Skip to main content

Hurrah for the demise of ID cards

In all the moaning and groaning about the new coalition government in the UK, most people seemed to have missed the fact that the ID card programme is to be scrapped.

Personally, I think the moaning is misplaced. It's rubbish to complain about Liberal Democrats betraying people because they've had to compromise to form the coalition. All coalitions involve compromise - and usually it's a good thing. It tempers both parties more loony ideas.

I also can't understand the whingeing about the 55% majority required to be able to dissolve parliament. This kind of arrangement is a standard feature of fixed term parliaments - and is already in place in Scotland. It's pathetic that people are moaning about it. I can only think they don't understand what's going on.

But surely we can all agree that getting rid of the ridiculous ID card scheme is a good idea. Leaving aside the civil liberty issues, and the fact that it would not have done anything to prevent terrorism, it's a great opportunity to make a spending cut - absolutely essential right now - without any negative impact on the country. Nice one, Dave'n'Nick.


Image from Daily Mail website

Comments

  1. I've campaigned against ID cards ever since it was made clear that they would be compulsory.

    I've often said to anyone in earshot that I'd rather go to jail than be forced to have an ID card; on the other hand if they had anything extra to offer over and above a passport or a driving licence (with their photo IDs) then I might be prepared to compromise and enter into my own coalition with the state - but hopefully that's at least 5 years away.

    The real question for me now is what else can be swept away in the name of savings?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "ID cards" ARE compulsory. If you apply for a job you have to prove you have a right to employment. If you open a bank account you need proof of identity. If you need benefits of any type, e.g. medical, you need some sort of ID.

    Few people in the UK would even know how they could live without any sort of ID, and even fewer would want to.

    Yes, there is merit in "trying" to stay off a central database. French Jews paid the ultimate price of having their "ethnicity" indicated on their ID cards in 1940.

    But it is absurd to say that there is no need for some sort of ID, it is absurd to say that we don't have "ID cards" just yet, and it is absurd to say that an "ID card" has to mean a central database where ALL the data is compiled.

    Anyone who understands how data is best safeguarded knows that the current system in the UK is far far worse than just a simple "driving licence" type card, that only confirms identity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'ID cards' in this context is shorthand for 'the Labour government's ID card scheme, including a central database.'

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope