Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

Well, apparently...

An interesting post from Samizdata showing a transcript of the words of Lord Gould of Brookwood during the ID Card debate at the Committee Stage in The House of Lords.

Quote: Both the previous speakers—the latter with great emotion—were arguing for freedom. We have to ask what greater freedom is there than the freedom to place a vote for a political party in a ballot box upon the basis of a mandate and a manifesto. That is the crux of it: the people have supported this measure. That is what the noble Earl's father fought for. But that is too trivial an answer. I know that. The fundamental argument is that the truth is that people believe that these identity cards will affirm their identity. The noble Lord opposite said that he likes to be in this House and how he is recognised in this House because it is a community that recognises him. That is how the people of this nation feel. They feel that they are part of communities, and they want recognition. For them, recognition comes in the form of this identity card. Noble Lords may think that that is strange, but it is what they feel. This is their kind of freedom. They want their good, hard work and determination to be recognised, rewarded and respected. That is what this does.

Of course it is right and honourable for noble Lords to have their views, but I say there is another view, and it is the view of the majority of this country. They want to have the respect, recognition and freedom that this card will give them. Times have changed. Politics have changed. What would not work 50 years ago, works now. It is not just me. I have the words of the leader of your party:

"I have listened to the police and security service chiefs. They have told me that ID cards can and will help their efforts to protect the lives of British citizens against terrorist acts. How can I disregard that?".

This is not some silly idea of the phoney left. It is a mainstream idea of modern times. It is a new kind of identity and a new kind of freedom. I respect the noble Lords' views, but it would help if they respected the fact that the Bill and the identity cards represent the future: a new kind of freedom and a new kind of identity. [My Bold]

Throughout the past few years it has seemed rather bizarre that the unelected chamber has stood up for the liberties of the British people far more than the elected chamber - standing until the end on the Fox Hunting Bill and forcing the Parliament Act as a key example. And on ID Cards it seems the Lords again will do the right thing.

But the rhetoric of Lord Gould is truly stunning and actually quite frightening. Its a classic example of how totalitarian forces redefine "freedom" and "liberty" to their own ends, as if those that have used those words before were somehow mistaken on their meaning.

The below statement could easily be stuck onto the end of Lord Gould's speech:

Quote: In our state the individual is not deprived of freedom. In fact, he has greater liberty than an isolated man, because the state protects him and he is part of the State. Isolated man is without defence

Alas, rather this is attributed to Benito Mussolini. I think we start to see a pattern? :shock:

[thefranzkafkafront]

:shock: what have you been reading.

That time at uni starting to change your views on order?

As for this i.d card bill, s**t let it come its the stamp act this country needs to rouse itself from idle collectivist slumber.

[Pebble]

First point, be under no illusions, the lords did not hold up fox hunting legislation because of some commitment to freedoms. They did it for self intrest. Though that's off topic...


Anyway...

Quote: They feel that they are part of communities, and they want recognition. For them, recognition comes in the form of this identity card.

What the? I mean really? What is he on about...does he assume that everyone will become more friendly due to the card?

I don't understand his reasoning throughout the article to be honest.


Lastly, I notice a new sig, have you given up on the conservative party for the minute?

[Snow Patrol]

Yeah the ID card scheme on proposal is pretty horrible in almost every regard and this reasoning given by Lord generic-middle aged-overweight-slightly balding man-in a bad suit is almost verging on idiotic. However i think they're trying almost anything to justify it as long as it distances itself from the "combats terrorism" response given in favour of ID cards previously, since that was shown as rather vapid by the terrorist attacks in July.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: :shock: what have you been reading.

That time at uni starting to change your views on order?
To be fair, for as long as i've been on here Hargreaves has been against identity cards.

[Lord Hargreaves]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: :shock: what have you been reading.

That time at uni starting to change your views on order?

I have been reading new things and changing my views on some things. However like Snow Patrol says I've always been against ID Cards.

thefranzkafkafront wrote: As for this i.d card bill, s**t let it come its the stamp act this country needs to rouse itself from idle collectivist slumber.

If i've been reading new things perhaps you could too. If you think Ms Greene from Parklane is going to find time for revolutuion between collecting the kids from school and Coronation Street I suspect you may be disappointed. Even during the most horrific times of totalitarianism it is almost always the informed and activist minorities which start them - in most "popular revolutions" the majority is rarely consulted.

Pebble wrote: First point, be under no illusions, the lords did not hold up fox hunting legislation because of some commitment to freedoms. They did it for self intrest. Though that's off topic...

What because the entire upper chamber hunts? :lol: Anyway their actions were commendable, and thats whats important in a vote.

Pebble wrote: Lastly, I notice a new sig, have you given up on the conservative party for the minute?

I'm still a registered member, although I no longer consider myself to have any loyalty to the party. Dave-o Cameron seems set on taking on Blair from the same ideological standpoint as New Labour - and as such, while Cameron does his best to undermine Blair's legacy, in fact no bigger tribute could be paid to him.

At this rate Blair will want to loose the election, because all signs indicate Cameron can be more trusted to continue Blair's legacy than Brown. We shall have to wait and see...

[Lord Hargreaves]

A new opinion piece on ID Cards today in the Telegraph, including reference to a story local authorities may get the power to search homes for ID and impose fines on you if you do not own an ID Card - so much for the cards being "voluntary":

Quote: A tax on being alive
(Filed: 08/01/2006)

Labour's determination to introduce compulsory identity cards for all British citizens sends a shiver down the spine of anyone concerned about individual liberty or protecting their privacy from the intrusive meddling of the state. One of the most treasured and ancient freedoms enjoyed by Britons has been not having to present "identity papers" to the police.

Labour's proposal to "modernise" Britain by taking that freedom away has never been popular. Aware of that, the Government has repeatedly insisted that ID cards would be introduced "voluntarily". Labour's manifesto for last year's election, for instance, soothingly claimed that ID cards would be "on a voluntary basis, as people renew their passports".

The story we publish today shows that promise to be false. Proposals from Lord Falconer's Department for Constitutional Affairs reveal the true intentions of the Government on ID cards: local authorities will be empowered to fine anyone - and as much as £2,500 - who fails to register with the ID data base, or fails to keep their details up to date. The proposals would effectively make the failure to obtain an identity card a crime, and make it about as voluntary as paying tax. They would, indeed, create a new tax: a tax simply on being alive.

The Lord Chancellor's proposals are not yet law - but something like them is inevitable if ID cards are introduced. As critics of identity cards have always maintained, for them to fulfil the purpose for which they are designed, they have to be universal. The only way to make them universal is to make them compulsory - which means punishments for those who do not comply.

That coercive logic should be enough to consign ID cards to the legislative scrapheap. Unfortunately, the Government has drawn the opposite conclusion. ID cards are coming - and with them, a new tax, a new criminal offence, and unprecedented new powers for the state to snoop on private citizens and intrude into their lives.

BTW I'm unclear as to what stage the ID Card Bill is in Parliament. It can still be voted down in the Commons, correct?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: :shock: what have you been reading.

That time at uni starting to change your views on order?

I have been reading new things and changing my views on some things. However like Snow Patrol says I've always been against ID Cards.


Fair enough.

Quote:
thefranzkafkafront wrote: As for this i.d card bill, s**t let it come its the stamp act this country needs to rouse itself from idle collectivist slumber.

If i've been reading new things perhaps you could too. If you think Ms Greene from Parklane is going to find time for revolutuion between collecting the kids from school and Coronation Street I suspect you may be disappointed. Even during the most horrific times of totalitarianism it is almost always the informed and activist minorities which start them - in most "popular revolutions" the majority is rarely consulted.
Well there are allways going to be people against liberty, all that is needed is enough to fight for it.

[Jajo]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: A new opinion piece on ID Cards today in the Telegraph, including reference to a story local authorities may get the power to search homes for ID and impose fines on you if you do not own an ID Card - so much for the cards being "voluntary":

Quote: A tax on being alive
(Filed: 08/01/2006)

Labour's determination to introduce compulsory identity cards for all British citizens sends a shiver down the spine of anyone concerned about individual liberty or protecting their privacy from the intrusive meddling of the state. One of the most treasured and ancient freedoms enjoyed by Britons has been not having to present "identity papers" to the police.

Labour's proposal to "modernise" Britain by taking that freedom away has never been popular. Aware of that, the Government has repeatedly insisted that ID cards would be introduced "voluntarily". Labour's manifesto for last year's election, for instance, soothingly claimed that ID cards would be "on a voluntary basis, as people renew their passports".

The story we publish today shows that promise to be false. Proposals from Lord Falconer's Department for Constitutional Affairs reveal the true intentions of the Government on ID cards: local authorities will be empowered to fine anyone - and as much as £2,500 - who fails to register with the ID data base, or fails to keep their details up to date. The proposals would effectively make the failure to obtain an identity card a crime, and make it about as voluntary as paying tax. They would, indeed, create a new tax: a tax simply on being alive.

The Lord Chancellor's proposals are not yet law - but something like them is inevitable if ID cards are introduced. As critics of identity cards have always maintained, for them to fulfil the purpose for which they are designed, they have to be universal. The only way to make them universal is to make them compulsory - which means punishments for those who do not comply.

That coercive logic should be enough to consign ID cards to the legislative scrapheap. Unfortunately, the Government has drawn the opposite conclusion. ID cards are coming - and with them, a new tax, a new criminal offence, and unprecedented new powers for the state to snoop on private citizens and intrude into their lives.

BTW I'm unclear as to what stage the ID Card Bill is in Parliament. It can still be voted down in the Commons, correct?

the third reading could see it voted down look here if you want everything on the Bill it is too long to post onto here, it is at the top of the page.

http://bills.parliament.uk/ip.asp

The main fear i have is them being made compulsory, it has been said that it would be around 2010-11 they would consider this. But if this was the case it would mean i would have to carry it all the time so i could produce it when asked therfore i would have to take it when ever i went out, the reason i say i would have to carry it all the ime is that other wise people when asked you it could just say they have left it at home and then it would be useless.

I don't supose anyone from another country with a compulsory ID card knows how it works in respect of carrying it all the ime and what happens if you are asked you it?

[Pebble]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4616356.stm


Quote: Identity cards facing Lords vote
ID card
MPs and peers are still worried about possible cost overruns
The identity cards scheme should be put on hold until ministers provide full estimates of its cost, say Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers.

The demand will be put to a vote as the House of Lords continue detailed scrutiny of the identity cards scheme.

Ministers say some of the figures are sensitive and revealing them would make it harder to get a good deal.

But the London School of Economics says the Home Office is relying on guesswork and has underestimated the costs.

The government is facing a possible defeat in the Lords as peers try to block the scheme unless a full costs estimate is vetted by both the National Audit Office and MPs.

Conservative peers are so determined to get at the real cost of the scheme that they have proposed holding a rare secret session of the Lords to discuss the issue.

Shadow home affairs minister Lady Anelay said the government had rejected that offer.

As the Lords began the report stage of the Identity Bill, Conservative Baroness Noakes said the government had given "absolutely no information" about the scheme's start-up costs.

It was unprecedented that legislation with such major consequences should go forward without Parliament being able to scrutinise the financial impact, said Lady Noakes.

Cost claims

Liberal Democrat spokesman Lord Phillips of Sudbury said it would be "constitutionally wrong" not to insist on a full estimate of the costs across government.

"At the moment we are being offered a pig-in-a-poke; the cart before the horse," said Lord Phillips.

The Home Office estimates that the scheme will cost about £584m to run each year, with each combined biometric passport and identity card costing £93.

But it has not given full cost estimates for setting up the scheme and says its overall costs will depend on how government departments choose to use the card scheme.

In a new report, the LSE sticks by its claims that the scheme would cost between £10bn and £19bn over 10 years if the government followed its original plans.

Simon Davies, one of the academics involved in the scheme, said it was impossible to updates the costs because the government was "changing the goal posts", including making it less secure.

He complained there was a "culture of secrecy".

And he said government departments would now be able to choose to buy into the scheme.

"This must be the first in the world where there are official ID cards where there is no binding obligation on the government to use it," Mr Davies told BBC News.

Getting value

Ian Angell, head of the LSE Department of Information Systems, said they did not know what to believe any more. "Contradictions, guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the Home Office make a mockery of any pretence that this scheme is based on serious reasoning."

But Home Office Minister Andy Burnham said the LSE report was based on false assumptions and included figures designed to produce a newspaper headline.

Mr Burnham said he had been as open as he could about the cost estimates, which were "robust".

But disclosing all the figures "may lead us not to get the best deal for the taxpayer", he said.

Conservative leader David Cameron vowed on Sunday to oppose the ID card plans, calling them "un-British".

"I don't like ID cards, I don't like the idea that you have to have this bit of paper just for existing," he told BBC's Sunday AM, saying there were practical reasons for opposing the scheme too.

Tory and Lib Dem peers are also set to oppose moves to issue people with ID cards when they get a new passport from 2008.

They say Labour's manifesto only commits to a voluntary scheme.


It continues...

Found the bold part particularly interesting, the first part is essentially rubbish in my opinion, I doubt that private companies would stop falling over themselves to get such a lucrative contract simply for revelaing the details to the public.

The second worries me, when people like LSE (very respected economics institute) are saying that the government is essentially running on guesswork it bears some truth.

One can only hope that the appaling idea is just plain scrapped.

[Pebble]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4616356.stm

Quote:
Last Updated: Monday, 16 January 2006, 18:03 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Lords defeat for ID cards scheme
ID card
MPs and peers are still worried about possible cost overruns
The government has been defeated in the Lords as peers said its controversial ID cards scheme could not go ahead until its full costs were revealed.

Ministers say it will cost £584m a year to issue cards but say revealing costings for the full scheme could make it harder to get a good value deal.

Peers voted by 237 votes to 156 to block the scheme until the National Audit Office and MPs vet the figures.

The government is likely to try to overturn the defeat in the Commons.

Ministers say they will press ahead with the scheme.

'Going for value'

Home Office Minister Andy Burnham said he would study the debate carefully but found it hard to believe the opposition amendment was sensible.

"People want us to keep the costs of the ID cards down but this amendment would limit the government's ability to do that," he said.


Contradictions, guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the Home Office make a mockery of any pretence that this scheme is based on serious reasoning
Ian Angell,
London School of Economics

"It would require us to put into the public domain costs we want to keep back as we want to get the best possible deal for the taxpayers."

The defeat comes after a new report from the London School of Economics said the Home Office was relying on guesswork and had underestimated the costs.

Conservative peers were so determined to get at the real cost of the scheme that they proposed holding a rare secret session of the Lords to discuss the issue.

Shadow home affairs minister Lady Anelay said the government had rejected that offer.

As the Lords began the report stage of the Identity Bill, Conservative Baroness Noakes said the government had given "absolutely no information" about the scheme's start-up costs.

It was unprecedented that legislation with such major consequences should go forward without Parliament being able to scrutinise the financial impact, she said.

Cost claims

Liberal Democrat spokesman Lord Phillips of Sudbury said it would be "constitutionally wrong" not to insist on a full estimate of the costs across government. "At the moment we are being offered a pig-in-a-poke; the cart before the horse," he said..

The Home Office estimates the scheme will cost about £584m to run each year, with each combined biometric passport and identity card costing £93.

But it has not given full cost estimates for setting up the scheme and says its overall costs will depend on how government departments choose to use the card scheme.

In a new report, the LSE sticks by its claims that the scheme would cost between £10bn and £19bn over 10 years if the government followed its original plans.

Simon Davies, one of the academics involved in the scheme, said it was impossible to updates the costs because the government was "changing the goal posts", including making it less secure.

He complained there was a "culture of secrecy".

Getting value

Ian Angell, head of the LSE Department of Information Systems, said: "Contradictions, guesswork and wishful thinking on the part of the Home Office make a mockery of any pretence that this scheme is based on serious reasoning."

But the Home Office says the LSE is using "fantasy figures".

Conservative leader David Cameron vowed on Sunday to oppose the ID card plans, calling them "un-British".

"I don't like the idea that you have to have this bit of paper just for existing," he told BBC's Sunday AM.


Blocked by the Lords...

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Samizdata

When/why did you start to read this?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Reason wrote: Quote: Samizdata

When/why did you start to read this?

Nice to know what y'all libertarian folk are up to occasionally :lol: