is I can never remember what it was the next morning.
That is one of it's many purposes. Do you really want to remember what happened. Now, be honest.

Um, I've seen no opinion polls with a massive majority against ID cards. Some even suggest there's a majority in favour of the scheme.
True, but do many people actually know what ID cards will offer and how much it will cost us? Do the Government ever tell us the details of their plans? Think Northern Assembly.

Yes, I know, but he is one of the hardline nuts on this issue, so I'm sure he was one of the driving forces behind it. But, like you say, it's in Tony's favour too. His main grip on power is through making the public afraid of terrorism, and this policy will only help that.

My fear is that they're going to start playing the "it'll make you safer but we can't tell you why for security reasons" card that they tried with Iraq.

What really makes me weep into my morning stout is that the only likely alternative to Labour are the bleedin' Tories!

(I know the Liberals have some good policies (eg Labour's old ones) but they've got too much ground to make up to win the next election)

The fact that it will make identity fraud EASIER due to the amount of personal information stored on it, as well as the cost. Here's the thing though. The Government literally has no right to do this. In a democracy, which is supposed to be what the UK is, even though under Blair it's far more of an elected dicator than ever before, the people are in charge.

Last time I checked, Britain was a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. Personally, I think that the citizenry should have the right to assassinate any politician or bureaucrat who abuses his authority.

Last time I checked, Britain was a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. Personally, I think that the citizenry should have the right to assassinate any politician or bureaucrat who abuses his authority.

Damn right. With beer.

Apart from the fact we already have passports and dirving licences to serve that very purpose. Why should I spend my hard-earned money on proving something I can already prove? Do you really think ID cards will be any less forgeable?

The £85 covers the ID card and your new updated 10 year passport.
(p.s it's free for under 16 year olds and pensioners and low-income citizens will get it for a reduced price)

Less forgeable in that it's very difficult to forge biometric information? A person's fingerprints, iris image or facial dimensions, which are unique to the individual?

My fear is that they're going to start playing the "it'll make you safer but we can't tell you why for security reasons" card that they tried with Iraq.

What really makes me weep into my morning stout is that the only likely alternative to Labour are the bleedin' Tories!

(I know the Liberals have some good policies (eg Labour's old ones) but they've got too much ground to make up to win the next election)
That's the problem. I can't stand people who say (and I know you weren't saying this exactly), "I prefer the LibDems but there's no point voting for them because they won't get in." Um, if you voted for them, perhaps they'd do a little better?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, let's have a hung Parliament at the next election, then Labour will have to form a coalition with the LibDems, who will only agree if they introduce proprotional representation. Then we can get British politics moving.

Last time I checked, Britain was a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. Personally, I think that the citizenry should have the right to assassinate any politician or bureaucrat who abuses his authority.


Well, yeah, but that was just pedantics compared to the fact that people get to vote, and decide on how their country is worked. It has a democratic core, and that was the point I was expressing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, let's have a hung Parliament at the next election, then Labour will have to form a coalition with the LibDems, who will only agree if they introduce proprotional representation. Then we can get British politics moving.

Yes!

My fear is that they're going to start playing the "it'll make you safer but we can't tell you why for security reasons" card that they tried with Iraq.

What really makes me weep into my morning stout is that the only likely alternative to Labour are the bleedin' Tories!

(I know the Liberals have some good policies (eg Labour's old ones) but they've got too much ground to make up to win the next election)

Geez! People like acting all paranoid don't they? The government has made a clear case for ID cards - easier to track terrorists, keep control over illegal immigration, etc etc. If you're really so worried about ID cards you should do some research before your rants!

i.e The Tories are supporting the scheme as well.

Liberals have Labour's old policies? Ahhh don't get me started on that one.

The £85 covers the ID card and your new updated 10 year passport.
(p.s it's free for under 16 year olds and pensioners and low-income citizens will get it for a reduced price)

Less forgeable in that it's very difficult to forge biometric information? A person's fingerprints, iris image or facial dimensions, which are unique to the individual?
Um, you don't need to change the biometric information, just the other details. People will still be able to get their biometric information put on a card with a fake identity on it.

And I'm sorry, but that information is way too easy to abuse. I don't want all that crap on some government computer. Particularly when Government computer systems are routinely tendered out to the lowest bidder, and then crash repeatedly.

Geez! People like acting all paranoid don't they? The government has made a clear case for ID cards - easier to track terrorists, keep control over illegal immigration, etc etc. If you're really so worried about ID cards you should do some research before your rants!

i.e The Tories are supporting the scheme as well.

Liberals have Labour's old policies? Ahhh don't get me started on that one.

Grin grin. I know the Tories are supporting ID cards. That was rather my point.

Is the information abused in other countries with ID cards? i.e France?

Is the information abused in other countries with ID cards? i.e France?
Information is abused everywhere. I just don't want all my details in one place. It's not safe. I don't care how good the security system is, someone can always crack it.

You do know the arguments against prortional representation don't you? Although the Lib Dems like to make it sound like utopia it's not actually that great...but then again the Lib Dems would support anything that gave them some more power.

That is one of it's many purposes. Do you really want to remember what happened. Now, be honest.

Well I'd kind of like my sum total of experience to be something more than:

"blowing out 16 candles on birthday cake.... stubbing my toe this morning"


Does anyone know how the fuck I ended up in China, BTW?

Information is abused everywhere. I just don't want all my details in one place. It's not safe. I don't care how good the security system is, someone can always crack it.

Well, you can use a similar argument against credit cards can't you?

Well, you can use a similar argument against credit cards can't you?
Do credit cards store all my information in one place?

What on earth made you think that an entire government's policy was being dictated by one bearded man? Of course ID cards are still on the agenda.
Hence "Small sliver of hope" ie practically non existant.

But without hope we have nothing.

Well, you can use a similar argument against credit cards can't you?
Credit cards are optional. No one is forcing you to get one.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, let's have a hung Parliament at the next election, then Labour will have to form a coalition with the LibDems, who will only agree if they introduce proprotional representation. Then we can get British politics moving.

No,no,no,no,no. PR bad. PR wery, wery bad.

For a more reasoned reply, I guess it comes down to what you prefer: large, centrist parties with power greater than their popular support or small fringe parties with power greater than their electoral support.

Hence "Small sliver of hope" ie practically non existant.

But without hope we have nothing.

Point taken. "What on earth" duly withdrawn. ;)

Do credit cards store all my information in one place?

No...but if someone cracks the credit card's security then they have access to your ca$h!

LOL you're going to move country just because you don't like the idea of having an ID card? Well matey make sure you don't move to just about anywhere on continental Europe because I'm afraid they all have ID cards too! (and do you know what? Life goes on!)
Well despite the fact that there seem to be key differences between the European model and what is being proposed in Britain. I was being slightly hyperbolic, I was already thinking of emmigrating anyway.

You do know the arguments against prortional representation don't you? Although the Lib Dems like to make it sound like utopia it's not actually that great...but then again the Lib Dems would support anything that gave them some more power.
Of course there are disadvantages, but it's better than "first past the post". You used to vote for your MP under that system, but now it's all about the party. You vote for the party you least dislike that has a chance of winning in your area. It's bullshit.

No...but if someone cracks the credit card's security then they have access to your ca$h!
And you have insurance against that. What insurance do you have against identity fraud?

No,no,no,no,no. PR bad. PR wery, wery bad.

For a more reasoned reply, I guess it comes down to what you prefer: large, centrist parties with power greater than their popular support or small fringe parties with power greater than their electoral support.
Yes, but you never go completely PR, do you? That would be very silly, and I was not suggesting we should go all the way. You just need a happy medium.

Of course there are disadvantages, but it's better than "first past the post". You used to vote for your MP under that system, but now it's all about the party. You vote for the party you least dislike that has a chance of winning in your area. It's bullshit.

Well under PR it really would be voting for a party rather than for a person. And you said PR would get British politics moving - but PR inevitably tends never to give one party a comfortable majority and so they are forced into coalition with minor parties (as has already been said, giving them unproportional representation!!). So that party's electoral programme is weakened and its policies cannot be easily implemented due to the necessary bargaining with the fringe parties.

Well under PR it really would be voting for a party rather than for a person. And you said PR would get British politics moving - but PR inevitably tends never to give one party a comfortable majority and so they are forced into coalition with minor parties (as has already been said, giving them unproportional representation!!). So that party's electoral programme is weakened and its policies cannot be easily implemented due to the necessary bargaining with the fringe parties.
But you will also not get ridiculously powerful governments pushing through unpopular policies, safe in the knowledge that everyone else is unelectable.

And you have insurance against that. What insurance do you have against identity fraud?

Identity fraud? Is this a major problem in countries with ID cards?

Of course there are disadvantages, but it's better than "first past the post". You used to vote for your MP under that system, but now it's all about the party. You vote for the party you least dislike that has a chance of winning in your area. It's bullshit.

This is why I think the best system is to get rid of parties. They're an anachronism in a FPTP system anyway. The reason I oppose PR is because it would make it next to impossible to do so.

This is why I think the best system is to get rid of parties. They're an anachronism in a FPTP system anyway. The reason I oppose PR is because it would make it next to impossible to do so.

What would you have instead of parties?

But you will also not get ridiculously powerful governments pushing through unpopular policies, safe in the knowledge that everyone else is unelectable.

A government that pushes through TRULY unpopular policies will be booted out at the next election. Even our present electoral system ensures that can happen, if the electorate so wishes.

Government in PR could easily become gridlocked and so even popular policies may not be implemented. Democratic government becomes impotent.

This is why I think the best system is to get rid of parties. They're an anachronism in a FPTP system anyway. The reason I oppose PR is because it would make it next to impossible to do so.

Get rid of parties? But isn't it natural that people with similar ideological political views should want to work together?

Geez! People like acting all paranoid don't they? The government has made a clear case for ID cards - easier to track terrorists,

Not according to Blunkett. He gave an interview on Radio4 a few months back saying it won't help combat terrorism.

keep control over illegal immigration,

I am sure there are better way to combat it than using (percieved) draconian legitslation

These are all vote winning claims. We (as a nation) want to be safer from terrorism, we want illegal immigration under control.

However these slogans that the government is using seem to be just that. Only slogans to appeal to us as an electorate. I have not seen the justification that it will do these things to any level to justify the cost to the individual.

Well if he really said that...it's just his opinion. The police think ID cards will be useful in tracking down terrorist suspects - that's a voice worth listening to.

Let's get behind your cynicism. If you really think there aren't any arguments in favour of ID cards and it's all just slogans...why would the government bother to introduce them? The scheme is not a vote winner, people do not think "Oh I'll vote Labour because they've introduced ID cards". And there is a significant cost to the scheme that could be put into more blatant vote winners like health, education...or if you're a horrible Tory...tax-cuts.

Well if he really said that...it's just his opinion. The police think ID cards will be useful in tracking down terrorist suspects - that's a voice worth listening to.

Maybe, but I haven't seen it justified.

Let's get behind your cynicism. If you really think there aren't any arguments in favour of ID cards and it's all just slogans...why would the government bother to introduce them?

I don't think that the ID card scheme on its own is a vote winner. But when put together with the reasons that are being put forward (ie, help combat terrorism, reduce illegal immigration, reduce identity theft etc) I think it becomes a vote winner.

The scheme is not a vote winner, people do not think "Oh I'll vote Labour because they've introduced ID cards". And there is a significant cost to the scheme that could be put into more blatant vote winners like health, education...or if you're a horrible Tory...tax-cuts.

Maybe I am being being overly cynical, but everytime I see the tabloids they are railing about immigration, terrorism etc not the state of the health service or education (I'm not saying that they never mention these things, just that the former are mentioned a lot more than the latter). Which to me suggests people are more concerned with things more than health/education.

However if I actually see justification that the ID will actually help these things to an extent that any cons become negligible or at least to the extent they are outweighed by the pros I will reconsider my position.

Maybe I am being being overly cynical, but everytime I see the tabloids they are railing about immigration, terrorism etc not the state of the health service or education (I'm not saying that they never mention these things, just that the former are mentioned a lot more than the latter). Which to me suggests people are more concerned with things more than health/education.
You are right, but the likelihood is that these issues are merely a moral panic, blown out of all proportion by the media. These may not be the genuine concerns of the electorate but they have made to be so. It doesn't bother me whether there are illegal immigrants, and I can't see my local pub getting bombed by the Taliban, but it suits those in charge to make these issues of concern.

They can then push through draconian crap like ID cards, the terrorism acts (detention without trial) etc. Hoping I don't sound like a conspiracy theorist or a Marxist, but it seems to me they're ways of keeping people down. And having created these false problems, they also win votes for solving them! ;)

What we need is a Liberal party like Lloyd-George's and Asquith's. Britain has come to the point where excessive government interference into the lives of private citizens isn't necessary, but the Lib Dems are too radical, pro-PR and Europe to be trusted to form a government.

LOL you're going to move country just because you don't like the idea of having an ID card? Well matey make sure you don't move to just about anywhere on continental Europe because I'm afraid they all have ID cards too! (and do you know what? Life goes on!)

Maybe you haven't noticed some other little things that they have in continental Europe that we don't: written constitutions, for one. Bills of Rights, for another. Citizens' rights and limits on government enshrined in law.

What do we have? A phoney "constitutional monarchy", where "the constitution" is just a bunch of custom and practice and special interpretation -- which allowed Blair to take on the power of the sovereign and declare war on Iraq more or less unanimously. We have eight out of nine Law Lords condemning the government for imprisoning people indefinitely without trial, stating that they are in breach of the law. But sovereignty resides with parliament, i.e. in Tony Blair's enormous majority (which represents the votes of just 24% of the UK electorate) and they don't see any reason why they should bow to the Law Lords' judgement.

And given all this, I'm expected to carry a piece of plastic to justify my existence to the state, and just take it on trust that neither this government, nor any future government, will choose to make changes to what information the card can carry, or how it can be used? Yes, let's trust our politicians and state institutions, blindly, with no guarantees. What a good idea that is.

Yes, but you never go completely PR, do you? That would be very silly, and I was not suggesting we should go all the way. You just need a happy medium.

Unfortunately there's no such thing as a happy medium. It's a choice between having large parties over-represented or coalition government. Either-or. It's impossible to have a fair proportion of votes and a one-party government. In proportional systems what you need is relatively narrow political spectrum, a clear grouping of ideologically similar parties and an established tradition of compromise over party agendas in order for it to work. In smaller countries this is fine, it's why it works in Ireland, in larger countries you need a relatively high level of regionalisation for it to work (Germany) or else it descends into regionalised squabbling (Italy).

What would you have instead of parties?

The old system. Candidates standing on what they personally believe. Parties only came about because elections became too expensive for individuals to fund on their own once "rotten boroughs" were eliminated. Now, however, it costs relatively little to reach a large number of people (prinitng costs are a tiny fraction of what they were in the 19th century while other media, like the internet, are cheaper and more pervasive). The only reason parties continue to exist is because of the need to get the party's message accross nationally via more expensive media (TV, nation-wide billboarding etc.). It's self-perpetuating. Install strict spending limits on constituency-based electioneering (and possibly state funding for candidates who can demonstrate sufficient popular support) and have the PM appointed by some other means than being the head of the largest party and the financial incentives are greatly lessened.

Get rid of parties? But isn't it natural that people with similar ideological political views should want to work together?

Some of the time yes. Parties are supposed to work all of the time, though. It's virtually a given that any two people will differ in their political views once. In a party, though, 100s of people are supposed to follow the same line, regardless of their own views.

Besides, I really doubt that once the financial incentives to form parties are removed people would still form them. It restricts your ability to act as you want without any great benefit. Check out the UN here for instance. Even though it could be argued that some groups would benefit from co-operating there's no parties. Why? Because people won't follow the party line unless the party has some clout over them. Without financial clout, or the possibility of patronage (I'd also support taking the appointment of the cabinet at least partly out of the PM's hands) there's no incentive to stay regimented.

Why does everyone hate the ID card thing so much? The only people who have anything to fear from it are terrorists, idenitiy thiefs etc. People who dont break the law like this have nothing to fear from them

Oh please dont say you are this innocent.

OK senario, your ID card is in your wallet, your wallet is stolen, the thiefs use your ID card for nefarious perpouses. Prove it wasn't you.

If these are proof of ID, are you going to do DNA/fingerprint tests every time to prove the card is yours? What if the card is faked?

Once people start thinking these cant be faked, fraud will be easier, just make a card. I know that I wont be DNA tested at the bank but if the bank accepts the ID card as proof of ID I could empty an account. YOURS.

It is not the carring of a piece of plastic that is the danger, it is the percieved removal of the chance for fraud that is the danger.

Tony Blair's enormous majority (which represents the votes of just 24% of the UK electorate) and they don't see any reason why they should bow to the Law Lords' judgement.

You are correct in many respects, but 44% of the electorate that voted gave Blair his majority. It does not remove a government's mandate if the majority of the population did not vote.

Also, it is rather unfair to blame the state of the nation's democracy on Blair. This system gave us 74 years of Conservative rule in the last century, and they never once tried to change it. And it has it's advantages. Blair does not control all of the nation's terrestrial television channels, as the prime minister of Italy, Berlusconi, does. Neither can he appoint a Supreme Court sympathetic to him, as can Bush.

Unfortunately there's no such thing as a happy medium. It's a choice between having large parties over-represented or coalition government.

There are hybrid systems such as AMS, and whilst these also tend to give smaller parties power inproportionate to their number of seats (for example, a Labour coalition with the Welsh Lib Dems gave the Libs huge policy making influence despite having only 2 FPTP seats and a couple of regional seats), they do manage to combine FPTP and PR. Also there are better majority systems such as the second ballot system which could easily be implemented and improve the election of MPs.

Parties aren't just financial organisations. The prime minister would find it difficult to pass any legislation whatsoever if any MP could vote any which way, and it would give rise to vote buying and such and less appealing parliamentary organisations than the parties we have now.

what we need is anarchy- a few years of that and then we'll see how people think of an organized government.

You are correct in many respects, but 44% of the electorate that voted gave Blair his majority. It does not remove a government's mandate if the majority of the population did not vote.

Also, it is rather unfair to blame the state of the nation's democracy on Blair. This system gave us 74 years of Conservative rule in the last century, and they never once tried to change it. And it has it's advantages. Blair does not control all of the nation's terrestrial television channels, as the prime minister of Italy, Berlusconi, does. Neither can he appoint a Supreme Court sympathetic to him, as can Bush.

No, but because of the shamefully low turnout at the last election, Blair's majority still represents the votes of just 24% of the UK electorate. And 44% of votes cast is still a minority.

It is unfair to blame the state of the nation's democracy in 1997 on Blair. It is entirely legitimate to blame him and his cronies for the state of the nation's democracy in 2004, after roughly seven-and-a-half years of New Labour. Just because a rotten system has turned to his advantage does not mean that it has ceased to be a rotten system.

The UK is indeed lucky to have the BBC, and not a rash of privately-owned TV channels. We do however have our print media dominated by Rupert Murdoch, with the predictable corrosive effect on our political life. And whilst Blair may not be able to pick a sympathetic supreme court -- yet -- he is currently engineering a "reformed" House of Lords filled with (largely his) political appointees. He is also perfectly capable of picking extraordinarily sympathetic judges to head up various laughable enquiries and exonerate him from, amongst other little peccadilloes, launching an illegal war under false pretences.

There are hybrid systems such as AMS, and whilst these also tend to give smaller parties power inproportionate to their number of seats (for example, a Labour coalition with the Welsh Lib Dems gave the Libs huge policy making influence despite having only 2 FPTP seats and a couple of regional seats), they do manage to combine FPTP and PR. Also there are better majority systems such as the second ballot system which could easily be implemented and improve the election of MPs.

Yeah, I know the alternatives. I just didn't really want to get into the specifics of STV, AV, AMS et al. I especially do not want to have to think about the fecking Droop formula ever again.

My point still stands, however. No matter what system you end up with you either have coalitions or over-represented large parties. Anything else would be impossible. And I don't believe coalitions would work in the UK, for the reasons I outlined above, without other substantial reforms (at least an upper House along the lines of the German Bundesrat).

Parties aren't just financial organisations. The prime minister would find it difficult to pass any legislation whatsoever if any MP could vote any which way, and it would give rise to vote buying and such and less appealing parliamentary organisations than the parties we have now.

I, personally, have no problems with making it harder for the PM to pass legislation. The fact that the PM is pretty much the only leader in the Western world who never does have problems pushing legislation through is one of the biggest weaknesses of our system. Force him to actually argue the merits of his proposals, rather than just forcing them through via the whips.

Vote buying is, it is true, an issue. However, this can either be eliminated by making parliamentary votes secret or else lessened by making sure that the incumbent's voting record is made clearly publically accessible. Unless an MP actually votes along the lines they promised, then, there's a good chance they'd be booted out.

Besides, we already have vote buying as things stand. It's just done through the parties, which makes it a damn sight more effective.

Not sure what you mean as regards "less appealing parliamentary organisations".

Why does everybody seem to be assuming that coalitions are a bad thing? Yes, there are disadvantages, as with everything else, but it means that the government must listen to other opinions. And in our situation, they would be listening to the opinions of the most sensible party out there.

It is unfair to blame the state of the nation's democracy in 1997 on Blair. It is entirely legitimate to blame him and his cronies for the state of the nation's democracy in 2004, after roughly seven-and-a-half years of New Labour. Just because a rotten system has turned to his advantage does not mean that it has ceased to be a rotten system.

It isn't as if this is a new thing though, Jel. 7 years isn't that long anyway.

The system is hardly rotten. Why Blair is such a strong prime minister is because of the construction of the Labour party as much anything else. Most of the rules of the Labour party are concerned with opposition, and restrict a leader's power. When in power, and having corrupted the institutions of the party as New Labour has, (removing any left-wing members of the NEC, for example) there is very little to restrain the leadership, and Blair's power of patronage and the security of his position is greater than that of a Tory leader or PM.

It is my opinion that the Lords needed no more reform that what they got after 1911, but the dominance of hereditary peers was questionable.

44% is not a minority, it is just not an overall majority of the vote. The Tories got nowhere near 44% and neither did the Lib-Dems.

Stripe - I meant things like Militant. People will group together for power, and you'll get (if you can believe it is possible) much more corrupt, possibly even more big business sponsored groups of MPs running the country.

It isn't as if this is a new thing though, Jel. 7 years isn't that long anyway.

The system is hardly rotten. Why Blair is such a strong prime minister is because of the construction of the Labour party as much anything else. Most of the rules of the Labour party are concerned with opposition, and restrict a leader's power. When in power, and having corrupted the institutions of the party as New Labour has, (removing any left-wing members of the NEC, for example) there is very little to restrain the leadership, and Blair's power of patronage and the security of his position is greater than that of a Tory leader or PM.

It is my opinion that the Lords needed no more reform that what they got after 1911, but the dominance of hereditary peers was questionable.

44% is not a minority, it is just not an overall majority of the vote. The Tories got nowhere near 44% and neither did the Lib-Dems.

Stripe - I meant things like Militant. People will group together for power, and you'll get (if you can believe it is possible) much more corrupt, possibly even more big business sponsored groups of MPs running the country.

Do you know who is on the NEC? And you're standing by your claim that "New Labour has removed Left-wing members"?

And whoever said the British Prime Minister has no difficulty passing legislation - rubbish! Fox hunting ban anyone?

It isn't as if this is a new thing though, Jel. 7 years isn't that long anyway.

The system is hardly rotten. Why Blair is such a strong prime minister is because of the construction of the Labour party as much anything else. Most of the rules of the Labour party are concerned with opposition, and restrict a leader's power. When in power, and having corrupted the institutions of the party as New Labour has, (removing any left-wing members of the NEC, for example) there is very little to restrain the leadership, and Blair's power of patronage and the security of his position is greater than that of a Tory leader or PM.

The system is deeply rotten. Blair is a "strong" PM because he has a huge, and unmerited, majority of bleating lobby-fodder at his back, which has allowed him to exploit the UK's absence of a constitution, or a Bill of Rights, or a concept of checks and balances to concentrate vast amounts of political power in the Cabinet. Labour's experience of 18 years in opposition has allowed him to further concentrate Cabinet power in his own hands -- a corrupting, anti-democratic process begun under Thatcher and made worse by Blair.

It is my opinion that the Lords needed no more reform that what they got after 1911, but the dominance of hereditary peers was questionable.

I have a problem with unelected bodies having significant political power. True executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical geriatric ceremony! ;) The over-representation of the shallow end of the gene pool is merely adding insult to injury.

44% is not a minority, it is just not an overall majority of the vote. The Tories got nowhere near 44% and neither did the Lib-Dems.

No matter how you slice it, 44% is definitely a minority. It may be the largest minority in the House, but it's still a minority. It does not merit a majority of MPs. The fact that 44% of the vote produced a huge majority in the Commons is evidence of the rottenness of the system.

It's also, returning to the issue of ID cards, reason enough to oppose them. I refuse to justify my existence to a rotten state which refuses to guarantee my rights.

And whoever said the British Prime Minister has no difficulty passing legislation - rubbish! Fox hunting ban anyone?

The fact that a law diddling around with the curious hobby of a tiny yet hugely over-represented social group ran into problems, while the launching of an illegal war based on a pack of paper-thin lies did not, is merely further evidence of the sorry, shoddy state of the nation. The idea that I should trust this setup is, frankly, laughable.

Okay:

Do you know who is on the NEC? And you're standing by your claim that "New Labour has removed Left-wing members"?

And whoever said the British Prime Minister has no difficulty passing legislation - rubbish! Fox hunting ban anyone?

You're right, he hasn't removed the left wing members of the NEC. What he has done, in addition to himself and the deputy leader sitting on the NEC, is introduce three cabinet members to the NEC. He has also reduced the amount of union members of the NEC, and appointed or co-opted on New Labour PLP members to the NEC. So elimination of the left-wing element in the NEC was wrong for me to say, but he has secured control over it certainly.

I can't find a quote, but apparently Blair himself didn't want to ban fox hunting. Had he wished to it would've gone through years ago anyway, it was just to pacify the back-benchers.

Jel- 44% was the most votes, a simple majority. You mean it is not over 50% of the vote, which would only be possible if there were just two parties, or if we used the second ballot system.

I think you are condemning the system a little too much, Jel. It is crap, yeah, but then so is nearly every other political system anywhere. Switzerland is quite good I think, they have a lot of direct democracy over there, but then you get life imprisonment for speeding.. ;)

The problem with Blair and his lot is that they're just New Right idiots who realised that it would be easier to run the country through Labour. Except Prescott, who just sold-out to them.

Anyway, back to the thread before I bugger off for the day, I'm with Conceptualists. Blunkett is an idiot, ID cards are an evil, 1984 type thing. But then, the EU reminds me of 1984 as well. Later all.

I'm off too, it's awful late here in teh Orient and have exams (giving, not receiving, so there's a sadistic joy in there) in the morning. Will come back to this later if it's remotely alive.

Jel- 44% was the most votes, a simple majority. You mean it is not over 50% of the vote, which would only be possible if there were just two parties, or if we used the second ballot system.

It's not any kind of majority, simple or otherwise. It's just the biggest single chunk. In no way, shape or form can it be considered a majority. It's not a mandate, either. And it certainly isn't any reason to give Blair a majority of over 100 MPs in the House of Commons. That's just farcical.

it is possible for a party to get more than 50% of the vote in the British system: say, Labour 60%, Tories 30%, Lib Dems 10%. It's just very unlikely.

I think you are condemning the system a little too much, Jel. It is crap, yeah, but then so is nearly every other political system anywhere. Switzerland is quite good I think, they have a lot of direct democracy over there, but then you get life imprisonment for speeding.. ;)

Other systems have their problems, but I would argue that the UK's is a) worse, and b) much more important to me personally. :) The absence of a written constitution and/or Bill of Rights could be corrected. We could have an elected upper chamber. We could have some form of PR (STV, probably) which would free us from the tyrrany of minority rule -- increasingly absolutist minority rule, at that. We could have a parliament that is subject to legal constraint. We could have a head of state who doesn't acquire the position by virtue of her dubious heritage.

The problem with Blair and his lot is that they're just New Right idiots who realised that it would be easier to run the country through Labour. Except Prescott, who just sold-out to them.

Anyway, back to the thread before I bugger off for the day, I'm with Conceptualists. Blunkett is an idiot, ID cards are an evil, 1984 type thing. But then, the EU reminds me of 1984 as well. Later all.

Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed. And agreed. All the more reason to bring the bastards to heel, IMO. :D

i have a driving licence. it has a photo of me, my date of birth, my name and my address. why do i need an ID card? waste of money.

I'd be okay with ID cards, if they were free.

Geez! People like acting all paranoid don't they? The government has made a clear case for ID cards - easier to track terrorists, keep control over illegal immigration, etc etc. If you're really so worried about ID cards you should do some research before your rants!


The anti-terrorist line is pure humbug: explain to me why there was never any need for issuing ID cards in Northern Ireland at the height of the 'troubles', would you? It is true that the NI driving licenses did actually have photographs of the bearer on them long before the European style ones came into being, and they were found to be sufficient substitutes for ID cards, but whether the use of driving licences as de facto ID cards ever lead to a decrease in paramilitary action or an increase in arrests/convictions has never been made clear.

It seems as if Blair and Bush are of like mind again, as Bush has recently declared the US will introduce a national ID card.

The tracking terrorists argument doesn't hold water as a number of Continental countries have ID cards and still had/have terrorists. Clever terrorists keep themselves secret, and ID cards won't prevent that.

It seems as if Blair and Bush are of like mind again, as Bush has recently declared the US will introduce a national ID card.

The tracking terrorists argument doesn't hold water as a number of Continental countries have ID cards and still had/have terrorists. Clever terrorists keep themselves secret, and ID cards won't prevent that.

IIRC, the new US ID card will have your DNA fingerprint on it. With that pattern in a database.

So it won't matter what your name is anymore. The Saudis are also implementing the same type of ID card before the next year is out.

Eventually, you'll only be able to use operatives who have never been identified with the organization before.

It seems as if Blair and Bush are of like mind again, as Bush has recently declared the US will introduce a national ID card.

Do you have any information on the nature of a Bush-style ID card?

The tracking terrorists argument doesn't hold water as a number of Continental countries have ID cards and still had/have terrorists. Clever terrorists keep themselves secret, and ID cards won't prevent that.
A clever terrorist will live for years within the community consiously not commiting any crimes before he attacks. I would hazard that terrorist, before an attack anyway, are probably the most law abiding citizens in a country.

Eventually, you'll only be able to use operatives who have never been identified with the organization before.
Something makes me think that won't be hard.

IIRC, the new US ID card will have your DNA fingerprint on it. With that pattern in a database.

So it won't matter what your name is anymore. The Saudis are also implementing the same type of ID card before the next year is out.

Eventually, you'll only be able to use operatives who have never been identified with the organization before.

Thus ID cards wouldn't have stopped incidents such as the WTC attacks, the Oklahoma bombing, the Omagh bombing, the Brighton bombing, the Milan train station bombing, the night club bombing in Bali...

...

Ah, welcome back, long time no see. Is this really your first posting since August?

Ah, welcome back, long time no see. Is this really your first posting since August?
Thank you, I was wondering if I would be remembered. :D

As far as I remember it is. Summer at any rate

Thus ID cards wouldn't have stopped incidents such as the WTC attacks, the Oklahoma bombing, the Omagh bombing, the Brighton bombing, the Milan train station bombing, the night club bombing in Bali...

I'm not saying they would. But it would be hard for the same people to get away or repeat themselves. I do believe that it would make it possible to impose more tyranny though.

THE TIME TO STOP THE CARDS IS NOW by Kevin Williamson

As the full implications of his British Identity Card scheme begin to sink in you have to wonder whether David Blunkett first read George Orwell's 1984 as a brilliant piece of prophetic literature or as a New Labour manual.
"Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - for ever."
While most intelligent people would have taken Orwell's classic (written in 1948) as a warning against authoritarian control, Blunkett must have been wetting his pants with excitement as he turned the pages.
"And remember that it is for ever. The face will always be there to be stamped upon. The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. Everything that you have undergone since you have been in our hands - all that will continue, and worse. The espionage, the betrayals, the arrests, the tortures, the executions, the disappearances will never cease. It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph."
Now it's British Identity Cards that are being touted as a necessary answer to the threat of 'terrorism'.
Not a specific terrorism but a loose fit terrorism, where Osama Bin Laden has become Orwell's Goldstein, forever plotting against "democracy" and "the west", and where any non-WASP from overseas is subtly portrayed either as a potential security risk or as an unwanted intruder.
Every teatime news bulletin on the BBC now has its obligatory Newspeak propaganda item about the threat from terrorism, asylum seekers, etc.
The FUD school of news stories that Blunkett and the corporate media draw from appear limitless (spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt ).
I'm still waiting for the first newspaper editorial that states truthfully that the people of Scotland have no declared enemies anywhere, and have never been the victim of any targeted terrorist campaign since the Luftwaffe 60 years ago.
But we'll get these British Identity Cards too, based, most likely, on biometric readings taken from our eyeballs, which are then stored on microchips, and ultimately linked to a central electronic database in England called a "National Identity Register".
To try and sell this totalitarian nightmare Blunkett told Westminster that they would only vote for compulsory British Identity Cards if they were proven to be effective in combating terrorism and other forms of crime:
"I am confident this will be the case, otherwise I wouldn't be putting my political neck on the block."
He is so confident of this that a year earlier, when Chris Mullin MP asked him a question on their effectiveness against terrorism, Blunkett replied:
"I accept that it is important that we do not pretend that an entitlement card would be an overwhelming factor in combating terrorism." (July 3, 2003).
But not to be a man backed into an ideological corner, just six minutes later, in response to another question, this time from Teddy Taylor MP, Blunkett responded that he would not rule out the possibility of "their substantial contribution to countering terrorism".
These biometric British Identity Cards will not (initially) be used to provide police with stop and search powers.
But it is forecast that they will be made necessary to open a bank account, receive government benefits, gain employment, get NHS treatment or have access to educational establishments.
Biometric identity will be compulsory to get passports and driving licences from 2013 - although expect that date to be brought forward once these bampots think they've got away with it.
This leaves us a challenge. It may be nigh impossible to fight against British Identity Cards - if they are made compulsory in 2013 - through a boycott scheme.
By that time we can assume that big business and big government will have made it such an inconvenience for those who don't have one that a mass boycott at that stage may prove to be too late.
British Identity Cards need to be effectively challenged now, long before we get anywhere near 2013. The boycott proposed by Carolyn Leckie and others, is, at this stage, absolutely necessary to get off the ground, and as imaginatively as possible.
The Glasgow pilot scheme will be based at the DVLA office in West Campbell Street. That will be Scottish HQ for Big Brother.
Trade unionists need to be ready for the challenge. The resistance that starts in Glasgow will need to be spread rapidly, linking up with similar campaigns in England and Wales.
If this system of British Identity Cards makes it to the compulsory stage then our freedoms as citizens will hang in the balance.
Big Brother will have the technology at its disposal to potentially circumvent and clamp down on anyone who tries to challenge its corporate power structures. They must be stopped at all cost.

(From The Scottish Socialist Voice - http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.net)

I given up with politics. I'm not old enough to vote, but when I am I won't bother. What's the point? The government will push these sort of things through regardless of what the electorate want. It's become a complete waste of time.

Good government does what is right, not what is popular. Most people dont have actual political views: newspapers like the Sun tell them what to think. So essentially the tabloids run the country. Another reason why the working class shouldn't have the vote.

Hear hear, Europaland. Lenin is definitely still alive and operating under the alias 'Kevin'. ;)

Good government does what is right, not what is popular.

Why are they introducing ID cards, then? And since when were those elected not required to do what is popular?

There's a lot of debate as to the extent of the media's effect on people's political views; 'It Was the Sun Wot Done It' etc. Although it is widely believed that tabloids tend to exaggerate their effect on the electorate, just like they exaggerate everything else.

And don't worry, with a choice between New Labour and the Conservatives there is no chance of the working class electing a government that represents them =D

Last time I checked, Britain was a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. Personally, I think that the citizenry should have the right to assassinate any politician or bureaucrat who abuses his authority.


very intelligent comment. or not.

That's the problem. I can't stand people who say (and I know you weren't saying this exactly), "I prefer the LibDems but there's no point voting for them because they won't get in." Um, if you voted for them, perhaps they'd do a little better?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, let's have a hung Parliament at the next election, then Labour will have to form a coalition with the LibDems, who will only agree if they introduce proprotional representation. Then we can get British politics moving.

hell yes!!!!!! do it do it do it

Well, you can use a similar argument against credit cards can't you?

You can choose whether or not you want a credit card

Just how "common" are the people in the House of Commons? If they are anything like American congresspeople, not very.

American Congress (House and Senate):

79% white men
39% lawyers (53% in Senate)
93% Christian

Hear hear, Europaland. Lenin is definitely still alive and operating under the alias 'Kevin'. ;)



Why are they introducing ID cards, then? And since when were those elected not required to do what is popular?

There's a lot of debate as to the extent of the media's effect on people's political views; 'It Was the Sun Wot Done It' etc. Although it is widely believed that tabloids tend to exaggerate their effect on the electorate, just like they exaggerate everything else.

And don't worry, with a choice between New Labour and the Conservatives there is no chance of the working class electing a government that represents them =D

The point of government is to govern. All government decisions are going to upset somebody: look at something as trivial as fox hunting! The issue has split rural and urban communities, caused a major breach of security in the Commons, raised deep constitutional issues and will probably spark even more violent outbursts. All for the sake of appeasing some bleeding heart liberals. If government does what the people want, then it will end up making all the wrong decisions for all the wrong reasons. Most people have no idea about governing or the vast range of issues that surround British politics. Therefore they do not have the information available to them to be able to make good decisions.

The tabloid is the product of free speech. Or rather the abuse of free speech. Should freedom of speech be spent spying on footballers and then reporting the sordid details? No. Human Rights are a folly - we should have Human Priviledges. You are still born with the same 'rights' but the government should have the choice as to whether to deprive you of them.
It already happens: prison is the government removing your right to liberty. So why not extend the principle to those who squander the free word? Tabloids should be forced to renounce their newspaper status and become gossip mags instead.

But you will also not get ridiculously powerful governments pushing through unpopular policies, safe in the knowledge that everyone else is unelectable.

that's happening now anyway

I don't have a problem with ID cards per se, what I have a problem with is the amount of times they keep changing their ideas on what it does and how much it costs.
Surely the best idea for an ID card would be to replace the current National Insurance card. They would be sent to everybody over the age of 16. Each person would recieve a number which is required to pay taxes/recieve benefits. This card could also contain basic information on the holder (name, age, DOB, picture, finger print. All mostly included on the current card, barring picture and finger print) so it can be used for ID purposes.

I can't quite work out how id cards would help stop terrorism. Some bloke that you're buying explosives/weapons off of isn't going to ask you for id.

Human Rights are a folly - we should have Human Priviledges. You are still born with the same 'rights' but the government should have the choice as to whether to deprive you of them.
It already happens: prison is the government removing your right to liberty. So why not extend the principle to those who squander the free word? Tabloids should be forced to renounce their newspaper status and become gossip mags instead.

In Britain we have no codified rights. What the Americans call civil rights, like freedom of speech, are known here as civil liberties. The way the country works is that whatever isn't illegal after the government has finished making laws is a liberty. For example, due to the Criminal Justice Act of 1994, you no longer have the right to gather in a crowd of more than 8 and listen to music. It also practically made walking illegal with 'trespass', but that has since been amended.

So what you want is as it is, we have no rights, except the right to do what is not yet illegal.

Again you have nothing to worry about, it looks like the political correctness nuts are already removing our freedom of speech.

Ogiek- I think something like a third of all MPs are educated at Eton or one of the other great public schools. I don't think many of them would qualify as Christians though... ;)

ID Cards; useless for a variety of reasons.

1. Terrorists hide their motives, not their identity. They could be as nice as nice can be before they hurt anyone. Evidence of this lies in the ability of terrorists within Spain to commit the Madrid bombing this year in a country with Compulsory ID Cards.....
2. Crooks who cheat the benefits system could easily obtain forgeries.
3. Immigrants already have to have one, and the illegal immigrants can obtain forgeries anyway.

All this compulsory irrelevence for £85 each which to Americans would be around $164 at present exchange rates. In addition, the present government is notoriously incompetent financially in terms of upgrading data systems.

Finally, the 'you don't have anything to fear if you have nothing to hide' argument is a load of bull.
Firstly, everyone has something to hide.
Secondly, there is no guarantee of 'near-perfect' security in the system.
Thirdly, people should not have to justify their existence to the state. This is a fundamental principle of freedom that may soon be violated.

In Britain we have no codified rights. What the Americans call civil rights, like freedom of speech, are known here as civil liberties. The way the country works is that whatever isn't illegal after the government has finished making laws is a liberty. For example, due to the Criminal Justice Act of 1994, you no longer have the right to gather in a crowd of more than 8 and listen to music. It also practically made walking illegal with 'trespass', but that has since been amended.

So what you want is as it is, we have no rights, except the right to do what is not yet illegal.

Again you have nothing to worry about, it looks like the political correctness nuts are already removing our freedom of speech.

Ogiek- I think something like a third of all MPs are educated at Eton or one of the other great public schools. I don't think many of them would qualify as Christians though... ;)

Incorrect, we are bound by a codified set of rights called the Human Rights Act 1998 which is basically an act that set to implement the values of the European Convention on Human Rights which in turn was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here is a link.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Human%20Rights%20Act%201998

Finally, the 'you don't have anything to fear if you have nothing to hide' argument is a load of bull.
Firstly, everyone has something to hide.


Well, I don't think I have anything serious to hide not withstanding, "providers of public services and private sector organisations" will also have access to the information. What a merry world we live in when the gvt essentially makes advertising even easier.

:headbang:

That is all I have to say on the matter.

Labour are the new Tories and the Tories are still the old Tories. The LibDems don't really count so we're all doomed I tell you... *descends into ranting*

Why does everyone hate the ID card thing so much? The only people who have anything to fear from it are terrorists, idenitiy thiefs etc. People who dont break the law like this have nothing to fear from them

Like someone's already said, perhaps you'd like CCTV in your house?

And terrorists were not stopped by ID cards in Madrid, or New York. Or anywhere else for that matter. The IRA waged a 30 year campaign of terror and yet ID cards were not introduced. The IRA were fought by discrediting them, by disrupting their means of supply and communication. Not by a bit of plastic.

Identity theft will likely be made worse by a compulsory ID card. You are introducing a single point of attack, and a single point of failure. With a viable false ID card (which I'm betting will be available within 6 months of their release), you will be able to get literally anywhere. People will see the card as a panacea - a cure-all, and will become more lax, relying on the card. This means that forgeries will be all the more powerful.

That and you're basically pointing a gun at my head and saying "you WILL sign up".

Thats significently diffrent. With an ID card all it does is proves who I am. I see no problem with that.

But if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide. So what's your problem with CCTV in your house? You've done nothing wrong, have you?

The £85 covers the ID card and your new updated 10 year passport.
(p.s it's free for under 16 year olds and pensioners and low-income citizens will get it for a reduced price)

Less forgeable in that it's very difficult to forge biometric information? A person's fingerprints, iris image or facial dimensions, which are unique to the individual?

How about the database getting fiddled so that the false card appears on the database, and the false fingerprints appear there too?

And you think people can't be bribed?

Incidentally, that one took me five minutes. Given more time, money, and a detailed knowledge of the system, I'm sure I can find more foolproof ways of subverting the system. No system is hacker proof, dearie. Computer or otherwise.

ID cards would only really have an influence on matters "after the fact". Especially ones based on DNA.

So we find your blown up bits after your suicide bombing. We'll know who you used to be, without much trouble.

If that's connected to other data sources, we'll be able to track where you were prior regardless of any aliases you use.

Won't stop you from coming, though.

As for acts you might want to commit, and live to see the other side of, it makes a dandy deterrent. Your ID is likely to be unforgeable (if based on DNA and a central database that correlates), or very nearly so. Even if you change your name, your DNA signature will not, and any evidence collected at a scene (so much as hair, or a used drinking straw) will be enough to tie you to a scene.

Credit card companies would like such a card, because it would sharply reduce credit card fraud. Renting a hotel room or renting a car in the US would be incredibly difficult - most require a credit card.

The slipknot of tyranny is indeed tightening. Imagine trying to get away from the government under those circumstances if they knew who you were.

Umm..
Little Minds?
I don't mean to burst you bubble but in a suicide bombing, your not going to have any DNA remains; the blast will disintegrate the remains and all the DNA.

Umm..
Little Minds?
I don't mean to burst you bubble but in a suicide bombing, your not going to have any DNA remains; the blast will disintegrate the remains and all the DNA.

No, you'd still have chunks, even if only fingernail-sized. Remember the whale and half a ton of dynamite? DNA is a surprisingly resilient thing, and you would be able to gather a few chromosomes from the stains on the wall.

The IRA were fought by discrediting them, by disrupting their means of supply and communication. Not by a bit of plastic.


Is this a euphemistic way of describing the dirty war that was waged against them by the British? That matter aside: the IRA were never beaten, it was actually talking to them and recognising their interests that lead to the peacefires...

Is this a euphemistic way of describing the dirty war that was waged against them by the British? That matter aside: the IRA were never beaten, it was actually talking to them and recognising their interests that lead to the peacefires...

I didn't say they were beaten.

And a ton of fertilizer going off and blowing the crap out of a city centre, or mortars going off and killing children isn't exactly clean, now is it?

I didn't say they were beaten.

Nor did I calim that you did.

Edit: 'calim'? - nor, for that matter did I claim it.

And a ton of fertilizer going off and blowing the crap out of a city centre, or mortars going off and killing children isn't exactly clean, now is it?

And did I say that it was anywhere in that post? My point was that those in a position of power and authority have been witnessed to fight dirty and use underhand tactics time and time again, even when they are nominally the 'good' guys: on this basis there is little reason to expect that when it comes to use of ID cards they will earn their white hats.

Umm..
Little Minds?
I don't mean to burst you bubble but in a suicide bombing, your not going to have any DNA remains; the blast will disintegrate the remains and all the DNA.

Without wanting to get gruesome, this isn't true at all.

Incorrect, we are bound by a codified set of rights called the Human Rights Act 1998 which is basically an act that set to implement the values of the European Convention on Human Rights which in turn was based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Yup. Sorry to sound like some prat from the pub, but that is a load of crap.

The human rights act was, just like the fox hunting thing, introduced to pacify certain groups. It isn't really viable as a piece of legislature as it is so bloody vague. It does not remove the ability of parliament to legislate against various forms of expression. Take the race relations act. Alright, racism is an ugly thing, but regardless of the 'Human Rights Act of 1988', which I was fully aware of before I wrote my previous post, it restricts freedom of speech where it is concerned with people of other races or colours. I do not necessarily disagree with this, but the Human Rights Act guarantees nothing, and enshrines for us British no rights whatsoever.

What the act does mean is that a British citizen can appeal to a British court (against the government) for a breach of human rights rather than having to go to Brussels, but in effect, they rarely win.

Is this a euphemistic way of describing the dirty war that was waged against them by the British? That matter aside: the IRA were never beaten, it was actually talking to them and recognising their interests that lead to the peacefires...

How did recognising drug peddling and extortion rackets contribute to the ceasefires?

Is this a euphemistic way of describing the dirty war that was waged against them by the British? That matter aside: the IRA were never beaten, it was actually talking to them and recognising their interests that lead to the peacefires...
The dirty war that was fought against murders drug runners and people who trained and supported arab terrorists. People who murdered women, children, unborn babies, people foolish enought to go for a drink in a Birmingham pub or were attending horse gaurds parade!
There was no war, the cowards wore no uniforms and even though the British knew who many of them were they were not alowed to kill the murderers. They then cried like babies when real soldiers shot and killed thier terrorist when they were taking part in terrorist activities, they ran and stillrun much of the protection and organised crime in NI along with the protestant counterparts. SCUM every last one of them, didn't like the result of democratic processes then resort to murder, great system!

There was no war, the cowards wore no uniforms and even though the British knew who many of them were they were not alowed to kill the murderers.

Are you claiming that the British never went beyond the law themselves?

Bump?

I don't believe I'm posting on Christmas day.

Oh the shame