UK Governments U-Turn on ID cards

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Smartalk, Jun 30, 2009.

  1. Smartalk

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    8 miles outside of Manchester
    UK's Labour Government has announced a U-turn on Compulsory ID cards. It was announced that they were no longer going to make them compulsory but voluntary for those who wished to have them.

    I agree it would help with National Security, but I also thought that it was an infrindgement of Human Rights, Big Brother Watching you. Added to the fact considering the Goverment said you will have them and you will have to pay for the privilage of having one.

    How desperate is the Labour Party to gain favour
     
  2. D_Relentless Original

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    16,839
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Hi Smart, yeah i've been kinda following this, with evrything thats going on in the UK these days, i'm kinda leaning towards this.
     
  3. B_mitchymo

    B_mitchymo New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Rugby, England
    Lmao...yep most probably a popularity boost incentive, don't blame them for trying tho, they have been hit hardest over the expenses scandal because they happen to be the current government, any other party would have come off just as badly especially after the global events that have marred Labour's duration in government.
     
  4. Yorkie

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,024
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    102
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Yorkshire, UK
    Does anyone seriously think that an ID card will prevent a maniac from planting a bomb?
    I always thought this scheme was a stupid waste of money.By election time the whole idea will be quietly buried.
     
  5. SEXXXX

    SEXXXX New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    312
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC
    enlighten me, how most of you use for ID if not ID cards?
     
  6. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Under the British plan, going out in public would require someone to carry an ID card at all times. It's one of the grossest infringements of privacy and freedoms I've seen from a supposedly modern western government. The UK is already the most surveilled society in the western world and the ID card scheme just adds to the Orwellian aspect of it all. I'm glad to see it junked.
     
  7. MarkLondon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,986
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, UK
    We don't, generally.

    ID cards were introduced in the two World Wars. The 1945-51 labour government continued their use but they were unpopular. Not least because of the image of war-time uniformed Nazis demanding to see "papers" in occupied Europe.

    There is no requirement to carry identifying documents in the UK. Police have the power to demand to see a motorist's driving license and insurance documents, but you have up to three days (?) to present them at a police station. Those have only recently included a photograph.

    In most encounters with the police, even reporting a crime, they will ask your name, address and place and date of birth, but you don't have to prove it. Though I think it is an offence to give false information.

    You do need a passport to leave the country. If you have one, you can use that as ID which is always accepted.

    What's the position in the USA? Do you have to carry ID at all times? You do in most european countries, I think.
     
  8. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    Lord no! There have been very heated debates about it and Americans really don't want it. We see it as intrusive. Evangelicals think such a program is a Number-Of-The-Beast thing. I think we're about the least likely western country to have universal mandatory IDs. Driving or going to a bar, yes you need a state-issued driver's license with picture or government ID (same thing but for non-drivers).
     
  9. superbot

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,440
    Likes Received:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Great Britain
    People in this country are INCREDIBLY STUPID,they just don't see the bigger picture.We ARE the most heavily CCTV'd nation (certainly in Europe) and yet the number of people who don't see this as worrying is depressing.As a Londoner I see cameras everywhere,even in pubs!! Two months ago I was asked to remove my baseball cap when ordering a drink in a pub as the barmaid imformed me that there was a camera behind the the bar filming all customers.Needless to say I walked straight back out!
    The British populace need to snap out of this complacency nowbefore its too late! I think we need a few plain speaking Americans to come over and sort things out!....I.D cards indeed!
     
  10. Smartalk

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    8 miles outside of Manchester
    Yjanks everyone for all the interesting contibutions and comments so far. I would be interested in knowing other memebes views, particularly from members from other countries around the world, and what the situation is for them

    I totally agree with Superbot there are CCTV camera's everywhere. Those used on the roads are able to recognise your number plate therefore tracking your every move.
     
  11. SEXXXX

    SEXXXX New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    312
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC
    We DO need ID here, can't buy liquor without flashing it. Not to mention domestic flying, or even ride Greyhound bus.

    By saying the least, is it considered minimal?
     
    #11 SEXXXX, Jul 1, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2009
  12. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    The law does not require anyone to carry ID on them. The police cannot stop and fine or arrest you if you're not carrying ID. Buying liquor or driving or engaging the services of other people may require ID, but only to do those things, not partake in general public life.
     
  13. SEXXXX

    SEXXXX New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    312
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NYC
    Have you read the high crime rate here? Somebody chime in some statistics
     
  14. MarkLondon

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,986
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    16
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, UK
     
  15. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    No. In NY the policy is that if you look under 30 then the vendor of alcohol or cigarettes is supposed to ask for ID. If a vendor asks you to provide proof no matter how old you are, then they have a right to refuse you service if you don't have or refuse to show a valid ID.
     
  16. Jason

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,926
    Likes Received:
    639
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London (GB)
    There is a settled public mood in the UK that we don't want ID cards, and a lot of distrust of the use a government might make of them. There is also concern that our government has a track record of not taking proper care of confidential information, so it is possible that criminals would get hold of the data and be the biggest beneficiaries.

    Labour has given in to public views on this one. Today they have decided not to privatise the post office (a very unpopular idea that they probably couldn't get their own backbenchers to support). Today they've renationalised the East Coast mainline railway (London-Edinburgh). They've lost a vote in parliament. The latest round of figures shows that the state of the UK economy is significantly worse than they thought. Gordon Brown has got caught out telling a lie to parliament (that one might have been yesterday, not sure). Oh and they have announced a major spending programme on building social housing and increasing the number of teachers.

    While the recession is global, Britain is doing worse than most countries as a direct consequence of Labour's irresponsible management of the British economy. Labour is now trying to lie to the people of Britain by suggesting that they will spend money that Britain doesn't have while the Conservatives will make cuts. In my view we have a very dangerous control state mentality where Brown is digging himself into a bunker. The thought of even the present Labour government having a tool such as ID cards is terrifying.

    I think the next election will see a Conservative government. I think there is a possibility that Labour will come third to the LibDems, and never form a government again. But before this happy day we have to endure another year of Labour's destruction of our society and nation. If they've failed to get ID cards through then that is one small victory. But the damage is being done daily. At best we are going to emerge from the Labour assault as a poorer nation - at worst we will not even be a nation. Labour lied to the British public at the last election (they promised a referendum on the Lisbon treaty) and now every thing they do seems to be part of a deliberate policy to do as much damage to Britain as possible so that Britain becomes part of a socialist European state.

    ID cards are pretty much the norm on the continent, and not having the wretched things is one small step that separates us from the menace of the European state.
     
  17. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    And yet the conservatives don't have the balls to push for a no-confidence vote? If anyone has confidence in Brown's government, please tell me because I don't see it. I think the Tories are being just as bad, and perhaps even more cynical, by not taking the reins and pressing for a dissolution of parliament or a no-confidence vote.
     
  18. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    I entirely agree, but Jason is somewhat blinded by his hatred of labour, fear of Europe and evidences a seriously rose tinted view of the Conservative party, so such obervations are falling on largely deaf ears.

    In their present configurations, neither party is fit for purpose, at least from a operational perspective. From an ideological standpoint if the Conservatives run [further] to the right I believe they pose the more sinister threat. That leaves the Liberal Democrats ... hmm.

    I'd like to see some fundemental restructuring of Westminster, fixed term Parliaments and a more direct correlation between voter action and Parliamentary composition, some form of proportional representation in other words. I'd also like to see an order of magnitude more professionalism. A smattering of honesty and sincerity would be nice too ... ha!
     
  19. jason_els

    jason_els <img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Messages:
    10,576
    Likes Received:
    25
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Warwick, NY, USA
    I say I respect both your opinions in this matter. As I don't live there, I don't feel confident expressing strong opinions on British government as I don't want to sound patronizing or meddlesome. It's like I can criticize my dear Aunt Mildred, my cousin can criticize dear Aunt Mildred too, but anyone outside the family raises a criticism and we'd both defend her as saint.

    So please forgive me if I opine. My interest in the British parliament is that of an outsider who realizes that many nations look to the UK as an example of how to create and run a successful democratic government. The Commonwealth is certainly a remnant of empire, but it is also a vote of confidence in the essential goodness of the system. Like the American Constitution, people of other countries, frequently where freedoms and democracy are nothing like we enjoy in the west, look to the UK parliament and wish they could enjoy such stable and effective participatory government. Like it or not, the UK and the US share the responsibility of being role models for democratic governments, and democratic governments yet to be, all over the world. It would be a tragedy to lose that kind of confidence because of the gross misbehavior of MPs combined with the lack of effective leadership occurring in the current parliament.

    In my view, the current parliament is dead in the water, incapable of governing. Constitutionally, the monarch should step-in and dissolve parliament. This is what has happened in the past and while constitutional scholars debate unilateral crown action, traditionally British jurisprudence has favored common law.

    So what do you do when the crown feels it does not possess the power to do what it's constitutionally empowered to do. There might be some sort of public outcry against it. I'm sure a few editorialists would endorse sacking the monarchy because of it. On the whole, however, I think the average Brit would be relieved that they've been put out of their misery with the current parliament and enjoy a summer of their pols stumping for re-election under the most humiliating of circumstances. I also think that HM has enough respect among the masses for her experience and wisdom that they would back unilateral action. For whatever reason, however, she lacks that same confidence.

    This is where, in other parliamentary democracies, a president would ordinarily step-in and dissolve parliament. I wonder if a president would not then make more sense? I'm saying the monarchy should necessarily be sacked, but perhaps for situations precisely like these, a president with explicit powers to act in such circumstances would be of greater benefit?
     
  20. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Very true, basic Human nature, even [perhaps especially] when we know the criticism is justified.

    I entirely agree, and despite the fiascos our Governments can appear to be to us, compared to many [perhaps a majority] they are virtual bastions of stability and democracy. Compared to a number of Governments I am familiar with, I'd take even Brown's lame duck over most of them every day and twice on Sunday.

    I think the strength of Parliament lies in the simple fact that unless people are willing to embrace true democracy - and how practical is that in any modern, sizeable nation - then it's perhaps the best there is. The weaknesses lies less in the institution than the people. I know, the age old story, but there it is.

    Indeed it is, although in fairness even if recent events had not unfolded as they have, the efficacy of a third term Parliament approaching its end would likely be at a very low ebb indeed - with more focus on re-election than governing. Of course in Labour's case, there's almost no hope of the former, and thus the latter seems pointless.

    On the Monarch dissolving (or refusing to dissolve) a domestic Parliament, the last time the latter happened was 1923. IIRC, the last Monarch to act unilaterally to remove a sitting PM was William IV (in 1830 something). It's not a common event for which there is little precedent, in modern times at least.

    I don't think it's a matter of authority (or lack, thereof) and it's certainly don't think it's a lack of confidence. I do think it's not so clear cut - and that the economic and political ramifications would be somewhat unpredictable - not necessarily good or bad. I'm quite sure that a majority of the UK populace would support HM were she to act, but that doesn't mean she would be right to do so.

    To my mind, unless some new catastrophe befalls Brown's government I think the moment to act has passed. Summer recess is almost here, an October election would be ideal but that seems unlikely.

    If Brown is hanging on simply to secure ratification of Lisbon, shame on him. I would have voted for Lisbon, but that in no way ameliorates my anger at being denied the chance to do so, as promised. If Brown is staying because he earnestly believes he can achive something, he's merely deluded.

    From a purely practical standpoint I can't really disagree, but I doubt the idea would find much favour in the UK. Tony Blair was vilified for merely acting in a manner deemed too 'presidential', and no, it wasn't all lighthearted ribbing.

    In effect, if what you're suggesting is a non partisan head of state, with the constitutional authority to summon or dissolve Parliament, isn't that the same thing as HM currently does - in purely practical terms that is?

    It would be rather like re-inventing the wheel, one which by and large has served the UK well - since a certain execution at least. But of course I know you're a rabid anti-monarchist, so I can understand and appreciate where you're coming from on this.

    I'm not a monarchist, I'd like to see more power placed in the hands of the electorate when it comes to dissolving parliament - not too much or nothing would ever get done!

    Where the UK to abolish all residual Royal prerogative (something I'd support in principle) or the Monarchy itself (something I wouldn't support) I would require some form of these former prerogative provisions enshrined in a written constitution before I would even consider a presidential system never mind their mere abolition.

    I'd also have concerns about the legal 'loyalty' of the armed forces, civil service, judiciary and police (even more than I do now, that is). All this may well happen one day, in fact I'm sure it will. I can only hope that it's a step forward, not back.

    While it may follow the US in many things, I'm not sure the UK is ready to become a republic quite yet - it tried it once, long ago - and didn't like it. :biggrin1:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted