I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder if it might be quite popular, given the number of times you have to prove your ID and the buggeration it can cause.
Often not even a passport will do and you have to provide utility bills and the like.
Im not sure what your objections are to having a smartphone, but having a small personal computer with you is great. Not only is it great on the move for maps, tickets, train schedules, sat nav, digital radio etc but I do most of my small personal computing tasks on it. I rarely make calls or send/receive texts.
What is not great is the monthly bill.
It is also an exaggeration to say that you have to prove your ID all the time. Once a bank account is opened and you're working, what other need is there? No - this feels like an excuse to give the state the ability to control every aspect of our lives and such a power, if given to the state and those working for it, will inevitably be abused - and quite badly - as experience shows us over and over again.
Only if it's a civil war. You don't prepare for war by putting every single armed forces commander - including those from every global deployment - in one location.
In fact the only precedents are folk like Saddam summoning all their generals in order to get loyalty oaths and/or purge them.
Yes. The only reason to do this is for a loyalty test and the aftermath of that.
We should expect a number of Generals and Admirals to be dismissed. It's worth remembering that the effectiveness of the Red Army in WWII was severely impaired by the number of officers who had been purged. This will only make the US armed forces weaker, and risks encouraging China to make a move on Taiwan.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
Well you and the vast majority of people who don't post here
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
I really dislike this argument - that because you've already given away so much information, it doesn't matter if you give even more away.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
I really dislike this argument - that because you've already given away so much information, it doesn't matter if you give even more away.
The other thing about that is that I have given random bits of information about myself away to different people, but without there being an easy way to join it all together, and this just makes it too easy.
And my NI Number (which I can't change) has already been exposed to the world by one bunch of numpties not keeping it secure so there is absolutely no way I'm taking part in this, legal requirement or not.
Yes, I was right. The Conservatie candidate got 45 first preferences in Tainnand Easter Ross - that's just under 2% of the first preference votes cast. (Lib Dem 38%, Ind 28%, SNP 14%, RefUK 12% and the Greens 3%)
That's a really poor performance in a Highland farming area. OK, it's Scottish local politics, but even so.....
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder if it might be quite popular, given the number of times you have to prove your ID and the buggeration it can cause.
Often not even a passport will do and you have to provide utility bills and the like.
Im not sure what your objections are to having a smartphone, but having a small personal computer with you is great. Not only is it great on the move for maps, tickets, train schedules, sat nav, digital radio etc but I do most of my small personal computing tasks on it. I rarely make calls or send/receive texts.
What is not great is the monthly bill.
It is also an exaggeration to say that you have to prove your ID all the time. Once a bank account is opened and you're working, what other need is there? No - this feels like an excuse to give the state the ability to control every aspect of our lives and such a power, if given to the state and those working for it, will inevitably be abused - and quite badly - as experience shows us over and over again.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
Or an even bigger majority in favour if you happen to believe IPSOS (Mainly Tories bizarrely though how they found any is a mystery)
Only if it's a civil war. You don't prepare for war by putting every single armed forces commander - including those from every global deployment - in one location.
Yes, I was right. The Conservatie candidate got 45 first preferences in Tainnand Easter Ross - that's just under 2% of the first preference votes cast. (Lib Dem 38%, Ind 28%, SNP 14%, RefUK 12% and the Greens 3%)
That's a really poor performance in a Highland farming area. OK, it's Scottish local politics, but even so.....
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
ID for voting was unnecessary. We managed perfectly well without it until about 2 years ago.
I'd prefer the inked finger approach myself.
One thing I find interesting/mildly annoying. The people at the polling station are not required to show me their ID, but I must show mine. Now I believe they are acting for the state at that point and should be required, if asked, to show who they are. Just as a police officer must show a warrant card etc. Am I being unduly stupid?
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
I'd also be in favour if its done properly.
I might be graduating into grumpy old cynical man but the reality is it will be done badly, at excessive cost, with various fudges along the way, lack of thought for edge cases before being reversed and cancelled either shortly before or after its eventual implementation.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
Good luck enforcing your legal rights without having to show a law firm your ID which is then validated against government databases.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
Or an even bigger majority in favour if you happen to believe IPSOS (Mainly Tories bizarrely though how they found any is a mystery)
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder just how much thought the government has given to people who are visually impaired and can't use a smartphone. None, I suspect.
A lot of visually impaired people do use smartphones, as accessibility software exists.
But it would be foolish to stop a programme because a tiny proportion of people would need some other method of accessing it. You do need those other methods sorting out though
That's a great example of how we all use other groups to defend our positions sometimes without finding out first; I do it all the time.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
I expect the typical disabled person owns no cycle, though that wasn't on the list.
That's a bit of a spurious comment, because the survey was of people who did own a cycle , and as indicated it's "our contact network", not "relative to population".
The point is about perceptions of who uses a normal bicycle, whether Council Officers who tell people who can't walk well (eg Fibromyalgia) but can use a tricycle/bicycle to "get off and walk", or those (eg the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association) who spend a part of their time trying to set up Disabled People vs Cyclists narratives (perhaps they want to force disabled people to use taxis?), and so on.
I've been asking for a demographic survey for several years, but small charities do not have such resources - or cannot give a priority to that. It needs someone like DPTAG (Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee) to ask for one, or Active Travel England to take it on.
But an objective population survey is difficult, as it skewed eg because a disabled person can get a free, reserved parking space, but there is no equivalent basic provision for if the same person wants for example to use a mobility aid.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder just how much thought the government has given to people who are visually impaired and can't use a smartphone. None, I suspect.
A lot of visually impaired people do use smartphones, as accessibility software exists.
But it would be foolish to stop a programme because a tiny proportion of people would need some other method of accessing it. You do need those other methods sorting out though
That's a great example of how we all use other groups to defend our positions sometimes without finding out first; I do it all the time.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
The most famous example was Edward Carson using the Ulster Unionists to defend the position of the Irish Unionists.
He should have found out that James Craig was an untrustworthy snake before doing that…
Yes, I was right. The Conservatie candidate got 45 first preferences in Tainnand Easter Ross - that's just under 2% of the first preference votes cast. (Lib Dem 38%, Ind 28%, SNP 14%, RefUK 12% and the Greens 3%)
That's a really poor performance in a Highland farming area. OK, it's Scottish local politics, but even so.....
Off-topic why can't they spell his name correctly in court documents? A colleague said that in the Netherlands they made the effort including any accents in names but in the UK their childrens' birth certificates have a garbled anglicization of the surname
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Indeed not, and most especially with the arm of the American state behind him, in a company even part-created by the CIA, as we outlined yesterday. Wonderful stuff.
It might be difficult for some people to believe but not everyone has spent the last 15 years on social media, signing up for online streaming services, etc, and their level of privacy is still the same as it was pre-internet. So when people say ID cards are fine because they've already given away a lot of information about themselves, they're being incredibly selfish because they're only looking at it from their own point of view.
It might be difficult for some people to believe but not everyone has spent the last 15 years on social media, signing up for online streaming services, etc, and their level of privacy is still the same as it was pre-internet. So when people say ID cards are fine because they've already given away a lot of information about themselves, they're being incredibly selfish because they're only looking at it from their own point of view.
Its probably about 80-90% of adults have widely shared stuff and 10-20% haven't.
Which group is being more selfish? Both need some consideration.
In the Caol & Mallaig contest, the Conservative Cndidate got 18 first preferences. That's just 0.75% of the votes. Less than 1% for a Conservative candidate in the Scottish Highlands.
Labour did a bit better - just over 1%. The winner was an Independent with 36% of the first prefs. Lib Dem 17%, RefUK 5%, SNP 9% and two more Indies with 30% and 2%.
Yes, I was right. The Conservatie candidate got 45 first preferences in Tainnand Easter Ross - that's just under 2% of the first preference votes cast. (Lib Dem 38%, Ind 28%, SNP 14%, RefUK 12% and the Greens 3%)
That's a really poor performance in a Highland farming area. OK, it's Scottish local politics, but even so.....
Good result for Lib Dem and poor for conservatives but not an area in Scotland I would expect them to do well - indeed last time it was only just over 5%
Yes, I was right. The Conservatie candidate got 45 first preferences in Tainnand Easter Ross - that's just under 2% of the first preference votes cast. (Lib Dem 38%, Ind 28%, SNP 14%, RefUK 12% and the Greens 3%)
That's a really poor performance in a Highland farming area. OK, it's Scottish local politics, but even so.....
Yes, as far as I know a sitting SNP cllr resigned. The figures quoted are referenced against a by election in the ward last year, the last council elections in 2022 had SNP 30.6% and LD 21.5%, 1 candidate each in a 3 member ward
Vote shares on the MRP were as follows (changes from Junes MRP) Ref 27(+1) Lab 21 (-2) Con 17 (-1) LD 15 (=) Grn 11 (=) SNP 3(=) PC 1 (=)
Two good by-election wins last night for the Green Party, and from the look of the photo here a strong ground game. Greens now claim to have a bigger membership than the LDs too.
With "Your Party" in chaos, it looks like Zack has the momentum on the left. Could we see them attracting defections too?
We are solidly in to an era of 5 Party politics, with 6 in Wales and Scotland. That really doesn't work under FPTP. A minority Fagage government on 27% of the vote would have no legitimacy.
The Tories would be very pleased with the Greens eating a portion of the LD vote on the left of centre, it would be very helpful to them in the blue wall
Won't work like that, though, will it? Where the LDs are established, they will pull in the anti-Tory vote with the Greens standing some chance there the LDs don't figure, as in my seat on the east of the island. Although I doubt the island is ready for Zak's socialist revolution
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder if it might be quite popular, given the number of times you have to prove your ID and the buggeration it can cause.
Often not even a passport will do and you have to provide utility bills and the like.
Im not sure what your objections are to having a smartphone, but having a small personal computer with you is great. Not only is it great on the move for maps, tickets, train schedules, sat nav, digital radio etc but I do most of my small personal computing tasks on it. I rarely make calls or send/receive texts.
What is not great is the monthly bill.
It is also an exaggeration to say that you have to prove your ID all the time. Once a bank account is opened and you're working, what other need is there? No - this feels like an excuse to give the state the ability to control every aspect of our lives and such a power, if given to the state and those working for it, will inevitably be abused - and quite badly - as experience shows us over and over again.
It will create problems not solve them.
The government already has these powers
Rubbish: the government does not have the power to stop me getting health treatment or accessing the internet or go shopping or doing all sorts of ordinary every day stuff. It does not force me to have a certain type of phone and so on.
Look at the state's abuses - so many that listing them all would take too long - or those by the police. And I am supposed to trust them and their US helpers who do not believe in democracy and will share all this material with leaders of a country slowly sliding into at best a degraded democracy and at worse fascism.
It might be difficult for some people to believe but not everyone has spent the last 15 years on social media, signing up for online streaming services, etc, and their level of privacy is still the same as it was pre-internet. So when people say ID cards are fine because they've already given away a lot of information about themselves, they're being incredibly selfish because they're only looking at it from their own point of view.
Its probably about 80-90% of adults have widely shared stuff and 10-20% haven't.
Which group is being more selfish? Both need some consideration.
But I'd also point out that many of the 10-20% who haven't shared stuff, will have shared more than they realise - or had other people share stuff about them...
Pretty poor performances by the Tories and Labour in Caol and Mallaig, albeit it is not their best territory. The strong tradition of independent councillors in West Highlands continues
In the Caol & Mallaig contest, the Conservative Cndidate got 18 first preferences. That's just 0.75% of the votes. Less than 1% for a Conservative candidate in the Scottish Highlands.
Labour did a bit better - just over 1%. The winner was an Independent with 36% of the first prefs. Lib Dem 17%, RefUK 5%, SNP 9% and two more Indies with 30% and 2%.
The main two parties have a serious popularity problem at the moment.
This is a good point. But only if we keep the need for ID to vote.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com · 26m Right now we have the absurdity of compulsory ID for voting without a hassle free ID system. Madness and unfair to those least likely to have passports/driving licences etc- again, poorer people, younger people etc.
ID for voting was unnecessary. We managed perfectly well without it until about 2 years ago.
I'd prefer the inked finger approach myself.
One thing I find interesting/mildly annoying. The people at the polling station are not required to show me their ID, but I must show mine. Now I believe they are acting for the state at that point and should be required, if asked, to show who they are. Just as a police officer must show a warrant card etc. Am I being unduly stupid?
I think you are being an auditor.
A what now?
Aha you have not met one. They are members of the public who somewhat nit pick detail to get back at officials, and sometimes video it and put the videos online. "A bit of an auditor" might have been better.
I think it can have its place - I became nit-picky when a policeman in London told me she suspected I was a terrorist for reading a map by the entrance to Kings Cross Station, when the Blair Govt were (imo) misusing Section 44. But it can also go to far.
They are the bane of the drone flying community. Most - maybe 99.9% - of droners just want to fly their drones safely and legally, but an auditor might walk the edge of the law, just to prove that they can. A questionable example might be filming the car park of a police station, which would reveal the numbers of the unmarked and private cars.
Sorry to hear about Ming Campbell. I thought he was a very decent man, and I found him an easy politician to listen to, even if I didn’t agree with everything he said - though often I did.
It was a shame that he never really cut through as leader. I think in an age where there was a lot of focus on our leaders being telegenic and youthful, his face didn’t fit. He also followed on from very prominent, popular figures in Ashdown and Kennedy. But I personally did rather like his more old school brand of politics, even as I can see it didn’t really chime with the electorate at large.
It might be difficult for some people to believe but not everyone has spent the last 15 years on social media, signing up for online streaming services, etc, and their level of privacy is still the same as it was pre-internet. So when people say ID cards are fine because they've already given away a lot of information about themselves, they're being incredibly selfish because they're only looking at it from their own point of view.
Its probably about 80-90% of adults have widely shared stuff and 10-20% haven't.
Which group is being more selfish? Both need some consideration.
But I'd also point out that many of the 10-20% who haven't shared stuff, will have shared more than they realise - or had other people share stuff about them...
Sharing stuff voluntarily and being forced to by a state which has the power to take away your liberty are two very different things. You'd hope that intelligent people on a politics forum would understand this important difference.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder just how much thought the government has given to people who are visually impaired and can't use a smartphone. None, I suspect.
A lot of visually impaired people do use smartphones, as accessibility software exists.
But it would be foolish to stop a programme because a tiny proportion of people would need some other method of accessing it. You do need those other methods sorting out though
That's a great example of how we all use other groups to defend our positions sometimes without finding out first; I do it all the time.
I'll make my daily photo about perceptions of disabled people. What type of cycle would you expect disabled people to own? This is from the 5th Edition of the Guide to Inclusive Cycling, which was launched yesterday, and is the type of cycles owned by disabled people associated with Wheels for Wellbeing.
The most common type of cycle disabled people use to get around is a ... standard cycle.
The most famous example was Edward Carson using the Ulster Unionists to defend the position of the Irish Unionists.
He should have found out that James Craig was an untrustworthy snake before doing that…
BTW, remember that Thiel is heavily invested in AI: and thinks anyone against the technology is going to help summon the Antichrist. (*)
I have zero faith that any data his companies have access to won't get fed into his AI projects. In fact, I'll put that another way. I'm certain it'll happen.
If you think this reads badly, imagine him saying it!
The PM complains about: "A politics of predatory grievance preying on the problems of working people and using that infrastructure of division against the politics of renewal"
It's like a really bad AI from a few years ago, programmed by Deloitte to give a patriotic speech
If you think this reads badly, imagine him saying it!
The PM complains about: "A politics of predatory grievance preying on the problems of working people and using that infrastructure of division against the politics of renewal"
It's like a really bad AI from a few years ago, programmed by Deloitte to give a patriotic speech
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
Or the way that the Prevention of Terrorism Act led to the arrest of thousands of young black men. Who knew the PIRA was so multi-cultural?
It might be difficult for some people to believe but not everyone has spent the last 15 years on social media, signing up for online streaming services, etc, and their level of privacy is still the same as it was pre-internet. So when people say ID cards are fine because they've already given away a lot of information about themselves, they're being incredibly selfish because they're only looking at it from their own point of view.
And in any case that's not the real issue. The main issues are whether the scene will involve a new database that combines data the government holds on you in one place, and then makes that data available to a vast number of government employees.
This is why tracking cookies were so controversial, as they enabled private companies to combine data about you together. It's the stitching together of data from different sources and purposes which is so powerful/dangerous.
Incidentally, just been reading the BBC 'what we know' section on ID cards. Apparently, it'll be on people's phones.
I despise smartphones, and don't have one. At least, not yet. Maybe I'll end up being forced to get one thanks to this genius move.
I wonder if it might be quite popular, given the number of times you have to prove your ID and the buggeration it can cause.
Often not even a passport will do and you have to provide utility bills and the like.
Im not sure what your objections are to having a smartphone, but having a small personal computer with you is great. Not only is it great on the move for maps, tickets, train schedules, sat nav, digital radio etc but I do most of my small personal computing tasks on it. I rarely make calls or send/receive texts.
What is not great is the monthly bill.
It is also an exaggeration to say that you have to prove your ID all the time. Once a bank account is opened and you're working, what other need is there? No - this feels like an excuse to give the state the ability to control every aspect of our lives and such a power, if given to the state and those working for it, will inevitably be abused - and quite badly - as experience shows us over and over again.
It will create problems not solve them.
The government already has these powers
Rubbish: the government does not have the power to stop me getting health treatment or accessing the internet or go shopping or doing all sorts of ordinary every day stuff. It does not force me to have a certain type of phone and so on.
Look at the state's abuses - so many that listing them all would take too long - or those by the police. And I am supposed to trust them and their US helpers who do not believe in democracy and will share all this material with leaders of a country slowly sliding into at best a degraded democracy and at worse fascism.
No thanks. You can be naive if you want.
It has the power to stop you doing all of those things.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
Or the way that the Prevention of Terrorism Act led to the arrest of thousands of young black men. Who knew the PIRA was so multi-cultural?
It might be difficult for some people to believe but not everyone has spent the last 15 years on social media, signing up for online streaming services, etc, and their level of privacy is still the same as it was pre-internet. So when people say ID cards are fine because they've already given away a lot of information about themselves, they're being incredibly selfish because they're only looking at it from their own point of view.
Its probably about 80-90% of adults have widely shared stuff and 10-20% haven't.
Which group is being more selfish? Both need some consideration.
But I'd also point out that many of the 10-20% who haven't shared stuff, will have shared more than they realise - or had other people share stuff about them...
Sharing stuff voluntarily and being forced to by a state which has the power to take away your liberty are two very different things. You'd hope that intelligent people on a politics forum would understand this important difference.
You're snarky this morning!
Yes, I think even the unintelligent people on a politics forum understands that importance difference. I think it's slightly irrelevant to my point though, which is that it is very hard *not* to give away data online or for others to give away your data. From experience, sometimes you have to jump through rather arcane hoops to prevent giving away your data - and sometimes you have to trust them at their word.
(And BTW, I'm against ID Cards, and even this proposed limited scheme.)
Sorrento is lovely but access and egress is a nightmare
Did a couple of weeks in Southern Italy from Rome last year. Along one coast and up the other. Lovely place until you got to a port with a cruise ship docked. Too many tourists in one spot is a real downer, egged on by irresponsible travel journalists who are to blame for this.
If you think this reads badly, imagine him saying it!
The PM complains about: "A politics of predatory grievance preying on the problems of working people and using that infrastructure of division against the politics of renewal"
It's like a really bad AI from a few years ago, programmed by Deloitte to give a patriotic speech
Madness. Labour is the party that imported the soundbite into British politics ('One cross on the ballot paper, a nation reborn.'). But now they've tuned their leader into the Alliteration Kid. Who is responsible for this stylistic outrage? McSweeney presumably.
A quick look suggests it's currently the 10th most popular petition ever...
We need a way to tell if the signatories to the petition are genuine.....
Well, if we had ID cards we could also post our ID number to prove it - might as well publish them ourselves up front rather than wait for a hacker to do it
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce irritating bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
Yes, having to jump through hoops to prove your identity is a PITA, although cynics might wonder how many of these hoops were created in order to clear the path for a digital ID scheme.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
The Government already has your data
And they are already losing it and abusing it. I see no argument for increasing the amount they can hold on me. Indeed I would like to see it go the other way with real restrictions on what they can collect and how they can use it.
In the Caol & Mallaig contest, the Conservative Cndidate got 18 first preferences. That's just 0.75% of the votes. Less than 1% for a Conservative candidate in the Scottish Highlands.
Labour did a bit better - just over 1%. The winner was an Independent with 36% of the first prefs. Lib Dem 17%, RefUK 5%, SNP 9% and two more Indies with 30% and 2%.
I think the Tories have a long, long road to get the public to trust them again. Now some of that is unfair - covid and the war in Ukraine were not their fault and would have impacted any governing party, but some of it is their uselessness and foisting three May, Truss and Sunak on the public mid parliament. Cameron, for all his myriad faults, at least presented a fresh face, seemingly more in line with modern Britain. Until that happens again, the Tories are only going lower.
If you think this reads badly, imagine him saying it!
The PM complains about: "A politics of predatory grievance preying on the problems of working people and using that infrastructure of division against the politics of renewal"
It's like a really bad AI from a few years ago, programmed by Deloitte to give a patriotic speech
Madness. Labour is the party that imported the soundbite into British politics ('One cross on the ballot paper, a nation reborn.'). But now they've tuned their leader into the Alliteration Kid. Who is responsible for this stylistic outrage? McSweeney presumably.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Nor are they likely to be having a direct effect upon me in the UK. The UK Government is. They are in a position to directly abuse the information they collect on us and, more to the point, have a record of doing so which goes far beyond just targeting us with adverts.
Sorrento is lovely but access and egress is a nightmare
Did a couple of weeks in Southern Italy from Rome last year. Along one coast and up the other. Lovely place until you got to a port with a cruise ship docked. Too many tourists in one spot is a real downer, egged on by irresponsible travel journalists who are to blame for this.
I am having lunch in medieval Ferrara. Not too many tourists about here, today, although there is a big festival of sport in which every local sports activity - stretching to chess and table football - is being showcased around the town
Sorrento is lovely but access and egress is a nightmare
Did a couple of weeks in Southern Italy from Rome last year. Along one coast and up the other. Lovely place until you got to a port with a cruise ship docked. Too many tourists in one spot is a real downer, egged on by irresponsible travel journalists who are to blame for this.
Bloody travel journalists !!!!
Totally agree. Never gut over tourism before but they cruise ship passengers in sorrento, and we are two of them, is just oppressive. I prefer the smaller ports where only a couple of boats dock.
I guess I'm in a small minority on here as I'm broadly in favour of digital ID. Assuming it's done properly (yes, I know) it could both save money and reduce everyday bureaucracy for people, like me, who are sick and tired of having to prove who I am for everyday tasks like opening a new bank/savings account, or even mundane stuff such as applying for a residents' parking permit. I'm pretty fed up with all the hoops that need to be gone through to get basic stuff done, and a one-stop shop would be useful.
As for the state surveillance argument. Well, firstly, I'm not paranoid. And, more importantly, the amount of information held on me by Apple, Google, Microsoft, Netflix (who seem to know everything I watch on their platform), my banks (who even recognise my face on my phone) and so on is already vast, and I'm not sure I trust these private companies any more than I trust the government.
The difference being that you could, like many people, choose not to use social media or put your personal data out there. You have chosen to make that data available, presumably after assessing the net value in doing so.
There would not be a choice with Digital ID.
Moreover private companies are limited by law in what they can do with your data. The same will not necessarily apply to any future Government.
I do not trust the Government (any Government) to either keep my data safe nor use it wisely or fairly.
Fair points. But firstly, yes, you could avoid social media (as I do, apart from PB), but I don't think it's realistic to avoid completely all the companies I mentioned in my post unless you are a hermit who lives on cash under the mattress.
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
I trust them more than any Government as at least they know there are legal consequences if they get caught.
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I don't think a large US company run by a multibillionaire who could give Lex Luthor a run for his money in terms of 'dreams' and with strong connections to the US government particularly cares about 'legal consequences' in the UK.
Nor are they likely to be having a direct effect upon me in the UK. The UK Government is. They are in a position to directly abuse the information they collect on us and, more to the point, have a record of doing so which goes far beyond just targeting us with adverts.
Oh, I agree about the UK government. I don't agree with you first sentence - these guys could have a very direct effect upon people over here, and they could directly abuse the information thy collect.
Say, for instance, they get hold of a genetic database, and a loose correlation is discovered between a certain combination of genes and a disease, and you exhibit those genes. They then sell this information to insurers, who make it much more expensive for you to get insured, or stop you getting insurance at all. You have not given permission for your information to be used in that way, nor for them to sell their interpretation of it to the insurers. And you will never know about it, and cannot challenge it.
This, and many other scenarios, are perfectly feasible.
I am biased against the policy anyway. But it is starting to feel like this was a misstep.
I concede that these policies can poll well (though I do often wonder how superficial that backing is). But so far we have had:
1. the policy announced with maximum fanfare, as if this is the government’s great solution to all our ills. This is not a manifesto pledge, has clearly been dreamt up as a knee jerk response, and the sense I’m getting is a prevailing sense of bewilderment among many as to why the government even thinks this is a fix for the problem.
2. Lisa Nandy clearly sent out to do the media rounds with absolutely no idea what the policy is or how it is all supposed to work. Almost as if it’s been pulled together in panic to try and arrest the slide in the polls, ho hum.
3. as someone who, rightly or wrongly, has become the populist right’s bogeyman around civil liberties and restricting the freedoms of the common man, I’m not sure it’s quite the best look for Starmer’s big idea to be… erm… more state control and restrictions on the common man.
4. Nobody has been able to convincingly articulate why this will stop the boats or solve the problem of illegal working beyond the right to work system we already have in place.
5. They haven’t had a clear answer for those who don’t have smartphones or who aren’t tech savvy. This has allowed accessibility campaigners a platform to criticise it.
6. It feels like they’re trying to outflank Reform. Note to Starmer - Labour will never outflank Reform on immigration policy. Reform will always have a simpler approach for those who are concerned - deport and withdraw from ECHR. ID cards aren’t going to change the game from that simple truth.
This is also one of those policies that I would suggest change very few VIs for the people who are broadly supportive, but the people who dislike them, really dislike them.
The ID cards announcement is the perfect example of what happens when a Prime Minister becomes toxic. For my entire adult life this debate's been raging, with arguments on either side. Now Keir Starmer's taken ownership. So there's suddenly a settled consensus it's a mad idea. 12:26 PM · Sep 26, 2025"
I just used my fingerprint to log into my Apple computer; I used facial recognition to pay for an e-bike on my Apple phone; I ordered a repeat prescription on the NHS app that holds every detail of every illness I have ever been treated for on a central server...1/
Apple famously never store your biometric data off device or have access to it....other than that great point....how a musician ever became tech then economics editor I have no idea.
The ID cards announcement is the perfect example of what happens when a Prime Minister becomes toxic. For my entire adult life this debate's been raging, with arguments on either side. Now Keir Starmer's taken ownership. So there's suddenly a settled consensus it's a mad idea. 12:26 PM · Sep 26, 2025"
Outlining the reasons for his decision, the chief magistrate said: "I find that these proceedings were not instituted in the correct form, lacking the necessary DPP (Director of Public Prosecutions) and AG (Attorney General) consent within the six-month statutory time limit.
A quick look suggests it's currently the 10th most popular petition ever...
I make it 9th, which is somewhat remarkable given the others are:
- 3: Brexit related petitions - 3: Pointless calls for an early general election - 1: Stop Trump state visit (first time round) - 1: End child food poverty
So there's been very, very few similarly popular petitions on actual points of policy. And that's in less than 24 hours.
Sorrento is lovely but access and egress is a nightmare
Did a couple of weeks in Southern Italy from Rome last year. Along one coast and up the other. Lovely place until you got to a port with a cruise ship docked. Too many tourists in one spot is a real downer, egged on by irresponsible travel journalists who are to blame for this.
Bloody travel journalists !!!!
Totally agree. Never gut over tourism before but they cruise ship passengers in sorrento, and we are two of them, is just oppressive. I prefer the smaller ports where only a couple of boats dock.
The ground rules of post pandemic tourism are never to go anywhere that a cruise ship calls, and stay off the Rick Steves trail.
Is this what people mean when they talk about the "process state"? Thinking you can secure borders via a bureaucratic fix rather than doing anything physical.
"Starmer says government will introduce digital IDs to ensure Britain’s ‘borders are more secure’"
A quick look suggests it's currently the 10th most popular petition ever...
I make it 9th, which is somewhat remarkable given the others are:
- 3: Brexit related petitions - 3: Pointless calls for an early general election - 1: Stop Trump state visit (first time round) - 1: End child food poverty
So there's been very, very few similarly popular petitions on actual points of policy. And that's in less than 24 hours.
A quick look suggests it's currently the 10th most popular petition ever...
I make it 9th, which is somewhat remarkable given the others are:
- 3: Brexit related petitions - 3: Pointless calls for an early general election - 1: Stop Trump state visit (first time round) - 1: End child food poverty
So there's been very, very few similarly popular petitions on actual points of policy. And that's in less than 24 hours.
Indeed. I just signed, having followed the link from PB. A lot of folk won't have heard about it yet, and comparing the first day's tally with how other petitions finished after six months up isn't going to tell us much
Comments
https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1971519174326514084?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
It will create problems not solve them.
We should expect a number of Generals and Admirals to be dismissed. It's worth remembering that the effectiveness of the Red Army in WWII was severely impaired by the number of officers who had been purged. This will only make the US armed forces weaker, and risks encouraging China to make a move on Taiwan.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-the-introduction-of-a-system-of-national-identity-cards-in-the-uk
This is not reassuring
https://x.com/GuidoFawkes/status/1971518034075435216?s=19
Secondly, while private companies are indeed limited by law, I'm not persuaded that they can be trusted not to ignore their legal obligations.
And my NI Number (which I can't change) has already been exposed to the world by one bunch of numpties not keeping it secure so there is absolutely no way I'm taking part in this, legal requirement or not.
That's a really poor performance in a Highland farming area. OK, it's Scottish local politics, but even so.....
ID cards petition the third largest ever, shortly to be second largest.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/57-britons-support-national-id-card-scheme-have-significant-concerns-over-data-security-and
And with a 20% headcount reduction threatened, if you don't want to follow their mantra, then you might want to resign or be resigned.
Hat tip to Ballot Box Scotland on bluesky
Ballot Box Scotland
@ballotbox.scot
Tain and Easter Ross (Highland) by-election, first preferences (vs 2024 BE):
Lib Dem: 935 (38.8%, +13.8)
Independent: 686 (28.4%, new)
SNP: 356 (14.8%, -10.6)
Reform UK: 312 (12.9%, new)
Green: 78 (3.2%, -0.4)
Conservative: 45 (1.9%, -3.5)
(40.6% in 2024 for non-returns)
Lib Dem elected stage 6
And this is not just hyothetical. Look at the massive abuses of the RIPA laws under Blair.
I might be graduating into grumpy old cynical man but the reality is it will be done badly, at excessive cost, with various fudges along the way, lack of thought for edge cases before being reversed and cancelled either shortly before or after its eventual implementation.
So what is the point?
This poll is not quite what you think it is
The point is about perceptions of who uses a normal bicycle, whether Council Officers who tell people who can't walk well (eg Fibromyalgia) but can use a tricycle/bicycle to "get off and walk", or those (eg the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association) who spend a part of their time trying to set up Disabled People vs Cyclists narratives (perhaps they want to force disabled people to use taxis?), and so on.
I've been asking for a demographic survey for several years, but small charities do not have such resources - or cannot give a priority to that. It needs someone like DPTAG (Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee) to ask for one, or Active Travel England to take it on.
But an objective population survey is difficult, as it skewed eg because a disabled person can get a free, reserved parking space, but there is no equivalent basic provision for if the same person wants for example to use a mobility aid.
https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=730194
Bath, Oxford West etc. Though stronger in the far south west.
He should have found out that James Craig was an untrustworthy snake before doing that…
Off-topic why can't they spell his name correctly in court documents?
A colleague said that in the Netherlands they made the effort including any accents in names but in the UK their childrens' birth certificates have a garbled anglicization of the surname
Which group is being more selfish? Both need some consideration.
In the Caol & Mallaig contest, the Conservative Cndidate got 18 first preferences. That's just 0.75% of the votes. Less than 1% for a Conservative candidate in the Scottish Highlands.
Labour did a bit better - just over 1%. The winner was an Independent with 36% of the first prefs. Lib Dem 17%, RefUK 5%, SNP 9% and two more Indies with 30% and 2%.
Its the third by election in that ward this term
Look at the state's abuses - so many that listing them all would take too long - or those by the police. And I am supposed to trust them and their US helpers who do not believe in democracy and will share all this material with leaders of a country slowly sliding into at best a degraded democracy and at worse fascism.
No thanks. You can be naive if you want.
I think it can have its place - I became nit-picky when a policeman in London told me she suspected I was a terrorist for reading a map by the entrance to Kings Cross Station, when the Blair Govt were (imo) misusing Section 44. But it can also go to far.
They are the bane of the drone flying community. Most - maybe 99.9% - of droners just want to fly their drones safely and legally, but an auditor might walk the edge of the law, just to prove that they can. A questionable example might be filming the car park of a police station, which would reveal the numbers of the unmarked and private cars.
It was a shame that he never really cut through as leader. I think in an age where there was a lot of focus on our leaders being telegenic and youthful, his face didn’t fit. He also followed on from very prominent, popular figures in Ashdown and Kennedy. But I personally did rather like his more old school brand of politics, even as I can see it didn’t really chime with the electorate at large.
I have zero faith that any data his companies have access to won't get fed into his AI projects. In fact, I'll put that another way. I'm certain it'll happen.
(*) Seriously. https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/785407/peter-thiel-antichrist-tech-regulation
The PM complains about: "A politics of predatory grievance preying on the problems of working people and using that infrastructure of division against the politics of renewal"
It's like a really bad AI from a few years ago, programmed by Deloitte to give a patriotic speech
https://x.com/madz_grant/status/1971524698963169392?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
This is why tracking cookies were so controversial, as they enabled private companies to combine data about you together. It's the stitching together of data from different sources and purposes which is so powerful/dangerous.
https://digital-photography-school.com/im-a-photographer-not-a-terrorist-how-to-shoot-in-public-with-confidence/
Yes, I think even the unintelligent people on a politics forum understands that importance difference. I think it's slightly irrelevant to my point though, which is that it is very hard *not* to give away data online or for others to give away your data. From experience, sometimes you have to jump through rather arcane hoops to prevent giving away your data - and sometimes you have to trust them at their word.
(And BTW, I'm against ID Cards, and even this proposed limited scheme.)
@timothy_stanley
Unable to police the borders - on an *island* - the government intends to police its citizens instead."
https://x.com/timothy_stanley/status/1971269406773985510
Six petitions over one million previously, and revoke article 50 is the current record holder with 6,103,056 signatures.
And how she is going to prove her identity, given she doesn't know who she (or anyone else) is.
Perhaps we should microchip her instead...?
Cameron, for all his myriad faults, at least presented a fresh face, seemingly more in line with modern Britain. Until that happens again, the Tories are only going lower.
cat flapsdoors.A club not too far from me hosted the 1957 Ryder Cup. It is nowhere near long enough or difficult enough these days for the professionals.
Totally agree. Never gut over tourism before but they cruise ship passengers in sorrento, and we are two of them, is just oppressive. I prefer the smaller ports where only a couple of boats dock.
Say, for instance, they get hold of a genetic database, and a loose correlation is discovered between a certain combination of genes and a disease, and you exhibit those genes. They then sell this information to insurers, who make it much more expensive for you to get insured, or stop you getting insurance at all. You have not given permission for your information to be used in that way, nor for them to sell their interpretation of it to the insurers. And you will never know about it, and cannot challenge it.
This, and many other scenarios, are perfectly feasible.
There will not be an election tomorrow.
Unless Labour's polling improves dramatically it will be spring 2029.
I concede that these policies can poll well (though I do often wonder how superficial that backing is). But so far we have had:
1. the policy announced with maximum fanfare, as if this is the government’s great solution to all our ills. This is not a manifesto pledge, has clearly been dreamt up as a knee jerk response, and the sense I’m getting is a prevailing sense of bewilderment among many as to why the government even thinks this is a fix for the problem.
2. Lisa Nandy clearly sent out to do the media rounds with absolutely no idea what the policy is or how it is all supposed to work. Almost as if it’s been pulled together in panic to try and arrest the slide in the polls, ho hum.
3. as someone who, rightly or wrongly, has become the populist right’s bogeyman around civil liberties and restricting the freedoms of the common man, I’m not sure it’s quite the best look for Starmer’s big idea to be… erm… more state control and restrictions on the common man.
4. Nobody has been able to convincingly articulate why this will stop the boats or solve the problem of illegal working beyond the right to work system we already have in place.
5. They haven’t had a clear answer for those who don’t have smartphones or who aren’t tech savvy. This has allowed accessibility campaigners a platform to criticise it.
6. It feels like they’re trying to outflank Reform. Note to Starmer - Labour will never outflank Reform on immigration policy. Reform will always have a simpler approach for those who are concerned - deport and withdraw from ECHR. ID cards aren’t going to change the game from that simple truth.
This is also one of those policies that I would suggest change very few VIs for the people who are broadly supportive, but the people who dislike them, really dislike them.
@DPJHodges
The ID cards announcement is the perfect example of what happens when a Prime Minister becomes toxic. For my entire adult life this debate's been raging, with arguments on either side. Now Keir Starmer's taken ownership. So there's suddenly a settled consensus it's a mad idea.
12:26 PM · Sep 26, 2025"
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1971536758413426962
https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/1971464515549311360
Apple famously never store your biometric data off device or have access to it....other than that great point....how a musician ever became tech then economics editor I have no idea.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce846r2drg8o
Top legal officials in the country don't know the law....
- 3: Brexit related petitions
- 3: Pointless calls for an early general election
- 1: Stop Trump state visit (first time round)
- 1: End child food poverty
So there's been very, very few similarly popular petitions on actual points of policy. And that's in less than 24 hours.
"Starmer says government will introduce digital IDs to ensure Britain’s ‘borders are more secure’"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/sep/26/keir-starmer-digital-id-cards-immigration-borders-reform-uk-politics-live
https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241584
Some amazing figures there: 26% of Bristol West voters signed it, 25% in Hornsey & Wood Green, 24% in Cambridge.