Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Passes ID Card Bill
cowbutt writes "The two houses of the UK government, the elected House of Commons and the House of Lords have agreed a compromise on Labour's ID cards bill, after Conservative peers accepted a Labour amendment. Under the new amendment, anyone renewing a designated document (e.g. passport) will be able to opt-out of getting a card until 2010, but will still have their details put on the National ID Register immediately."
> This is going to cost the government some money. That money comes from taxes and fees. What is the British citizen getting for that expense?
Screwed.
It's a huge expense, with no discernible benefit in the areas it's touted against - Immigration, Terrorism, Benefit Fraud. At the risk of repeating myself, but in the vain hope that MPs who clearly have trouble following a simple logical argument may understand, let's break it down:
* Immigration:
a) You get across the border with your foreign passport. ID cards don't help.
b) In a country where, when you get stopped by the police while driving, you have a choice of going to a police station of your convenience within 7 days to show your driving license and insurance details or simply giving a fake name and address, what chance do you have of people actually carrying the ID around? And if you don't get arrested for not having it, it will be ineffective.
* Terrorism:
AFAIK, nobody who has or has attempted to commit an act of terrorism in the UK in history, including Guy Fawkews, would have had a problem getting an ID card. So the net effect on terrorism will be - zilch. nada. nothing. nichts. zero.
* Benefit Fraud:
IIRC, benefit fraud is estimated at GBP 2 billion p.a., and according to government figures, in excess of 95% of that is "misrepresentation of circumstances" (a.k.a. as "my bad back stops me working, but doesn't trouble me on the golf course"). And ID card will help in that area by....magically diagnosing fake back pain? Sounding alarm sirens on malingerers? No, they will help - not at all. So we'll spend at least 8 billion on the governments own estimate to combat 5% of 2billion... Even Gordon Brown should be able to spot the flaw in THAT argument.
Now, if the government does something so patently nonsensical, one has to suspect them of terminal stupidity or having ulterior motives. Neither is a pleasant explanation.
What really galls me about this is how they've threatened the House of Lords, which has done an admirable job of protecting us, even if it's clearly fighting a loosing battle. The irritating thing is that Tony and his Cronies claim to have a democratic mandate; and while the Lords, of course, traditionally lack a democratic mandate, at least they, unlike the PM, weren't actively opposed by two thirds of the voters.
The bottom line is that Tony and his Cronies have comprehensively fucked us over. And unlike George W, they don't even have the excuse of not knowing any better. But they got into power on the premise of protecting human rights, introducing freedom of information, and making the country more democratic; let's not mention of sorting out the health service and education, since they have patently failed on those.
Yes, they introduced a human rights act, only to "opt out" of the important bits as soon as they could; all the terrorism legislation they have introduced has shown that - a lot of them being lawyers - they either slept through the human rights lessons, or just don't give a fuck about people. The latter is more likely, although of course there's the third alternative: Tony creates patently illegal legislation, and Chery and Matrix chambers take the government to court, creating a perpetual money machine for the Blair family. Of course that would be far too sinister for reality, but Dan Brown might take this theory into account for his next plagiarism trial )
They did introduce a freedom of information act. With all the relevant teeth removed. "Commercial Sensitivity" is apparently a valid reason for not giving information. Excuse me, but if you're spending MY tax money I have a right to know how.
They promised to reform the unelected House of Lords. Yes, they did, but by replacing most of the hereditary peers with a bunch of people appointed by an "indepenedent" commitee appointed by the government. Who's going to be more independent, the great-great
no taxation without representation!