I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
I think you are confusing 'TWAW' with 'leftwing' – a common mistake on PB. There are lots of very leftwing people who would oppose AOC's views on trans issues.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
And around we go.
The problem isn’t an ID card. Having a unique id number per citizen is very useful for keying various databases.
The problem is the demented attempts to links all personal records together and make them available to virtuale any official, in a number of proposals. This is what was proposed and nearly implemented by the last Labour government.
Quite apart from the civil liberties issue, this would be an insane risk for identity theft, fraud, stalking and would break every rule about data security. It would break laws on data privacy if done by a non-governmental organisation.
Yet people complain, after notifying one branch of government about a death in the famliy, that the other branches don't know too.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
One possible answer is that the people who stand to profit financially from implementing them want them.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
And around we go.
The problem isn’t an ID card. Having a unique id number per citizen is very useful for keying various databases.
The problem is the demented attempts to links all personal records together and make them available to virtuale any official, in a number of proposals. This is what was proposed and nearly implemented by the last Labour government.
Quite apart from the civil liberties issue, this would be an insane risk for identity theft, fraud, stalking and would break every rule about data security. It would break laws on data privacy if done by a non-governmental organisation.
Yet people complain, after notifying one branch of government about a death in the famliy, that the other branches don't know too.
Maybe there should be an NHS ID card or some unique health service identifier which would mean that Hospital A would know what treatments you might have received in Hospital B or at your GP.
Or wait. There is such a thing. There is your NHS number. A concrete example of where there might easily be public acceptance and approval of a universal method of identifying someone for efficiency purposes and where in reality, neither Hospital A, nor indeed any other part of the godforsaken NHS has any clue whatsoever what Hospital B has been up to.
Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.
you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.
She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.
I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
Disagree on the last part. Wait till tomorrow would have been a perfectly adequate and logical answer there.
Not if it’s something that can’t wait till tomorrow. For example, can you tell us where UK currently sits on the OECD growth tracker, the one jab which did get through defence at PMQs.
In their successful interrogations of Sunak yesterday, the media gave Labour so many great questions to jab and hurt Raab at PMQs today, they chose not use them.
Mike Smithson gave Ange a great line of attack in his previous header, invite them to blame Truss for the mistakes which lead to a tax taking budget. Labour could have used that.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
The opposition to ID cards is essentially a libertarian conservative rationale. See David Davis's vanity by election. It's a circle they can't square when they want to know the location of an asylum seeker, which is why they are keen to keep them in detention centres. Yet as I have tried to point out to great ambivalence on here today, David Davies already carries one.
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
I remember reading some serious US analysis of UK politics which said something along the lines of: The UK has two major socialist parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
Every nation in the Western world is left of the US, except maybe Switzerland on economics or Italy on cultural issues, so that is hardly surprising.
Danish politics would be communist on that basis
It wouldn't be communist on any basis. It might be wrongly perceived as communist by some people who have no concept of what the term means.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
You're not getting what an ID card is.
You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.
An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does. A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.
You don't need a licence to walk down the street.
F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
You don't have to do any of those things. An identity card in most peoples' minds (rightly or wrongly) is needing to prove you are who you are apropos of nothing.
The real problem with ID card proposals is the databases and linkages behind them.
A non-driving license Driving License (as in parts of the US) wouldn’t have that bullshit attached.
An ID card is not needed to deal with employment of illegal workers. Legal migrants have a lovingly cared for stack of documents as to their right to work - usually spent a fortune on lawyers to get it all lined up. Nearly every U.K. citizen can prove who they are fairly simply. It’s how they issue passports after all.
If you really want, fix the DVLA and issue a provisional driving license *free* to any U.K. citizen who asks.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
That's much faster than was indicated at the time. Interesting.
Absolutely no idea what this likely indicates - that they’ll say ruling premature?
As I have said down thread I think that they will say that but also give clear guidance which will make it clear that no conceivable bill on a referendum can be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament without Westminster consent.
All of this was accepted to be the case prior to 2014 where consent was sought and given. I really don't see that changing.
Yes, I can see the argument that it is politically or democratically untenable for Westminster to simply ignore the Scottish Parliament on this issue, but it might well still be legal.
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
I think you are confusing 'TWAW' with 'leftwing' – a common mistake on PB. There are lots of very leftwing people who would oppose AOC's views on trans issues.
I'm not confusing TWAW with leftwing because I don't know what TWAW is! Is it trans? But that's my point - AOC is not a big redistributionist or nationaliser, as far as I know. But she holds what are usually described as quite far left view on trans and race. She is, if I'm not mistaken, a 1619-er? Of course, identity views don't translate easily between the USA and the UK. But she strikes me as having much more controversial views than either Kendall or Reeves.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
You're not getting what an ID card is.
You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.
An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does. A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.
You don't need a licence to walk down the street.
F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
You don't have to do any of those things. An identity card in most peoples' minds (rightly or wrongly) is needing to prove you are who you are apropos of nothing.
The real problem with ID card proposals is the databases and linkages behind them.
A non-driving license Driving License (as in parts of the US) wouldn’t have that bullshit attached.
An ID card is not needed to deal with employment of illegal workers. Legal migrants have a lovingly cared for stack of documents as to their right to work - usually spent a fortune on lawyers to get it all lined up. Nearly every U.K. citizen can prove who they are fairly simply. It’s how they issue passports after all.
If you really want, fix the DVLA and issue a provisional driving license *free* to any U.K. citizen who asks.
As I have noted. The one real life rehearsal for potential efficiencies is with your NHS number. And it has been absolutely hopeless in achieving the efficiencies that it presumably is able to or maybe was meant to achieve.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
You're not getting what an ID card is.
You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.
An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does. A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.
You don't need a licence to walk down the street.
F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
You don't have to do any of those things. An identity card in most peoples' minds (rightly or wrongly) is needing to prove you are who you are apropos of nothing.
I don't know what is so confusing about the difference to being required to have something simply for existing (whether there is a need to carry and produce it on request is a seperate issue), to being required to have something to do specific voluntary things (like drive or travel on a plane).
I think the former seems unnecessary and linking all the information sometimes suggested as part of a national database risky, and so I don't think it justified to impose on people. The latter is entirely up to the individual, and if they want to face the inconvenience of not having one.
It's an idea that seems to come out of Whitehall every few years, as if it would solve every problem under the sun. I've yet to see what problem it actually solves that requires this particular solution.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
One possible answer is that the people who stand to profit financially from implementing them want them.
Ok, but I'm talking about amongst the public. The thesis is that many people who don't care about illegal immigration nevertheless support ID cards.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
You're not getting what an ID card is.
You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.
An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does. A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.
You don't need a licence to walk down the street.
F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
You don't have to do any of those things. An identity card in most peoples' minds (rightly or wrongly) is needing to prove you are who you are apropos of nothing.
I don't know what is so confusing about the difference to being required to have something simply for existing (whether there is a need to carry and produce it on request is a seperate issue), to being required to have something to do specific voluntary things (like drive or travel on a plane).
I think the former seems unnecessary and linking all the information sometimes suggested as part of a national database risky, and so I don't think it justified to impose on people. The latter is entirely up to the individual, and if they want to face the inconvenience of not having one.
It's an idea that seems to come out of Whitehall every few years, as if it would solve every problem under the sun. I've yet to see what problem it actually solves that requires this particular solution.
The problem it solves, from Whitehall’s point of view, is the current inability to turn the country into China, with regard to state surveillance of the population linking all the public and private databases together.
Ouch. @BambosMP asks if Raab has ever been invovled in a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Raab says he's referring to a court case which was settled, and which involved confidentiality agreement - but it was not a NDA
Think this is the employment case Dominic Raab was referring to.
"In 2007, while Raab was working as chief of staff to Tory MP David Davis, the two men entered into a “compromise agreement” with a woman who had worked in their office."
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I suspect that you'd find that the views of "the civil service", all 500,00 or so of them, on ID cards are roughly as diverse as those of the general public.
Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.
you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.
She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.
I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
Spot on. Nobody "crushed" anybody at PMQs. It was a dull session, Ange having to go against her natural inclination to attack to open with a consensual question about Ukraine. For his part, Raab did a lot of "thanking the right honourable lady".
As for Mexican, he is a poster who is worth listening to on many matters – but the Labour front bench is not one of them. His weird anti-Starmer obsession is akin to that of Owls. He has a similar view of Rayner: "Shouty Ange". She wasn't actually that shouty today – she perhaps should have been more so.
I agree. Labour chose to go on their own questions on bullying to make a point there, weak idea on grounds of innocent till proven guilty and Labour have their own bullies. They could have watched yesterdays interviews exposing Sunak’s own abysmal record as chancellor and undermined the Tories economic record better at PMQs today.
This is a debating site, MexicanPetes proclivities are obvious and unsubstantial - it wont take long to debate him into submission. Yes, just like BJO making a point and running, the points cannot survive any rational debate.
Ouch. @BambosMP asks if Raab has ever been invovled in a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Raab says he's referring to a court case which was settled, and which involved confidentiality agreement - but it was not a NDA
Think this is the employment case Dominic Raab was referring to.
"In 2007, while Raab was working as chief of staff to Tory MP David Davis, the two men entered into a “compromise agreement” with a woman who had worked in their office."
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
Well I suppose there might be something of a case that ID cards would help on those fronts then. The civil service probably wouldn't love something with zero merit, would they? I mean, they might, but put it this way, it doesn't make me go "oh so it must be a terrible idea" just because the civil service is in favour.
If Biden does run again (and I think even if he isn't he won't say for some time), dare he ditch Harris, or does that cost him more support than it would gain (within the party anyway)?
Nobody likes Harris. Ditching her is a no brainer
Very difficult to do. Eisenhauer couldn't get rid of Nixon.
I remember the discussions when GWB was President about whether he'd keep Cheney as VP, and then whether Trump would stick with Pence, and now it's about Biden and Harris.
If he runs again, he'll stick with Harris. Because that's the path of least resistance.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
You're not getting what an ID card is.
You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.
An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does. A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.
You don't need a licence to walk down the street.
F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
You don't have to do any of those things. An identity card in most peoples' minds (rightly or wrongly) is needing to prove you are who you are apropos of nothing.
The real problem with ID card proposals is the databases and linkages behind them.
A non-driving license Driving License (as in parts of the US) wouldn’t have that bullshit attached.
An ID card is not needed to deal with employment of illegal workers. Legal migrants have a lovingly cared for stack of documents as to their right to work - usually spent a fortune on lawyers to get it all lined up. Nearly every U.K. citizen can prove who they are fairly simply. It’s how they issue passports after all.
If you really want, fix the DVLA and issue a provisional driving license *free* to any U.K. citizen who asks.
As I have noted. The one real life rehearsal for potential efficiencies is with your NHS number. And it has been absolutely hopeless in achieving the efficiencies that it presumably is able to or maybe was meant to achieve.
The NHS is bad at databases, therefore databases are an impossibility.
And do you have the NHS app, the one with your covid certificates on it? If I click gp record on mine it knows everything the NHS has ever done to me.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It's not a topic that I've got strong feelings about, but IMV the issue is not the card itself, but the expensive part - the databases that can be put behind it. Such databases can be utterly innocuous and even helpful, or utterly repressive. In fact, they could be a weapon against the population.
So they're fine if you believe you will always have good, freedom-loving governments. But they could be an immense power for authoritarian regimes.
That's much faster than was indicated at the time. Interesting.
I struggle to understand the fuss really. If they want to hold an advisory referendum what is the legal case for stopping it? If westminster wants to strike it down?
The legal case for not allowing it is that it is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act (Schedule 5). Matters reserved to Westminster include:
"(b) the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England,
(c) the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
The other side has to argue that somehow a referendum, not being binding (just like the Brexit one!), isn't trespassing on reserved ground.
Obviously there is a case for both sides. Probabilities in my opinion: Westminster will win 70%. SNP win 30%.
If they can do this, then the Sottish parliament would seem also to be able to hold a non binding referendum about declaring war on Norway. Or Russia.
Yes, the Scottish Parliament should be able to hold a non-binding referendum on declaring war on Russia, or on joining the EU, or on the privatisation of water or anything else that enters their head, so long as its non-binding it doesn't tread on reserved matters.
Parliament would have the prerogative to say no we're not declaring war on Russia, or anything else, and disregard a non-binding referendum but on the principle that everything is legal unless forbidden, if the advisory referendum doesn't affect reserved matters then its not forbidden, so is legal.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
My daughter's driving licences certainly came in handing when I took her horse racing at Sandown Park and she wanted to place a bet and now I'm over 65 (sadly) it is very handy for lots of old codger discounts. So the main merit appears to be able to show that you are old enough or too old.
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
No it’s not. It’s completely straightforward. He has already decided what he is going to do for sure.
If he keeps his powder dry to start running 26 or 27, he is going to be elected President in 2028. If he runs this time it doesn’t exactly ruin the certainty of successful run in 28 or 32, but fogs things a bit in both fighting Trump and a sitting President.
It’s a no brainier for him - whilst not the answer PB wanted.
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
I remember reading some serious US analysis of UK politics which said something along the lines of: The UK has two major socialist parties, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.
Every nation in the Western world is left of the US, except maybe Switzerland on economics or Italy on cultural issues, so that is hardly surprising.
Danish politics would be communist on that basis
I'm not sure you need those 2 exceptions do you? And why Italy on cultural issues? Am I missing something?
Rishi Sunak has accepted that there is little prospect of a trade deal with the United States after he did not bother to raise the subject with President Biden. The prime minister said boosting trade with the US “can happen in lots of different ways” as the government acknowledged it was not a priority for either side. Sunak said he wanted to “take the time to get trade deals right” as he offered qualified backing to the agreement struck with Australia after criticism from environmentalists.
A return to pragmatic government that doesn’t fetishise “trade deals”….
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
The opposition to ID cards is essentially a libertarian conservative rationale. See David Davis's vanity by election. It's a circle they can't square when they want to know the location of an asylum seeker, which is why they are keen to keep them in detention centres. Yet as I have tried to point out to great ambivalence on here today, David Davies already carries one.
I'm disappointingly agnostic on it. I don't share the "slippery slope to a police state" or the more philosophical "no freeborn human being should have to prove who they are" strands of sentiment; but otoh I can see that there are civil liberty risks you'd have to navigate, controls to be designed in, and there'd be a cost, no doubt it would deliver late and overrun the budget, and there'd be cock-ups and private sector consultants making hay etc etc, and we've rubbed along without them up to now, so you'd need to be sure the benefit outweighed all of that.
I give Cineworld Chesterfield less than 6 months. Empty screens empty confectionery stands, nobody buying the overpriced drinks. A ratio of 6 staff ( that I can see in front of me) to 1 cinema goer is never going to work.
Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.
you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.
She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.
I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
Spot on. Nobody "crushed" anybody at PMQs. It was a dull session, Ange having to go against her natural inclination to attack to open with a consensual question about Ukraine. For his part, Raab did a lot of "thanking the right honourable lady".
As for Mexican, he is a poster who is worth listening to on many matters – but the Labour front bench is not one of them. His weird anti-Starmer obsession is akin to that of Owls. He has a similar view of Rayner: "Shouty Ange". She wasn't actually that shouty today – she perhaps should have been more so.
I agree. Labour chose to go on their own questions on bullying to make a point there, weak idea on grounds of innocent till proven guilty and Labour have their own bullies. They could have watched yesterdays interviews exposing Sunak’s own abysmal record as chancellor and undermined the Tories economic record better at PMQs today.
This is a debating site, MexicanPetes proclivities are obvious and unsubstantial - it wont take long to debate him into submission. Yes, just like BJO making a point and running, the points cannot survive any rational debate.
If you don't like my commentary please ignore. I generally ignore you.
Hello again all. Re; opposition to ID cards being on the libertarian right, it's also strong on the libertarian left, which I would describe myself as often aligning with, with a few more traditionalist twists and byways.
I vividly remember, in the dog days of its authoritarianism, New Labour tried to pass off the last ID card proposal as "just what like they have on the Continent" ; except that in reality the proposed database linkages were so extensive that the only country seriously interested in emulating or doing anything like the British proposal was authoritarian Thailand.
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
I give Cineworld Chesterfield less than 6 months. Empty screens empty confectionery stands, nobody buying the overpriced drinks. A ratio of 6 staff ( that I can see in front of me) to 1 cinema goer is never going to work.
Just as all the novels worth reading seem to have been completed by about 1970 (Powell?), so perhaps there aren't any films left to make since (for example) Lost in Translation.
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
U.K. govt faster off the mark than the Scottish one:
UK Gov has deleted documents which erroneously relied upon Scot Gov’s false data on Scotland’s share of Europe’s offshore wind potential. So of course @AlexSalmond has put out a press release alleging a UK Gov conspiracy to cover up Scotland’s resource. What an absolute clown.
Hello again all. Re; opposition to ID cards being on the libertarian right, it's also strong on the libertarian left, which I would describe myself as often aligning with, with a few more traditionalist twists and byways.
I vividly remember, in the dog days of its authoritarianism, New Labour tried to pass off the last ID card proposal as "just what like they have on the Continent" ; except that in reality the proposed database linkages were so extensive that the only country seriously interested in emulating or doing anything like the British proposal was authoritarian Thailand.
The glories of the Home Office.
And that was why so many people thought against ID cards.
Id cards by themselves are really useful the problem was as @Malmesbury has already pointed out that the data grab attached to it was beyond anything sane
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes, I'd have little to no objection to an ID card, having lived in Switzerland it's actually convenient to have one. The objection is that the UK government has been known to take a maximalist approach to curbing civil liberties and over time we would turn into a society where your ID card will be required to check in everywhere like some western version of China.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
The opposition to ID cards is essentially a libertarian conservative rationale. See David Davis's vanity by election. It's a circle they can't square when they want to know the location of an asylum seeker, which is why they are keen to keep them in detention centres. Yet as I have tried to point out to great ambivalence on here today, David Davies already carries one.
I'm disappointingly agnostic on it. I don't share the "slippery slope to a police state" or the slightly more philosophical "no freeborn human being should have to prove who they are" strands of sentiment; but otoh I can see that there are civil liberty risks you'd have to navigate, controls to be designed in, and there'd be a cost, no doubt it would deliver late and overrun the budget, and there'd be cock-ups and private sector consultants making hay etc etc, and we've rubbed along without them up to now, so you'd need to be sure the benefit outweighed all of that.
Most EU countries have them and are comfortable with ID cards. Don't forget the civil rights issues should create more alarm in modern Germany after their use in the Third Reich than they should here.
It is a false premise to suggest our liberty is in peril if we are issued with an ID card when the government have issued us with an identity number at aged 16 (NI number) which is now linked to all manner of other identity documents including NHS records, HMRC details DVLA details and Border Agency documents ( i.e a passport). To deny we are already under the scrutiny of Big Brother is for the birds. A card in the pocket won't make it worse.
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
I think you are confusing 'TWAW' with 'leftwing' – a common mistake on PB. There are lots of very leftwing people who would oppose AOC's views on trans issues.
I'm not confusing TWAW with leftwing because I don't know what TWAW is! Is it trans? But that's my point - AOC is not a big redistributionist or nationaliser, as far as I know. But she holds what are usually described as quite far left view on trans and race. She is, if I'm not mistaken, a 1619-er? Of course, identity views don't translate easily between the USA and the UK. But she strikes me as having much more controversial views than either Kendall or Reeves.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
Yepp.
ID cards are a total non-issue in Sweden. They make life super dooper easy and are thus popular and used universally for all kinds of purposes. Eg I log in to many websites with Bank ID, which is based on my personal identification number. Apple Pay is also dependent on my Bank ID. Needless to say, its use in the public sector is universal.
Our daughter couldn’t believe it when folk asked her to produce utility bills when she moved to London then Edinburgh. It is mind-bogglingly old fashioned from a Nordic perspective.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
That’s unfair - I would push for ID cards for themselves and nothing else.
Every single sector I work in would have numerous problems simplified simply by their existence and a secondary check for validity
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Different people have different issues. I resent the principle of an ID card. In essence out boils down to the government records being more important than my physical existence and testimony.
Now, to a certain extent this is the case already, but still I struggle against further moves in this direction. I don't like needing pieces of paper to prove that I exist, and that I am who I say I am.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
Surely there are examples of working ID cards a bit closer to home - in both geographical and political terms - than China. Eg in Western Europe?
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It's not a topic that I've got strong feelings about, but IMV the issue is not the card itself, but the expensive part - the databases that can be put behind it. Such databases can be utterly innocuous and even helpful, or utterly repressive. In fact, they could be a weapon against the population.
So they're fine if you believe you will always have good, freedom-loving governments. But they could be an immense power for authoritarian regimes.
Indeed.
I trust the Swedish government. I do not trust the UK government.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
The opposition to ID cards is essentially a libertarian conservative rationale. See David Davis's vanity by election. It's a circle they can't square when they want to know the location of an asylum seeker, which is why they are keen to keep them in detention centres. Yet as I have tried to point out to great ambivalence on here today, David Davies already carries one.
I'm disappointingly agnostic on it. I don't share the "slippery slope to a police state" or the slightly more philosophical "no freeborn human being should have to prove who they are" strands of sentiment; but otoh I can see that there are civil liberty risks you'd have to navigate, controls to be designed in, and there'd be a cost, no doubt it would deliver late and overrun the budget, and there'd be cock-ups and private sector consultants making hay etc etc, and we've rubbed along without them up to now, so you'd need to be sure the benefit outweighed all of that.
Most EU countries have them and are comfortable with ID cards. Don't forget the civil rights issues should create more alarm in modern Germany after their use in the Third Reich than they should here.
It is a false premise to suggest our liberty is in peril if we are issued with an ID card when the government have issued us with an identity number at aged 16 (NI number) which is now linked to all manner of other identity documents including NHS records, HMRC details DVLA details and Border Agency documents ( i.e a passport). To deny we are already under the scrutiny of Big Brother is for the birds. A card in the pocket won't make it worse.
I agree with all that. But are the benefits sufficient iyo for this to merit a place on the radar?
U.K. govt faster off the mark than the Scottish one:
UK Gov has deleted documents which erroneously relied upon Scot Gov’s false data on Scotland’s share of Europe’s offshore wind potential. So of course @AlexSalmond has put out a press release alleging a UK Gov conspiracy to cover up Scotland’s resource. What an absolute clown.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
Surely there are examples of working ID cards a bit closer to home - in both geographical and political terms - than China. Eg in Western Europe?
Spain, where I’ve lived, does it well with the DNI card.
The problem is that no-one in the UK has ever proposed anything like the Spanish solution. In the eyes of the proposers, the cards are very much secondary to the big database. The proposals all look rather Chinese.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It's not a topic that I've got strong feelings about, but IMV the issue is not the card itself, but the expensive part - the databases that can be put behind it. Such databases can be utterly innocuous and even helpful, or utterly repressive. In fact, they could be a weapon against the population.
So they're fine if you believe you will always have good, freedom-loving governments. But they could be an immense power for authoritarian regimes.
Indeed.
I trust the Swedish government. I do not trust the UK government.
Fair enough. Would you trust the Swedish government if they started holding more personal data on you on databases linked to the ID card? Would you trust a Swedish government in 20 or 30 years time?
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
The opposition to ID cards is essentially a libertarian conservative rationale. See David Davis's vanity by election. It's a circle they can't square when they want to know the location of an asylum seeker, which is why they are keen to keep them in detention centres. Yet as I have tried to point out to great ambivalence on here today, David Davies already carries one.
I'm disappointingly agnostic on it. I don't share the "slippery slope to a police state" or the slightly more philosophical "no freeborn human being should have to prove who they are" strands of sentiment; but otoh I can see that there are civil liberty risks you'd have to navigate, controls to be designed in, and there'd be a cost, no doubt it would deliver late and overrun the budget, and there'd be cock-ups and private sector consultants making hay etc etc, and we've rubbed along without them up to now, so you'd need to be sure the benefit outweighed all of that.
Most EU countries have them and are comfortable with ID cards. Don't forget the civil rights issues should create more alarm in modern Germany after their use in the Third Reich than they should here.
It is a false premise to suggest our liberty is in peril if we are issued with an ID card when the government have issued us with an identity number at aged 16 (NI number) which is now linked to all manner of other identity documents including NHS records, HMRC details DVLA details and Border Agency documents ( i.e a passport). To deny we are already under the scrutiny of Big Brother is for the birds. A card in the pocket won't make it worse.
But as mentioned above, any proposal coming through the Home Office has always been more extensive than what is currently operating on the Continent. This is why the only people interested in emulating the scale of the linkages of the last proposed scheme were the Thai government - really.
It's often misunderstood just how the toxic and prone to over-reaching itsekf the culture of the Home Office is, when not placed under political limitations.
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
That is literally the only film I can think of that is coming soon that I want to see and unless things change we need to head to Newcastle to see it as there are no screenings anywhere nearer
Chances are it will be the Christmas Day evening movie.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
The opposition to ID cards is essentially a libertarian conservative rationale. See David Davis's vanity by election. It's a circle they can't square when they want to know the location of an asylum seeker, which is why they are keen to keep them in detention centres. Yet as I have tried to point out to great ambivalence on here today, David Davies already carries one.
I'm disappointingly agnostic on it. I don't share the "slippery slope to a police state" or the slightly more philosophical "no freeborn human being should have to prove who they are" strands of sentiment; but otoh I can see that there are civil liberty risks you'd have to navigate, controls to be designed in, and there'd be a cost, no doubt it would deliver late and overrun the budget, and there'd be cock-ups and private sector consultants making hay etc etc, and we've rubbed along without them up to now, so you'd need to be sure the benefit outweighed all of that.
Most EU countries have them and are comfortable with ID cards. Don't forget the civil rights issues should create more alarm in modern Germany after their use in the Third Reich than they should here.
It is a false premise to suggest our liberty is in peril if we are issued with an ID card when the government have issued us with an identity number at aged 16 (NI number) which is now linked to all manner of other identity documents including NHS records, HMRC details DVLA details and Border Agency documents ( i.e a passport). To deny we are already under the scrutiny of Big Brother is for the birds. A card in the pocket won't make it worse.
I agree with all that. But are the benefits sufficient iyo for this to merit a place on the radar?
(for govt, I mean, not so much pb.com)
If the issue is all these unaccounted for bad people that the Conservative Party are telling us have dissolved into the black economy to undermine civilisation as we know it, I don't see a problem. I don't mind if I am asked to prove my identity, as I was yesterday at Bristol Airport. Maybe all these PB Tories have something to hide that I don't. Who knows?
Or could it be that this ID cards "illiberality" was the work of a New Labour Government, hence the hostility, irrespective of any benefits?
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
The problem with the trans debate is that it's not any real transgender people that are the problem.
It's the fact some people with ulterior motives are "pretending" to be trans to achieve their motives and many trans people don't see the issue.
Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.
you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.
She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.
I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
Spot on. Nobody "crushed" anybody at PMQs. It was a dull session, Ange having to go against her natural inclination to attack to open with a consensual question about Ukraine. For his part, Raab did a lot of "thanking the right honourable lady".
As for Mexican, he is a poster who is worth listening to on many matters – but the Labour front bench is not one of them. His weird anti-Starmer obsession is akin to that of Owls. He has a similar view of Rayner: "Shouty Ange". She wasn't actually that shouty today – she perhaps should have been more so.
I agree. Labour chose to go on their own questions on bullying to make a point there, weak idea on grounds of innocent till proven guilty and Labour have their own bullies. They could have watched yesterdays interviews exposing Sunak’s own abysmal record as chancellor and undermined the Tories economic record better at PMQs today.
This is a debating site, MexicanPetes proclivities are obvious and unsubstantial - it wont take long to debate him into submission. Yes, just like BJO making a point and running, the points cannot survive any rational debate.
If you don't like my commentary please ignore. I generally ignore you.
I don’t think you come here to be honest, to be honest. I come here just to be bluff and be myself, my own thoughts and analysis, which can change and argue against itself and get things wrong. But that’s not you is it? As Anabob said, no matter what you just saw in front of you, you won’t try to describe the most honest picture of it, you just push the same things no matter how frustratingly stupid it is that day or not. Why? What’s the point of spending time here doing that? 🤷♀️
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
I think you are confusing 'TWAW' with 'leftwing' – a common mistake on PB. There are lots of very leftwing people who would oppose AOC's views on trans issues.
I'm not confusing TWAW with leftwing because I don't know what TWAW is! Is it trans? But that's my point - AOC is not a big redistributionist or nationaliser, as far as I know. But she holds what are usually described as quite far left view on trans and race. She is, if I'm not mistaken, a 1619-er? Of course, identity views don't translate easily between the USA and the UK. But she strikes me as having much more controversial views than either Kendall or Reeves.
Should I tell you or have you googled it now?
I get a website for The Well Armed Woman which sells firearms
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes, I'd have little to no objection to an ID card, having lived in Switzerland it's actually convenient to have one. The objection is that the UK government has been known to take a maximalist approach to curbing civil liberties and over time we would turn into a society where your ID card will be required to check in everywhere like some western version of China.
A key question I'd ask is, "Is it an offence for me to not carry this?" That has to be a No. Also, I'd want controls around what various people could access and view if they keyed in my number or swiped it or whatever. Subject to this, not mandatory, and only required for things that already need ID, and controls to prevent abuse, and if I could see the benefits as being significant and tangible, compared to the cost, then I might be up for it.
I give Cineworld Chesterfield less than 6 months. Empty screens empty confectionery stands, nobody buying the overpriced drinks. A ratio of 6 staff ( that I can see in front of me) to 1 cinema goer is never going to work.
Has Covid broken the need to go to the pictures? When you can pay similar to do a 4k HDR stream of the same film on your 80" OLED with surround sound and eat your own popcorn?
Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.
you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.
She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.
I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
Spot on. Nobody "crushed" anybody at PMQs. It was a dull session, Ange having to go against her natural inclination to attack to open with a consensual question about Ukraine. For his part, Raab did a lot of "thanking the right honourable lady".
As for Mexican, he is a poster who is worth listening to on many matters – but the Labour front bench is not one of them. His weird anti-Starmer obsession is akin to that of Owls. He has a similar view of Rayner: "Shouty Ange". She wasn't actually that shouty today – she perhaps should have been more so.
I agree. Labour chose to go on their own questions on bullying to make a point there, weak idea on grounds of innocent till proven guilty and Labour have their own bullies. They could have watched yesterdays interviews exposing Sunak’s own abysmal record as chancellor and undermined the Tories economic record better at PMQs today.
This is a debating site, MexicanPetes proclivities are obvious and unsubstantial - it wont take long to debate him into submission. Yes, just like BJO making a point and running, the points cannot survive any rational debate.
If you don't like my commentary please ignore. I generally ignore you.
I don’t think you come here to be honest, to be honest. I come here just to be bluff and be myself, my own thoughts and analysis, which can change and argue against itself and get things wrong. But that’s not you is it? As Anabob said, no matter what you just saw in front of you, you won’t try to describe the most honest picture of it, you just push the same things no matter how frustratingly stupid it is that day or not. Why? What’s the point of spending time here doing that? 🤷♀️
Please, just ignore, and move on to the next poster.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
Iran has tried to assassinate or kidnap ten Britons or UK-based individuals in the last ten months alone, the boss of MI5 revealed today as he warned of the heightened threat from the country’s “aggressive” intelligence services.
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
I loved Knives Out, but Ana was the star, it showed what a great actress she is when she gets decent roles.
I don't think Trump will be the GOP candidate. I think it will be Ron DeSantis. But I might be wrong DYOR
Agree with this. I also don't think Big Joe will be the DEM candidate. I feel someone might emerge beyond the obvious candidates: Fetterman or Whitmer perhaps?
If Joe runs, I think it's likely he wins, just because he is POTUS and the nominal head of the party - he will have the entire structure of the party behind him plus people like Obama etc. If he decides not to run / becomes unable to run, that's a different story. I don't know who the favourite is, but Gavin Newsom is clearly running (Cali Gov) and I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie ran again (he's old too, but he is more "with it" than Biden). I could see Buttigieg going for it and having a lot of support from the mainstream wing, but he doesn't do well enough with African Americans to get the nominee. Kamala Harris is just bad at her job. Fetterman is a junior senator who just had a stroke and just won his own seat - and did so based on a relatively local (yinzer) identity that wouldn't quite fit nationally. Whitmer could be good, she's done in Michigan what DeSantis has done in Florida. AOC would turn 35 in Oct of 2024, so she could assume office by the Jan, but I'm not sure what the rules are for running whilst under 35.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Think AOC qualifies – just. There is nothing that I can see in the Constitution that prevents her running at 34 years of age, just as long as she has reached her 35 birthday by Inauguration Day. I wonder if she'll have a crack at it?
No. Or at least extraordinarily unlikely. Should be one of TSE's 500/1 shots.
You might not like her politics, but she's pretty smart, and running now would be a dumb move.
2028 might be interesting; not to win, but to get her name in the conversation.
I quite like her politics. It always makes me laugh that she is as some far-left Marxist in the States. Here, she'd be Rachel Reeves or Liz Kendall.
I've said much the same. Mind you, the Orange one was describing Biden as an extreme left socialist yesterday.
Really? AOC might not be in the same league as our old school socialists in terms of redistribution, but she is, unless I am very much mistaken, quite a long way left of Liz Kendall or Rachel Reeves in terms of her position on identarian issues.
I think you are confusing 'TWAW' with 'leftwing' – a common mistake on PB. There are lots of very leftwing people who would oppose AOC's views on trans issues.
I'm not confusing TWAW with leftwing because I don't know what TWAW is! Is it trans? But that's my point - AOC is not a big redistributionist or nationaliser, as far as I know. But she holds what are usually described as quite far left view on trans and race. She is, if I'm not mistaken, a 1619-er? Of course, identity views don't translate easily between the USA and the UK. But she strikes me as having much more controversial views than either Kendall or Reeves.
Should I tell you or have you googled it now?
I get a website for The Well Armed Woman which sells firearms
Crushed? Or merely patted back her attacks with gentle on message patronising.
you’re a cartoon poster with irritating proclivities, Pete.
Well that makes two of us Rabbit.
Your having a “shocker” summing up that PMQs Pete 🙂 ange first question was on Ukraine - that was never going to down Raab, because shocking and crushing for your measurement, it was never intended to - it’s actual intent and use is so obvious I shouldn’t need to explain it to you.
She then used too many questions on bullying. The problems with that are Labour are no white knight on bullying, the culture that wouldn’t survive 2 seconds outside parliament crosses the floor, Raab could so easily not answer a question with investigations on, so it was just opportunity to sling mud across the dispatch box.
I would have preferred more questions on the impending budget, there are questions there to put him on the spot where wait till tomorrow would not have sounded adequate.
Spot on. Nobody "crushed" anybody at PMQs. It was a dull session, Ange having to go against her natural inclination to attack to open with a consensual question about Ukraine. For his part, Raab did a lot of "thanking the right honourable lady".
As for Mexican, he is a poster who is worth listening to on many matters – but the Labour front bench is not one of them. His weird anti-Starmer obsession is akin to that of Owls. He has a similar view of Rayner: "Shouty Ange". She wasn't actually that shouty today – she perhaps should have been more so.
I agree. Labour chose to go on their own questions on bullying to make a point there, weak idea on grounds of innocent till proven guilty and Labour have their own bullies. They could have watched yesterdays interviews exposing Sunak’s own abysmal record as chancellor and undermined the Tories economic record better at PMQs today.
This is a debating site, MexicanPetes proclivities are obvious and unsubstantial - it wont take long to debate him into submission. Yes, just like BJO making a point and running, the points cannot survive any rational debate.
If you don't like my commentary please ignore. I generally ignore you.
I don’t think you come here to be honest, to be honest. I come here just to be bluff and be myself, my own thoughts and analysis, which can change and argue against itself and get things wrong. But that’s not you is it? As Anabob said, no matter what you just saw in front of you, you won’t try to describe the most honest picture of it, you just push the same things no matter how frustratingly stupid it is that day or not. Why? What’s the point of spending time here doing that? 🤷♀️
Please, just ignore, and move on to the next poster.
I give Cineworld Chesterfield less than 6 months. Empty screens empty confectionery stands, nobody buying the overpriced drinks. A ratio of 6 staff ( that I can see in front of me) to 1 cinema goer is never going to work.
Has Covid broken the need to go to the pictures? When you can pay similar to do a 4k HDR stream of the same film on your 80" OLED with surround sound and eat your own popcorn?
16-year-olds still want to finger their girlfriend without their parents watching on. That’s pretty much the remaining cinema market. That and high-end, licenced, boutique cinemas, purely because the kids can’t afford to go there and everyone puts their phone away.
The Ukrainian military told US and allies that it attempted to intercept a Russian missile during the timeframe and near that location of the Poland missile strike, US official tells CNN
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
Surely there are examples of working ID cards a bit closer to home - in both geographical and political terms - than China. Eg in Western Europe?
Spain, where I’ve lived, does it well with the DNI card.
The problem is that no-one in the UK has ever proposed anything like the Spanish solution. In the eyes of the proposers, the cards are very much secondary to the big database. The proposals all look rather Chinese.
Do we actually have a live proposal to look at? Or is all this discussion harking back to the Blair era?
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
One possible answer is that the people who stand to profit financially from implementing them want them.
Ok, but I'm talking about amongst the public. The thesis is that many people who don't care about illegal immigration nevertheless support ID cards.
The French interior ministry estimates that they have 900,000 undocumented migrants in France, so ID cards are clearly not a panacea in the way that some people think.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
I am a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes - I am a stay-at-home dad; a house-husband, and I cry at the opening of a pack of crisps. But I see acceptance of differences as helpful, not a threat.
I really think the second of your points is the crux: and that's where there is a strong comparison with homosexuality in the 1980s. I well recall the perceived danger of 'gay men' in public toilets and the "won't someone think of the children!"-style shrieks.
The problem is not trans people; the problem is people who attack women. Worse, this idea that trans people are the pre-eminent threat to women (as that's the only form of abuse that gets talked about on here) actually puts women at risk.
Abusers are the problem. Not trans people. If some sick git wants to abuse a woman, they will find a way.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes.
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
Surely there are examples of working ID cards a bit closer to home - in both geographical and political terms - than China. Eg in Western Europe?
Spain, where I’ve lived, does it well with the DNI card.
The problem is that no-one in the UK has ever proposed anything like the Spanish solution. In the eyes of the proposers, the cards are very much secondary to the big database. The proposals all look rather Chinese.
Do we actually have a live proposal to look at? Or is all this discussion harking back to the Blair era?
It’s back to the Blair era. Every Home Secretary since then, has - thankfully - refused to discuss the subject with officials.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
It’s a reaction to the “your papers, please” that we all grew up with in the movies.
In most European countries you are expected to carry on you documentation that proves who you are, should you be stopped. In Britain, we are not.
I wouldn’t trust a future Labour government with our traditional liberties, for more than a second.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Comments
Or wait. There is such a thing. There is your NHS number. A concrete example of where there might easily be public acceptance and approval of a universal method of identifying someone for efficiency purposes and where in reality, neither Hospital A, nor indeed any other part of the godforsaken NHS has any clue whatsoever what Hospital B has been up to.
In their successful interrogations of Sunak yesterday, the media gave Labour so many great questions to jab and hurt Raab at PMQs today, they chose not use them.
Mike Smithson gave Ange a great line of attack in his previous header, invite them to blame Truss for the mistakes which lead to a tax taking budget. Labour could have used that.
A non-driving license Driving License (as in parts of the US) wouldn’t have that bullshit attached.
An ID card is not needed to deal with employment of illegal workers. Legal migrants have a lovingly cared for stack of documents as to their right to work - usually spent a fortune on lawyers to get it all lined up. Nearly every U.K. citizen can prove who they are fairly simply. It’s how they issue passports after all.
If you really want, fix the DVLA and issue a provisional driving license *free* to any U.K. citizen who asks.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
But that's my point - AOC is not a big redistributionist or nationaliser, as far as I know. But she holds what are usually described as quite far left view on trans and race. She is, if I'm not mistaken, a 1619-er? Of course, identity views don't translate easily between the USA and the UK. But she strikes me as having much more controversial views than either Kendall or Reeves.
I think the former seems unnecessary and linking all the information sometimes suggested as part of a national database risky, and so I don't think it justified to impose on people. The latter is entirely up to the individual, and if they want to face the inconvenience of not having one.
It's an idea that seems to come out of Whitehall every few years, as if it would solve every problem under the sun. I've yet to see what problem it actually solves that requires this particular solution.
This is a debating site, MexicanPetes proclivities are obvious and unsubstantial - it wont take long to debate him into submission. Yes, just like BJO making a point and running, the points cannot survive any rational debate.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
Interesting decision ahead for RDS
If he runs again, he'll stick with Harris. Because that's the path of least resistance.
Gretchen currently identifies as a woman.
And do you have the NHS app, the one with your covid certificates on it? If I click gp record on mine it knows everything the NHS has ever done to me.
So they're fine if you believe you will always have good, freedom-loving governments. But they could be an immense power for authoritarian regimes.
Parliament would have the prerogative to say no we're not declaring war on Russia, or anything else, and disregard a non-binding referendum but on the principle that everything is legal unless forbidden, if the advisory referendum doesn't affect reserved matters then its not forbidden, so is legal.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
If he keeps his powder dry to start running 26 or 27, he is going to be elected President in 2028. If he runs this time it doesn’t exactly ruin the certainty of successful run in 28 or 32, but fogs things a bit in both fighting Trump and a sitting President.
It’s a no brainier for him - whilst not the answer PB wanted.
Never mind.
Rishi Sunak has accepted that there is little prospect of a trade deal with the United States after he did not bother to raise the subject with President Biden.
The prime minister said boosting trade with the US “can happen in lots of different ways” as the government acknowledged it was not a priority for either side.
Sunak said he wanted to “take the time to get trade deals right” as he offered qualified backing to the agreement struck with Australia after criticism from environmentalists.
A return to pragmatic government that doesn’t fetishise “trade deals”….
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/us-uk-trade-deal-lfmpjp70w
I vividly remember, in the dog days of its authoritarianism, New Labour tried to pass off the last ID card proposal as "just what like they have on the Continent" ; except that in reality the proposed database linkages were so extensive that the only country seriously interested in emulating or doing anything like the British proposal was authoritarian Thailand.
The glories of the Home Office.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
No-one pushing ID cards has any interest in the cards themselves, except perhaps the companies competing to sell card printers to the government. It’s all about the databases, see China for more details.
UK Gov has deleted documents which erroneously relied upon Scot Gov’s false data on Scotland’s share of Europe’s offshore wind potential. So of course
@AlexSalmond
has put out a press release alleging a UK Gov conspiracy to cover up Scotland’s resource. What an absolute clown.
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1592880986123304965
Id cards by themselves are really useful the problem was as @Malmesbury has already pointed out that the data grab attached to it was beyond anything sane
It is a false premise to suggest our liberty is in peril if we are issued with an ID card when the government have issued us with an identity number at aged 16 (NI number) which is now linked to all manner of other identity documents including NHS records, HMRC details DVLA details and Border Agency documents ( i.e a passport). To deny we are already under the scrutiny of Big Brother is for the birds. A card in the pocket won't make it worse.
ID cards are a total non-issue in Sweden. They make life super dooper easy and are thus popular and used universally for all kinds of purposes. Eg I log in to many websites with Bank ID, which is based on my personal identification number. Apple Pay is also dependent on my Bank ID. Needless to say, its use in the public sector is universal.
Our daughter couldn’t believe it when folk asked her to produce utility bills when she moved to London then Edinburgh. It is mind-bogglingly old fashioned from a Nordic perspective.
Every single sector I work in would have numerous problems simplified simply by their existence and a secondary check for validity
Now, to a certain extent this is the case already, but still I struggle against further moves in this direction. I don't like needing pieces of paper to prove that I exist, and that I am who I say I am.
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
I trust the Swedish government. I do not trust the UK government.
(for govt, I mean, not so much pb.com)
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
The problem is that no-one in the UK has ever proposed anything like the Spanish solution. In the eyes of the proposers, the cards are very much secondary to the big database. The proposals all look rather Chinese.
https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/1592618101732179973?s=46&t=Ix7151BVAVFLym8b_TfcsQ
Credit where credit is due! Nice to see a Unionist defending use of one of our indigenous languages.
One of the weirder BritNat obsessions is attacking native languages. Hard to see why they think such a campaign is going to assist their cause.
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/684/1/identityreport.pdf
It's often misunderstood just how the toxic and prone to over-reaching itsekf the culture of the Home Office is, when not placed under political limitations.
Chances are it will be the Christmas Day evening movie.
Or could it be that this ID cards "illiberality" was the work of a New Labour Government, hence the hostility, irrespective of any benefits?
Want to enter into pub? They scan your chip.
Want to vote? They scan your chip.
Employers could simply use a scanner so that as workers arrived, their chip was read, and they were registered as being at work.
No worries about people forgetting their ID card. And, of course, illegal immigrants would lack the requisite chip.
And I've asked both my dogs, and all three cats, and none of them have any issues with the chipping system.
Those who don’t commit to being “extremely hardcore” by 5pm ET today must leave the company. ‼️
Story: http://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/tech/elon-musk-email-ultimatum-twitter/index.html https://twitter.com/donie/status/1592859900941852674/photo/1
It's the fact some people with ulterior motives are "pretending" to be trans to achieve their motives and many trans people don't see the issue.
https://thewellarmedwoman.com/
This is hell.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
https://twitter.com/Paul1Singh/status/1592888754896834560
All you want to be on this earth is frustrating.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1592890193648177153
I really think the second of your points is the crux: and that's where there is a strong comparison with homosexuality in the 1980s. I well recall the perceived danger of 'gay men' in public toilets and the "won't someone think of the children!"-style shrieks.
The problem is not trans people; the problem is people who attack women. Worse, this idea that trans people are the pre-eminent threat to women (as that's the only form of abuse that gets talked about on here) actually puts women at risk.
Abusers are the problem. Not trans people. If some sick git wants to abuse a woman, they will find a way.
In most European countries you are expected to carry on you documentation that proves who you are, should you be stopped. In Britain, we are not.
I wouldn’t trust a future Labour government with our traditional liberties, for more than a second.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).