NO2ID

Whilst it is obvious to most of those opposed to this scheme that the government is blustering and seeking to obsfucate in relation to the very difficult if not unamnswerable questions being put to it, it does seem that the public and the media particularly, are not engaging in what I would regard as an acceptable debate.

If it is true (and I personally doubt that it is) that the majority of the great British public are broadly in favour of the introduction of ID cards plus the NIR, then I suggest that this is becuase the overwhleming majority of us do not understand fully what is being proprosed, have no real concpetion as to what the implications will be, nor do they have any real understanding as to what the real issues are. Of course groups like NO2ID serve a very important educative role in this respect, but sadly there isn't the kind of general public debate one would really need in order to disusade the government of it's intentions. I myself despir talking to friends and colleagues about this issue becuase being relatively repressenative of the population as a whole, it becomes clear to me just how ignorant and naive they really are. I don't say this in an effort to besmerch them but merely to point out that one of the more insidious and sinsister aspects to the government's plans is that it is to a large extent, relying on ignorance and apathy to get the legilsation passed.

Nowhere it seem to me are question of the kind that follows ever being asked:

1. Why should it be necessary for a UK citizen, or indeed an authorised visitor to the UK, to have to prove his or her entitlement to government services when, to a very large extent, they are currently not required to do so and they can easily and quite satisfactorily prove their entitlement if need be using existing forms of ID such as a passport or driving license and, most importantly of all, most of these rights (for that is what they are), are automatically bestowed upon us by default by virtue of our citizenship and the very institutions established precisely for the deliverance of this service?

2. Is it right and acceptable that a government should be afford the right to invade anyone's privacy purely on the pretext that it might help prevent terroris, crime and benefit fruad etc?

3. What sort of levels of intrusion into our daily lives are we prepared to accept from government if indeed it is true that to allow it to happen will serve to prevent crime happening?

4.Do we want to live in a society were all citizens will be required to seek permision in order to live within it, hold down a job and function as normal human being? Why should it even be necessary to do this?
.
5. With this legislation, are we striking the right balance between curtailment of freedoms and the right to control us by government?
.
Having read this post, I wondered if others would be prepared to share their views on this.

The main problem is that people Trust The Government. Only a minority have been
* incorrectly convicted of crimes, e.g., by corrupt police
* had their lives blighted by `high level' `planning' decisions
* been victims of a legal system that favours the rich
* have had their lives affected by incompetent or arrogant official decisions
etc. and most people see the government as a benevolent institution that protects us from all those nasty people out there. I could go on, but you get the idea. You (and I) have to break through that mind-set, which has been nurtured throughout their lives.

I think the problems you describe with the (to generalise) British public's reaction to ID cards and the NIR boils down to one thing: personal responsibility.

I wish I knew why most Britons are so apathetic. Perhaps it's because the British haven't revolted for centuries? Why do so many Britons fail to understand the role and purpose of the government? Perhaps it's a lack of written constitution - combined with Blair's constant attacks on traditional Common Law concepts? Perhaps it's an inevitable consequence of ever-bigger government? Why do so few Britons stand up to the government's abuses?

Why, for example, do most Britons willingly pay a £60 fine and accept three points on their driving licences when they get a letter in the post telling them they were photographed driving at 35mph in a 30mph zone (which, only a few weeks earlier might have been a 50mph zone)? There's no trial - and most people don't even ask to see the evidence. It's a matter of convenience. Pay the fine, move along. Worringly, more and more offences are handled this way. Your child missed school? £100 fine. You were caught drunk and disorderly? £100 fine.

The British, as a whole, are :-

* Too trusting of government

* Too willing to put government bureaucrats, targets and quotas in charge of their own lives

* Obsessed with convenience or 'not causing a fuss'

Stephen

Whenever a problem is highlighted in the news someone will always say "the government must do something about it". Therein lies your mindset. The average Briton likes big government to take responsibility as it stops them having to think too deeply about it - or, heavens above, take responsibility for themselves.

If Charlie Clarke says ID cards will combat terrorism, benefit fraud, ID theft and put a man on the moon, then it will.

All of the points made thus far are extremely insightful and perfectly valid but they don't answer my orginal question which is: why is the qaulity of the debate taking place so poor? Is it just that becuase we do trust government to the extent alledged, we are unable to make the necessary mental leap required to want to question it's intentions?

We don't bother to debate principles anymore and it is that that concerns me. Also, using the justifcatory principle as it's basis, we seldom start by asking : "what's right with the proposal to introduce ID cards?" Instead, we asssume them to be a good thing by definition and star by asking the question : "what's wrong with the proposal to introduce ID cards?"

If we adopt this approach, we end up as the government are doing, simply trying to amend fundamentally flawed legislation (flawed on the grounds of principle) by altering the legislation in the hope that the concomitant problems can either be done away with or minimized. If there is a problem with the proposal based on principle, then you're never going to solve it through this aproach.

You're right, nobody seems to be interested in principles any more only costs. I'm not sure whether to advance the theory that it's because we're a more materialistic society these days or that education has failed to equip people with skills unrelated to passing exams. I'll leave these two potential rants alone for now

On the cost front its also interesting that its the cost per person, not overall that seems to be the sticking point. This implies that somehow people see items funded from taxation as being 'free money'.

I think part of the problem is that the Government and some of the media have been helping to create a climate of fear around several issues. This has made it easier for the many authoritation laws that have gone through lately.

There also seems to be a widespread and developing contempt for civil liberties. I'm tired of hearing people ranting about "do-gooders". I tend to ask them if they'd prefer "do-badders".

On your question about the quality of debate there hasn't really been one. The Government have done their best to avoid it. All we've really seen is the incumbent at the home office waving a piece of plastic about with a silly grin on his face (while going "La la I can't hear you" to all his critics).

So we now have ministers spluttering that the LSE figures must be wrong, while not having produced any of their own (or a design of how it will work) and expecting MPs to vote for a "make it up as we go along" scheme.

I find it quite sad that this stupid plan could go through based on people's fear and ignorance but I'm afraid that's the way this country is these days.

Martin

I would go as far as saying that the debate has started now - a bit late for my liking. Some responsibility for this has to go to some sections of the media who sat on this topic and suddenly decided - 24 hours before the vote in the parliament - that it is time to put some issues to their readers.

We could argue all day and all night about the average Brit and if they engage or not in public debates. Certainly ID cards should have had more explicit and more wide debate - may I say, driven by the government, but of course this did not happen, and we can all guess why. Because the government has been trying hard to keep it off the news.

I think the combination of government spin plus some media apathy on the topic have contributed to the lack of debate. As it stands only members of certain political parties and organisations have been trying hard to keep all this in the public arena.

The public can and will engage if the facts are served to them not hidden from them. The recent - very recent - attention to the topic by the media has contributed to the shift for support against this Idiotic scheme.

Our task is to keep it in the news as often as possible and as wide as possible.

N.