Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Why I chose TMay as best PM to handle COVID – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • I earlier said that Margaret Thatcher would be the best of the previous PMs to handle covid and I retain that opinion

    Boris is disliked by many on this forum not least because he has taken us out of the EU following a democratic vote and this has enraged a lot of people

    Furthermore, Boris is not a detail person, but is a showman which upsets those who want a PM to be into and across every detail.

    However, let us say that Boris and Frost conclude a deal on the NI protocol and he resists the calls from the health service and others to act on plan B, but also vaccinates the young ones quickly and completes booster doses in good time, then he will be seen as the PM who made the correct decision and protected the economy despite huge pressure to bow to the lockdown lobby

    It is said that Scotland and Wales are much stricter but as I have mentioned in my part of Wales I do not detect any great love or use of masks, but not only that if mask wearing etc was so successful then why are Scotland and Wales seeing similar rises in infections

    Events in time may see that Boris actually was the PM for brexit and covid and secure a substantial legacy

    Of course it could all go wrong and then Boris would be seen as wholly unsuitable for this quite unique, and it is unique, period in our politics

    Again a week is a long time in politics
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    DavidL said:

    Scotland qualify for super 12s with 3 wins out of 3. Incredible achievement, beating Bangladesh in particular.

    Scotland v Bangladesh is one of those bets where my stake is safest in my pocket.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
    edited October 21
    I suspect Theresa May would have done best at handling the pandemic but it's interesting to think how Thatcher would have dealt with as it as I suspect her natural instinct would have been to keep the economy open but with her science background she'd have followed the science so she'd have been very conflicted I think?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195
    IanB2 said:

    UK cases by specimen date

    image

    How is that data ranked?
    Sum the values in each row, order high to low.... crude, but works as well as various other methods I've tried.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769
    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, of the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    But you aren’t obliged to have any of them on your person.
    I'm going to struggle without them. I'm obliged in some circs to show up at a police station with a driving licence within 24 hours if I can't produce it on the spot.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    JBriskin3 said:

    #BlackmanWatch

    For Women Scotland
    @ForwomenScot
    ·
    6h
    In things you never thought you'd see in 2021, a straight MP decides to protest a gay & lesbian conference at which a fellow MP who happens to be a party colleague and a lesbian is speaking.
    #LGBAlliance2021

    https://twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1451130855594803200?s=20

    That's a bad hashtag. 🙈
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,358
    edited October 21
    kjh said:

    IanB2 said:

    I’m just a few weeks short of the six month post-second-vac point, yet the NHS website just told me to go away as ineligible for a booster, without even saying when I should return and apply. Yet we are awash with supply. Where’s the sense in that?

    Ditto. I am just days away from being eligible but I can't book online. No reason given other than not being eligible, yet if I booked now I would be 6m by time of vaccination.
    My mother's had the same. She tried to book online but it just tells her she's not eligible even though it'll be six months tomorrow since her second jab.

    She has got an appointment booked with the GP for 2nd December but we're going to try and get her to a walk in clinic before then
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195
    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, of the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    But you aren’t obliged to have any of them on your person.
    The bigger issue is the way that people in "the system" want to attach all your personal data to such a scheme.

    The problems were so apparent, that when Labour introduced their ID cards, there was a special setup for Important People. Since, if their data got stolen*, that would inconvenience a member of The Upper 10,000.

    So their data was to sequestrated and not be accessible.....

    *Going rate for a copy of someones Police National Computer records was £50 at the time.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    I earlier said that Margaret Thatcher would be the best of the previous PMs to handle covid and I retain that opinion

    Boris is disliked by many on this forum not least because he has taken us out of the EU following a democratic vote and this has enraged a lot of people

    Furthermore, Boris is not a detail person, but is a showman which upsets those who want a PM to be into and across every detail.

    However, let us say that Boris and Frost conclude a deal on the NI protocol and he resists the calls from the health service and others to act on plan B, but also vaccinates the young ones quickly and completes booster doses in good time, then he will be seen as the PM who made the correct decision and protected the economy despite huge pressure to bow to the lockdown lobby

    It is said that Scotland and Wales are much stricter but as I have mentioned in my part of Wales I do not detect any great love or use of masks, but not only that if mask wearing etc was so successful then why are Scotland and Wales seeing similar rises in infections

    Events in time may see that Boris actually was the PM for brexit and covid and secure a substantial legacy

    Of course it could all go wrong and then Boris would be seen as wholly unsuitable for this quite unique, and it is unique, period in our politics

    Again a week is a long time in politics

    You already know that he is utterly unsuitable; you spent the best part of a year telling us all so. The rest is just waffle.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    When you get your ID card you'll be able to leave some of the others at home :smile:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210
    GIN1138 said:

    I suspect Theresa May would have done best at handling the pandemic but it's interesting to think how Thatcher would have dealt with as it as I suspect her natural instinct would have been to keep the economy open but with her science background she's have followed the science so she'd have been very conflicted I think?

    She was PM in a very different time. As others have said, the Internet was around in the 1980s, but was nowhere near being in everyone's homes. Computers and the Internet have given us a powerful tool to combat this crisis working from home. In addition, a much higher proportion of jobs potentially can be done from home: it's hard to mine for coal or smelt iron from your dining room.

    She would not have had the WfH tool in her toolbox, and would have been much more constrained as to her actions. In addition, there would have been much less scientific knowledge about the virus and its evolution, making the 'waves' much more inexplicable.

    I think Thatcher's approach back then would have been to try to carry on as normal as much as possible, as had been done in previous crises. Due to changes in technology and the workplace, a modern Thatcher would have many more, and harder, choices.

    But her instincts during the HIV and ozone crises show some positive indications.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849

    JBriskin3 said:

    #BlackmanWatch

    For Women Scotland
    @ForwomenScot
    ·
    6h
    In things you never thought you'd see in 2021, a straight MP decides to protest a gay & lesbian conference at which a fellow MP who happens to be a party colleague and a lesbian is speaking.
    #LGBAlliance2021

    https://twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1451130855594803200?s=20

    That's a bad hashtag. 🙈
    Soz I didn't think about it too much.

    For the people who are confused it's a reference to twitter.com/KirstySNP who has been calling for Joanna Cherry to be kicked out the SNP for some time.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    Well I am a lukewarmer... I’ve seen a lot of poor science specifically in past climate reconstruction. In my field, chemistry, we have to make our data available to all when we publish. This is crucial for confidence. Too many of the tree ring crowd is ring fenced, opaque and obstructive. The evidence of our influence Is overwhelming and doesn’t need added zest.
  • IanB2 said:

    I earlier said that Margaret Thatcher would be the best of the previous PMs to handle covid and I retain that opinion

    Boris is disliked by many on this forum not least because he has taken us out of the EU following a democratic vote and this has enraged a lot of people

    Furthermore, Boris is not a detail person, but is a showman which upsets those who want a PM to be into and across every detail.

    However, let us say that Boris and Frost conclude a deal on the NI protocol and he resists the calls from the health service and others to act on plan B, but also vaccinates the young ones quickly and completes booster doses in good time, then he will be seen as the PM who made the correct decision and protected the economy despite huge pressure to bow to the lockdown lobby

    It is said that Scotland and Wales are much stricter but as I have mentioned in my part of Wales I do not detect any great love or use of masks, but not only that if mask wearing etc was so successful then why are Scotland and Wales seeing similar rises in infections

    Events in time may see that Boris actually was the PM for brexit and covid and secure a substantial legacy

    Of course it could all go wrong and then Boris would be seen as wholly unsuitable for this quite unique, and it is unique, period in our politics

    Again a week is a long time in politics

    You already know that he is utterly unsuitable; you spent the best part of a year telling us all so. The rest is just waffle.
    I could have written your response and really affirms the point I am making

    I have not come down on either side of this theory as it is too early

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    Checking back in on the under 18 vaccination situation, it looks as though England has managed to step up the pace of jabs in 12-15 year olds, although we're still *miles* behind Scotland. 16-17 year olds levelling off quite a bit lower down here though, which isn't so great.

    https://twitter.com/victimofmaths/status/1451235631384997896?s=21
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460
    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Indeed. If they go ahead with this voting ID nonsense then it should be accompanied by a compulsory and free national ID card. Otherwise it is just blatant voter suppression.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 2,645
    I always find May's reputation for competance amongst some rather odd.

    The usual basis is surviving the home office without getting sacked, but her stated main policy aim was to get immigration under control, and yet she presided over more immigration than any other home secretary in history. Then she moved on to be PM, with her stated main policy aim of getting Brexit done. Well we all know how that went.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 4,740

    pigeon said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Does anyone know why this modest piece of simple truth is news, on the front page of BBC website?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58996499

    The laws of physics are controversial.
    algarkirk said:

    Does anyone know why this modest piece of simple truth is news, on the front page of BBC website?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58996499

    Maybe sensitivity over the PM promising sa big anti-blubber campaign long ago when he came out of hospital haivng almost died of covid thanks in part (if only on the basis of stats) to being too fat. But nothing much emerged, so far as I could tell (not being in England, and nobody on PB spotted anything when I asked IIRC).

    Not that I can talk, as I could do with losing a fair bit and have lately put on half a stone, though I managed to lose 2 stone from March last year onwards, so net loss.
    Because the answer to being fat is to

    1) Eat less
    2) Exercise more

    Generally a combination of 1 & 2

    The problem is that this is held to be "fat shaming" - especially since a non-trivial number of people have invented genetic or other "conditions" for themselves that explain their dimensions.
    Essentially, the desire to escape from the blunt, cruel and typically counter-productive approach of pointing at fat people and laughing has over-corrected into the territory of body positivity, which gives people permission to embrace being fat as a form of diversity to be celebrated.

    I'm against fat shaming but I do think that messages about the medically destructive nature of being overweight (and, for that matter, being inactive) should be transmitted loudly and frequently. A dose of the kind of Protect the NHS moral persuasion used to enforce lockdowns might not go amiss, either. You can't be taken seriously if you clap for the NHS one minute and expect it to shell out to cart you off to hospital in a bariatric ambulance the next.
    It's interesting to consider the effect of WfH on this. Mrs J was part of a jogging group at her workplace; they would go out at lunch for 30-60 minutes of jogging/running. It was, in a way, a forced break. Whilst WfH, she may occasionally go up to her study at 08.00, and emerge at 19.00, having taken a ten minute break in the middle.

    WfH is not necessarily good for the health. Office work has lots of distractions that can cause you to get up and stretch your legs.

    (On another point, where you work is also important. I know a couple having to share the dining room table to work, as they don't have enough space in their house to have separate desks. They cannot fit proper chairs in, so they spend hours hunched over laptops in dining toom chairs. This is not healthy posture ...)
    I'm back in the office now, but when WFH I made it a practice to go for a walk every lunchtime (I also run 3-4 times a week). 23.5 hours cooped up at home is far preferable to 24.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769
    GIN1138 said:

    I suspect Theresa May would have done best at handling the pandemic but it's interesting to think how Thatcher would have dealt with as it as I suspect her natural instinct would have been to keep the economy open but with her science background she'd have followed the science so she'd have been very conflicted I think?

    There isn't a monolithic thing called The science, and even if there were I'm not sure what following it would consist of. Surely keeping the economy open would be consistent with taking all available scientific views into account?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,725
    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IanB2 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Aw, you really can't stop loving "Boris" can you? However shit he is, you have to keep bigging him up. Blind loyalty. That must be such a nice thing to experience I guess.
    Its my honest opinion 🤷‍♂️

    It depends upon what your priorities are? My priority is ending restrictions and ensuring all restrictions are lifted.

    The UK was the first nation in Europe to do so (AFAIK) and the first major nation on the planet to have a vaccine rollout. That makes it the best response to the pandemic on the continent and second to Israel the best response to the pandemic on the planet.

    Could other leaders have done better? I think Thatcher would have yes. But I don't think anyone else would have, just as no other contemporary leader has done better other than (much as I loathe him) Netanyahu.

    Who of the previous leaders would have lifted restrictions faster than Boris? Any of them? Maybe Thatcher, other than that no I don't think so. Any of my rogue's gallery (Brown, May and Blair) I think we'd still be under restrictions today just as most continental Europeans still are. Blair would have abused the opportunity set us up for restrictions for years to come too.
    It is a fair answer and balanced overview of your opinion Philip, though having spent the last 20 odd years of my career studying leadership, I wouldn't put Boris Johnson in charge of a WRVS cafe, let alone a country in a pandemic.

    With respect to the much trumpeted vaccine rollout, this falls into the "even fools are right sometimes" quote from WSC.

    All the others have virtues in some ways which suggest they would be better than Johnson and quite significantly. Evidence would point to Mrs T as almost certainly being the one most trustworthy to do the right thing.
    The "Johnson delivered the vaccine rollout" argument is laughable.

    No, he didn't. His health secretary watched the film "Contagion", thought we need to get ahead of this and went into cabinet banging the table to start work on a vaccine. Having been told "do it" he then (controversially) hires a chair who organises both pharma and academic research teams to go at it. Its then the NHS who organise both the tiers and rollout plans.

    The idea that Johnson did anything at all is genuinely funny when you look at his contribution to literally every other issue, the commentary from Tory MPs and ministers and the reams of stuff leaked by DomCum. Johnson does not do detail or think any further ahead than "I won't get caught cheating this time".
    He was the PM. The buck - good and bad - stops with him. And our vaccine procurement strategy was a success.
    Largely because he was told in no uncertain terms to stay out of it for fear that he would turn it into yet another f***up.
    He's the PM.

    He is ultimately responsible for the decisions. And on vaccines he got it right: we stayed out of the EU scheme, and we put in lots of orders, and got them in early. We also made the right call on dosing strategies.

    Whether the right decisions were taken because he made them himself, or because he delegated, they were still his decisions.

    (I see I'm alternating between defending and criticising Johnson according to who I'm responding to...)
    Fact remains that the f***ups trace directly back to widely acknowledged flaws in his character, whereas the vaccine rollout was the work of others.
    Now you're making Johnson sound like the perfect boss. Taking the flak for all the failures, letting the accolades for success go to others. Are you a closet Boris fanboy?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    Emily Sheffield gone from Evening Standard editor's chair after barely a year.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I’m just a few weeks short of the six month post-second-vac point, yet the NHS website just told me to go away as ineligible for a booster, without even saying when I should return and apply. Yet we are awash with supply. Where’s the sense in that?

    Because that’s not the system. When you are eligible you will be able to book. You can argue they should open it up sooner, but that’s a different argument.
    The argument is about the message.

    Not everyone doing what I did will be people who follow the news, and have worked out for themselves that we have to wait a few more weeks.

    There will be people who have vaguely heard about boosters for the over-50s and logged in hoping to get some information. Being sent away as “ineligible” is appalling messaging.
    Maybe, I see your point. Maybe I expect too much of people to understand to wait until called, but fair enough.
    Several callers too LBC were ranting about the govt being useless at the booster program before it was pointed out to them that it hadn't been six months since their last jab.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,725
    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    I suspect Theresa May would have done best at handling the pandemic but it's interesting to think how Thatcher would have dealt with as it as I suspect her natural instinct would have been to keep the economy open but with her science background she'd have followed the science so she'd have been very conflicted I think?

    There isn't a monolithic thing called The science, and even if there were I'm not sure what following it would consist of. Surely keeping the economy open would be consistent with taking all available scientific views into account?
    Indeed, those who argue for following 'The Science' actually usually mean following just one small part of it (regardless of whether they are promoting The Science, or hiding behind it).
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    maaarsh said:

    I always find May's reputation for competance amongst some rather odd.

    The usual basis is surviving the home office without getting sacked, but her stated main policy aim was to get immigration under control, and yet she presided over more immigration than any other home secretary in history. Then she moved on to be PM, with her stated main policy aim of getting Brexit done. Well we all know how that went.

    May’s reputation, such as any survives, is based upon her sense of public duty and her attention to detail.

    Compared with our current PM, who has little of either, she probably would have been better.

    But she was blind to the politics, whereas the incumbent is obsessed with the (short-run) politics to the exclusion of all else.

    I suspect May would have been better; she could hardly have been worse. No-one appoints a clown as their accountant. But we’d be like Germany, following a whole stack of regulations long after their relevance or efficacy appeared reasonable.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    maaarsh said:

    I always find May's reputation for competance amongst some rather odd.

    The usual basis is surviving the home office without getting sacked, but her stated main policy aim was to get immigration under control, and yet she presided over more immigration than any other home secretary in history. Then she moved on to be PM, with her stated main policy aim of getting Brexit done. Well we all know how that went.

    At least in the first job she had the insight to have worked out that without immigration, our economy might run into some serious trouble?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    I'm allowed cheap shots from time-to-time.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979
    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I’m just a few weeks short of the six month post-second-vac point, yet the NHS website just told me to go away as ineligible for a booster, without even saying when I should return and apply. Yet we are awash with supply. Where’s the sense in that?

    Because that’s not the system. When you are eligible you will be able to book. You can argue they should open it up sooner, but that’s a different argument.
    The argument is about the message.

    Not everyone doing what I did will be people who follow the news, and have worked out for themselves that we have to wait a few more weeks.

    There will be people who have vaguely heard about boosters for the over-50s and logged in hoping to get some information. Being sent away as “ineligible” is appalling messaging.
    Maybe, I see your point. Maybe I expect too much of people to understand to wait until called, but fair enough.
    Several callers too LBC were ranting about the govt being useless at the booster program before it was pointed out to them that it hadn't been six months since their last jab.
    Is six months the new four weeks? Is there much scientific evidence that six months is better than four, five, seven or eight?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Hmm anyone up for a "COP26 effect" prediction game for Glasgow case numbers?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, of the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    But you aren’t obliged to have any of them on your person.
    I'm going to struggle without them. I'm obliged in some circs to show up at a police station with a driving licence within 24 hours if I can't produce it on the spot.

    That happens often in your life, does it?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    TOPPING said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    I’m just a few weeks short of the six month post-second-vac point, yet the NHS website just told me to go away as ineligible for a booster, without even saying when I should return and apply. Yet we are awash with supply. Where’s the sense in that?

    Because that’s not the system. When you are eligible you will be able to book. You can argue they should open it up sooner, but that’s a different argument.
    The argument is about the message.

    Not everyone doing what I did will be people who follow the news, and have worked out for themselves that we have to wait a few more weeks.

    There will be people who have vaguely heard about boosters for the over-50s and logged in hoping to get some information. Being sent away as “ineligible” is appalling messaging.
    Maybe, I see your point. Maybe I expect too much of people to understand to wait until called, but fair enough.
    Several callers too LBC were ranting about the govt being useless at the booster program before it was pointed out to them that it hadn't been six months since their last jab.
    Is six months the new four weeks? Is there much scientific evidence that six months is better than four, five, seven or eight?
    Hunt calling for five months so that peeps get it early before the xmas/jan mid winter crisis.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769
    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IanB2 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, of the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    But you aren’t obliged to have any of them on your person.
    I'm going to struggle without them. I'm obliged in some circs to show up at a police station with a driving licence within 24 hours if I can't produce it on the spot.

    That happens often in your life, does it?
    Hasn't so far. Plus I tend to forget to shred the old ones when I move house, so I have a number of fallbacks.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    Alistair said:

    Hmm anyone up for a "COP26 effect" prediction game for Glasgow case numbers?

    Up. Definitely up. And a lot fewer masks among the delegates because they are special.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    One of the things that makes me oppose ID cards is that I just don't think our state has it in them to use them to clamp down on illegal activity. At best they'd be a waste of money. At worst they could fundamentally alter how we live our lives whilst criminal behaviour goes unpunished.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    Which perhaps shows another philosophical difference as to why we were unsuited to the EEA? 🤔
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    Which perhaps shows another philosophical difference as to why we were unsuited to the EEA? 🤔
    What, we are true born never shall be slaves types and they are conformist, whimpering curs?

    Good point.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    One of the things that makes me oppose ID cards is that I just don't think our state has it in them to use them to clamp down on illegal activity. At best they'd be a waste of money. At worst they could fundamentally alter how we live our lives whilst criminal behaviour goes unpunished.
    I'm always intrigued to know what kind of illegal activity would be prevented with ID cards?

    The only one I can think of is related to immigration offences.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    Actually many of them have a problem with them - as you would know if you had actually spent any time living there. But once they are in place in peace time getting rid of them is extremely difficult. The only reason we were able to in the UK after WW2 is because the legislation had specifically said they were introduced to deal with the emergency and so the courts struck them down when they were challenged in 1952.

  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,585
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    That depends on locality. Most places you only get carded if you look young enough that you might be under-21, which is the same as the UK in practice. The only place where we've been carded despite both of us being clearly well over 21 is DC.

    And the only other time I've been "carded" was to purchase some decongestant that contained pseudoephedrine. Not only did I have to show my DL, but the barcode on the back was scanned by the pharmacist.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    One of the things that makes me oppose ID cards is that I just don't think our state has it in them to use them to clamp down on illegal activity. At best they'd be a waste of money. At worst they could fundamentally alter how we live our lives whilst criminal behaviour goes unpunished.
    I'm always intrigued to know what kind of illegal activity would be prevented with ID cards?
    Bigamy?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    Still plenty of unvaccinated 20-somethings in England alongside the teenagers that we're only getting to rather slowly.



    https://twitter.com/VictimOfMaths/status/1451237394875887621?s=20
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    One of the things that makes me oppose ID cards is that I just don't think our state has it in them to use them to clamp down on illegal activity. At best they'd be a waste of money. At worst they could fundamentally alter how we live our lives whilst criminal behaviour goes unpunished.
    I'm always intrigued to know what kind of illegal activity would be prevented with ID cards?

    The only one I can think of is related to immigration offences.
    Benefit fraud? A big supporter of ID cards tells me it's non-existent in France because they have ID cards.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372
    Farooq said:
    Even mild libertarians are a minority, and there is ludicrous support for banning/compelling an huge range of activities. Thankfully Tory MPs in fairly good number fight the corner of ordinary freedoms, though not enough.

  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945
    I would have chosen Theresa May. She was conscientious and with a scientific background.
    Like most others I'd put Johnson last.

    If she hadn't been so arrogant and If Corbyn had a chance of winning I'd have voted Tory for the first time in my life in 2017.

    I thought she was the closest thing to Angela Merkel we've had and Merkel has to be the best European leader ever
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    algarkirk said:

    Farooq said:
    Even mild libertarians are a minority, and there is ludicrous support for banning/compelling an huge range of activities. Thankfully Tory MPs in fairly good number fight the corner of ordinary freedoms, though not enough.

    Indeed. Edmund Burke's quote works well with this one.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    edited October 21
    algarkirk said:

    Farooq said:
    Even mild libertarians are a minority, and there is ludicrous support for banning/compelling an huge range of activities. Thankfully Tory MPs in fairly good number fight the corner of ordinary freedoms, though not enough.

    Edited. Replied to the wrong posting
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,585
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    Pretty sure Denmark doesn't, and many other EEA countries only have voluntary ID cards, and some of those don't have a lot of take-up. However, Denmark, like the rest of the Nordic countries, and many other EEA countries does have a compulsory population register. It was that aspect of the Blair/Brown ID card scheme that was most sinister, not the actual cards.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    One of the things that makes me oppose ID cards is that I just don't think our state has it in them to use them to clamp down on illegal activity. At best they'd be a waste of money. At worst they could fundamentally alter how we live our lives whilst criminal behaviour goes unpunished.
    I'm always intrigued to know what kind of illegal activity would be prevented with ID cards?

    The only one I can think of is related to immigration offences.
    Benefit fraud? A big supporter of ID cards tells me it's non-existent in France because they have ID cards.
    According to local government sources the main types of benefit fraud are:

    Working and claiming.
    Non-disclosure of property, capital or income.
    Non-disclosure of partner.
    Non-declaration of non-dependants or sub-tenants.
    False claims by homeowners.
    False address or failing to declare a change of address.
    Landlord fraud.
    Fictitious tenancies

    At best I see only one of those which might be prevented specifically by use of an ID card.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Ryan
    @ThatRyanChap
    ·
    4h
    Surely based on the data released this morning, the focus isn’t plan b but a booster roll out target.

    About 20m over 50s have had second dose. 3.6m have had third already. 95% take up of booster is 15.6m

    65 days till Christmas. That’s an av 241k day in that age groups. Doable!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    One of the things that makes me oppose ID cards is that I just don't think our state has it in them to use them to clamp down on illegal activity. At best they'd be a waste of money. At worst they could fundamentally alter how we live our lives whilst criminal behaviour goes unpunished.
    I'm always intrigued to know what kind of illegal activity would be prevented with ID cards?

    The only one I can think of is related to immigration offences.
    Benefit fraud? A big supporter of ID cards tells me it's non-existent in France because they have ID cards.
    According to local government sources the main types of benefit fraud are:

    Working and claiming.
    Non-disclosure of property, capital or income.
    Non-disclosure of partner.
    Non-declaration of non-dependants or sub-tenants.
    False claims by homeowners.
    False address or failing to declare a change of address.
    Landlord fraud.
    Fictitious tenancies

    At best I see only one of those which might be prevented specifically by use of an ID card.
    Not if the ID card is linked to a sophisticated database of everything the state knows about you surely?

    e.g property ownership. Well, Land Register knows that. So there's a link if LR database used national ID maybe?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I find it funny how some of the people most opposed to ID cards, support the requirement to have a driving license to be able to vote. (People without driving licenses need a passport or to go to other lengths to vote.)

    Ah Robert I would have expected better of you. Such an obvious and false conflation of arguments. Being asked to identify yourself to do certain things is not the same as being asked to identify yourself at any time on the whim of a public servant.
    One of the things that makes me oppose ID cards is that I just don't think our state has it in them to use them to clamp down on illegal activity. At best they'd be a waste of money. At worst they could fundamentally alter how we live our lives whilst criminal behaviour goes unpunished.
    I'm always intrigued to know what kind of illegal activity would be prevented with ID cards?

    The only one I can think of is related to immigration offences.
    Benefit fraud? A big supporter of ID cards tells me it's non-existent in France because they have ID cards.
    According to local government sources the main types of benefit fraud are:

    Working and claiming.
    Non-disclosure of property, capital or income.
    Non-disclosure of partner.
    Non-declaration of non-dependants or sub-tenants.
    False claims by homeowners.
    False address or failing to declare a change of address.
    Landlord fraud.
    Fictitious tenancies

    At best I see only one of those which might be prevented specifically by use of an ID card.
    I expect there's a hell of a lot more benefit fraud than anyone thinks because of our real 75% tax rate for anyone on benefits combined with employers getting taxed NI if they hire anyone.

    Politicians have literally created a system where it is in employer and employees best interest to conspire to fiddle the pay and settle the difference cash in hand. For any industry using large volumes of cash I expect a large amount of small businesses will be doing this.

    And ID cards would do literally nothing to fix this. Addressing the tax system would.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210
    IMV the Internet has made concerns about ID cards pretty much moot. The problem is not the card itself; it is the databases that lie behind it, and that world has changed beyond recognition in the last two decades. Almost all of us leave a trail of electronic breadcrumbs in almost every action, and it takes a heck of a lot of effort to avoid this. Worse, this data is not held by the state, to whom we may have some recourse to prevent misuse, but private corporations who wipe their arses with our data, sniff it, then sell it on.

    Privacy is dead the moment you go on-line.

    In the old days it was much harder. A couple of decades ago, I amused a female friend by finding out lots of information about her from delving through her various bins - enough to have caused some real problems (I did this with her permission). 'Dumpster diving' is an old method, used by spies, journalists and hackers alike. Nowadays we voluntarily spew the contents of our dustbins online.

    I hope Mr Tyndall won't mind me mentioning this, but a few months back I came across him on a FB group we both happen to be on. BTW, kudos to him for going with his real name. But even if he did not, his posts had various linguistic tells - similarities - with his posts on here. (*)

    (*) This is where he tells me he's never been on FB ...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    That depends on locality. Most places you only get carded if you look young enough that you might be under-21, which is the same as the UK in practice. The only place where we've been carded despite both of us being clearly well over 21 is DC.

    And the only other time I've been "carded" was to purchase some decongestant that contained pseudoephedrine. Not only did I have to show my DL, but the barcode on the back was scanned by the pharmacist.
    I get carded all the time in LA.

    I guess I must be a particularly youthful looking 47.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    Interesting.

    Phone call from the GP surgery offering me a third jab on Saturday due to a cancellation.

    Told very firmly that this is a THIRD JAB, not a booster.

    Booster 6 months after the third jab, apparently.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    Roger said:

    I would have chosen Theresa May. She was conscientious and with a scientific background.
    Like most others I'd put Johnson last.

    If she hadn't been so arrogant and If Corbyn had a chance of winning I'd have voted Tory for the first time in my life in 2017.

    I thought she was the closest thing to Angela Merkel we've had and Merkel has to be the best European leader ever

    Merkel has to be the best European leader ever

    Really?

    In Germany alone, I'd rate Kohl and Adenauer higher. And that's just in the post WW2 period.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    Funny, but also rather telling. I can’t recall the last time I saw a beat policeman/officer. Only ever in cars. Are we unique in this around the world?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566

    IMV the Internet has made concerns about ID cards pretty much moot. The problem is not the card itself; it is the databases that lie behind it, and that world has changed beyond recognition in the last two decades. Almost all of us leave a trail of electronic breadcrumbs in almost every action, and it takes a heck of a lot of effort to avoid this. Worse, this data is not held by the state, to whom we may have some recourse to prevent misuse, but private corporations who wipe their arses with our data, sniff it, then sell it on.

    Privacy is dead the moment you go on-line.

    In the old days it was much harder. A couple of decades ago, I amused a female friend by finding out lots of information about her from delving through her various bins - enough to have caused some real problems (I did this with her permission). 'Dumpster diving' is an old method, used by spies, journalists and hackers alike. Nowadays we voluntarily spew the contents of our dustbins online.

    I hope Mr Tyndall won't mind me mentioning this, but a few months back I came across him on a FB group we both happen to be on. BTW, kudos to him for going with his real name. But even if he did not, his posts had various linguistic tells - similarities - with his posts on here. (*)

    (*) This is where he tells me he's never been on FB ...

    Oh No I love facebook and am fully aware that everything I do online is an open book. It is why I post under my own name. Basically I figure if anyone wanted to know about me then I would have to be far more computer literate than I am to hide myself. But I do make a point of being extremely careful about what I post and also what websites I visit. A good example is I never make any comment about going away until I have returned. Too easy for people to work out that your house is empty.

    But that is still not the same as being traced 24/7. We should be pushing back against that not accepting more and more infringement.

    Out of interest which group?
  • AslanAslan Posts: 732
    rcs1000 said:

    Roger said:

    I would have chosen Theresa May. She was conscientious and with a scientific background.
    Like most others I'd put Johnson last.

    If she hadn't been so arrogant and If Corbyn had a chance of winning I'd have voted Tory for the first time in my life in 2017.

    I thought she was the closest thing to Angela Merkel we've had and Merkel has to be the best European leader ever

    Merkel has to be the best European leader ever

    Really?

    In Germany alone, I'd rate Kohl and Adenauer higher. And that's just in the post WW2 period.
    Churchill stands head and shoulders above the rest to be honest. If you think of history without him I shudder at the outcome.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    IMV the Internet has made concerns about ID cards pretty much moot. The problem is not the card itself; it is the databases that lie behind it, and that world has changed beyond recognition in the last two decades. Almost all of us leave a trail of electronic breadcrumbs in almost every action, and it takes a heck of a lot of effort to avoid this. Worse, this data is not held by the state, to whom we may have some recourse to prevent misuse, but private corporations who wipe their arses with our data, sniff it, then sell it on.

    Privacy is dead the moment you go on-line.

    In the old days it was much harder. A couple of decades ago, I amused a female friend by finding out lots of information about her from delving through her various bins - enough to have caused some real problems (I did this with her permission). 'Dumpster diving' is an old method, used by spies, journalists and hackers alike. Nowadays we voluntarily spew the contents of our dustbins online.

    I hope Mr Tyndall won't mind me mentioning this, but a few months back I came across him on a FB group we both happen to be on. BTW, kudos to him for going with his real name. But even if he did not, his posts had various linguistic tells - similarities - with his posts on here. (*)

    (*) This is where he tells me he's never been on FB ...

    Oh No I love facebook and am fully aware that everything I do online is an open book. It is why I post under my own name. Basically I figure if anyone wanted to know about me then I would have to be far more computer literate than I am to hide myself. But I do make a point of being extremely careful about what I post and also what websites I visit. A good example is I never make any comment about going away until I have returned. Too easy for people to work out that your house is empty.

    But that is still not the same as being traced 24/7. We should be pushing back against that not accepting more and more infringement.

    Out of interest which group?
    I think it was the mammalophilia one.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    Boom boom.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    rcs1000 said:

    IMV the Internet has made concerns about ID cards pretty much moot. The problem is not the card itself; it is the databases that lie behind it, and that world has changed beyond recognition in the last two decades. Almost all of us leave a trail of electronic breadcrumbs in almost every action, and it takes a heck of a lot of effort to avoid this. Worse, this data is not held by the state, to whom we may have some recourse to prevent misuse, but private corporations who wipe their arses with our data, sniff it, then sell it on.

    Privacy is dead the moment you go on-line.

    In the old days it was much harder. A couple of decades ago, I amused a female friend by finding out lots of information about her from delving through her various bins - enough to have caused some real problems (I did this with her permission). 'Dumpster diving' is an old method, used by spies, journalists and hackers alike. Nowadays we voluntarily spew the contents of our dustbins online.

    I hope Mr Tyndall won't mind me mentioning this, but a few months back I came across him on a FB group we both happen to be on. BTW, kudos to him for going with his real name. But even if he did not, his posts had various linguistic tells - similarities - with his posts on here. (*)

    (*) This is where he tells me he's never been on FB ...

    Oh No I love facebook and am fully aware that everything I do online is an open book. It is why I post under my own name. Basically I figure if anyone wanted to know about me then I would have to be far more computer literate than I am to hide myself. But I do make a point of being extremely careful about what I post and also what websites I visit. A good example is I never make any comment about going away until I have returned. Too easy for people to work out that your house is empty.

    But that is still not the same as being traced 24/7. We should be pushing back against that not accepting more and more infringement.

    Out of interest which group?
    I think it was the mammalophilia one.
    I thought we were all on that one. :)
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849
    edited October 21

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.

    However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.

    What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
  • I've never been particularly keen on ID cards, especially compulsorily carried ones. But I have softened to the idea over the years; I don't think I've been anywhere without my driving licence in years and I've never had any reason to deny my real identity.

    But I can't possibly support their introduction while violent neanderthals like the cop in the video below are entitled to demand them.

    Rather shocking video of Stevenage police tasering a man, then kicking him in the back so his head smashes on the floor.

    He stole a can of beer.
    https://twitter.com/drogoberor/status/1451151239266324481

  • darkagedarkage Posts: 940
    In the end I know we are probably fucked; but until then I will enjoy my freedom from ID cards and continental style population registries. It is one of our last freedoms. You can get stopped by the authorities, and they don't have any clue who you are, or effective way of finding out (unless you are suspected of a crime). It means that you can be completely anonymous in day to day life, unlike other countries where you have a number and must reveal it in almost every single dealing you have with any business or government department. It is massively expensive and inefficient, but a major privilege that a lot of people regularly use but don't really understand or appreciate.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264
    JBriskin3 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.

    However you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.

    What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
    I've been along Union Street quite a lot, and I've never been arrested.
    What were you really doing?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    IMV the Internet has made concerns about ID cards pretty much moot. The problem is not the card itself; it is the databases that lie behind it, and that world has changed beyond recognition in the last two decades. Almost all of us leave a trail of electronic breadcrumbs in almost every action, and it takes a heck of a lot of effort to avoid this. Worse, this data is not held by the state, to whom we may have some recourse to prevent misuse, but private corporations who wipe their arses with our data, sniff it, then sell it on.

    Privacy is dead the moment you go on-line.

    In the old days it was much harder. A couple of decades ago, I amused a female friend by finding out lots of information about her from delving through her various bins - enough to have caused some real problems (I did this with her permission). 'Dumpster diving' is an old method, used by spies, journalists and hackers alike. Nowadays we voluntarily spew the contents of our dustbins online.

    I hope Mr Tyndall won't mind me mentioning this, but a few months back I came across him on a FB group we both happen to be on. BTW, kudos to him for going with his real name. But even if he did not, his posts had various linguistic tells - similarities - with his posts on here. (*)

    (*) This is where he tells me he's never been on FB ...

    Oh No I love facebook and am fully aware that everything I do online is an open book. It is why I post under my own name. Basically I figure if anyone wanted to know about me then I would have to be far more computer literate than I am to hide myself. But I do make a point of being extremely careful about what I post and also what websites I visit. A good example is I never make any comment about going away until I have returned. Too easy for people to work out that your house is empty.

    But that is still not the same as being traced 24/7. We should be pushing back against that not accepting more and more infringement.

    Out of interest which group?
    I think it was 'Medieval & Tudor Period Buildings Group'

    I doubt it was 'Walking Britain's Coast' or 'Pre TOPS Diesels and Electrics' !

    I'd argue we are traced 24/7, unless you are very careful.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    edited October 21

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
    It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:

    Thatcher - I'll have steak
    Waiter - and the vegetables?
    Thatcher - They'll have the same.

    I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,450

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    Never mind all that - she'd have gone back to the lab and personally developed a cure!

    As would Andrea Leadsom, of course, if the Tory party hadn't taken leave of its senses.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566

    IMV the Internet has made concerns about ID cards pretty much moot. The problem is not the card itself; it is the databases that lie behind it, and that world has changed beyond recognition in the last two decades. Almost all of us leave a trail of electronic breadcrumbs in almost every action, and it takes a heck of a lot of effort to avoid this. Worse, this data is not held by the state, to whom we may have some recourse to prevent misuse, but private corporations who wipe their arses with our data, sniff it, then sell it on.

    Privacy is dead the moment you go on-line.

    In the old days it was much harder. A couple of decades ago, I amused a female friend by finding out lots of information about her from delving through her various bins - enough to have caused some real problems (I did this with her permission). 'Dumpster diving' is an old method, used by spies, journalists and hackers alike. Nowadays we voluntarily spew the contents of our dustbins online.

    I hope Mr Tyndall won't mind me mentioning this, but a few months back I came across him on a FB group we both happen to be on. BTW, kudos to him for going with his real name. But even if he did not, his posts had various linguistic tells - similarities - with his posts on here. (*)

    (*) This is where he tells me he's never been on FB ...

    Oh No I love facebook and am fully aware that everything I do online is an open book. It is why I post under my own name. Basically I figure if anyone wanted to know about me then I would have to be far more computer literate than I am to hide myself. But I do make a point of being extremely careful about what I post and also what websites I visit. A good example is I never make any comment about going away until I have returned. Too easy for people to work out that your house is empty.

    But that is still not the same as being traced 24/7. We should be pushing back against that not accepting more and more infringement.

    Out of interest which group?
    I think it was 'Medieval & Tudor Period Buildings Group'

    I doubt it was 'Walking Britain's Coast' or 'Pre TOPS Diesels and Electrics' !

    I'd argue we are traced 24/7, unless you are very careful.
    Ah yes that would be it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
    It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:

    Thatcher - I'll have steak
    Waiter - and the vegetables?
    Thatcher - They'll have the same.

    I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
    But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.

    The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849
    Farooq said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.

    However you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.

    What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
    I've been along Union Street quite a lot, and I've never been arrested.
    What were you really doing?
    I was walking down Union Street - I had just bought a new Nokia though which the Police Scotland officer promptly nicked off me.

    To be honest I'm fairly sure I have more than 1 under cover cop tracking me whenever I head into town - But as long as I keep taking the meds...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    The rapid transformation of Boris from a Tory sceptic with his feet firmly on the ground to a climate-change fanatic is one of the most amazing political phenomena of modern times.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10113947/STEPHEN-GLOVER-eco-revolution-soaring-taxes-pine-Tory-government.html



    Stephen need not worry. Once COP is out of the way Johnson will reverse ferret faster than one of Dura Ace's cars.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    Chris said:

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    Never mind all that - she'd have gone back to the lab and personally developed a cure!

    As would Andrea Leadsom, of course, if the Tory party hadn't taken leave of its senses.
    Whatever you think about Mrs Thatcher's political leanings, she was an incredibly intelligent and determined woman, with a strong moral compass, and who was not afraid to surround herself by equally strong characters.

    What is the old saying...

    A Players hire other A Players.
    B Players hire C Players.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 26,210

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    Funny, but also rather telling. I can’t recall the last time I saw a beat policeman/officer. Only ever in cars. Are we unique in this around the world?
    A couple of years ago, we had a spate of crime in the village. A man got attacked with a machete a couple of streets away (and on the route I walk my son to school), and then a few months later, a man was murdered in a stabbing outside the local pub. After each of these, there was a frenzy of police activity in the village, and then they went invisible again. But I also haven't heard of any serious crime, either.

    So the answer is simple; if you want to see police on your streets, ensure someone is attacked with a knife!

    (It's not just that, though. A man went missing, and the authorities were concerned for his welfare. There was a massive search in the village, including the police, and thankfully the man was found safe and well.)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753
    France is giving 100 euros to everyone earning less than 2000 a month, supposedly because of inflation.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,769
    JBriskin3 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.

    However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.

    What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
    Were you wearing your blazer?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
    Thatcher is underestimated in all sorts of ways.

    She was totally comfortable with appointing people to her cabinet who were ideologically not on her wavelength.

    Competence is what mattered to her.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    IanB2 said:

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
    It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:

    Thatcher - I'll have steak
    Waiter - and the vegetables?
    Thatcher - They'll have the same.

    I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
    But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.

    The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
    One test of course is that the alleged vegetables walked out of Thatch's Cabinets e.g Hezza, Lawson, The Sheep.

    Can anyone imagine any of Johnson's bunch of toads actually resigning over anything political (rather than they grabbed one of the aide's ar*ses)?

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    France is giving 100 euros to everyone earning less than 2000 a month, supposedly because of inflation because there's an election coming up.

    FTFY.
  • Blimey..

    Spurs losing in Arnhem. But not doing as bad as Jose - Roma are 6-1 down against Norwegian side Bodø/Glimt!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Chris said:

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    Never mind all that - she'd have gone back to the lab and personally developed a cure!
    Served up in a new variety of Mr. Whippy ice-cream!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
    Thatcher is underestimated in all sorts of ways.

    She was totally comfortable with appointing people to her cabinet who were ideologically not on her wavelength.

    Competence is what mattered to her.

    Johnson is totally comfortable with appointing people to his cabinet, irrespective of their competence or political beliefs.

    Loyalty to Johnson is what matters to him.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,753

    IanB2 said:

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
    It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:

    Thatcher - I'll have steak
    Waiter - and the vegetables?
    Thatcher - They'll have the same.

    I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
    But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.

    The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
    One test of course is that the alleged vegetables walked out of Thatch's Cabinets e.g Hezza, Lawson, The Sheep.

    Can anyone imagine any of Johnson's bunch of toads actually resigning over anything political (rather than they grabbed one of the aide's ar*ses)?
    To be fair, the Brexit era did see more political resignations than usual.
  • JBriskin3JBriskin3 Posts: 849
    IshmaelZ said:

    JBriskin3 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I think a big division here is between people who think the response to this pandemic hasn't been authoritarian enough - and people who think its been too authoritarian. I fall very much now under the latter category, so while I have a lot to criticise Boris over (and think he lifted lockdown-3 months too late), I think all other PM's apart from Thatcher would have handled the pandemic worse.

    If I was to rate the PM's in order I'd say Thatcher first, then Boris. Then Cameron - he always took the NHS seriously given his own personal concerns and I'd be worried he'd go too far down the "protect the NHS" road, but I think Osborne would have been able to keep him in check. Without Osborne by his side I'd be much more worried about Cameron.

    Major just middling.

    Then my rogue's gallery would be Brown, then May and absolutely worst of all Blair.

    Overall as a PM I'd have Blair ahead of Major, Brown and May. But Blair would have been horrendous in this. Even without a pandemic he was prepared to detain people for 90 days without charge. Even without a pandemic he wanted to introduce ID Cards. Under the cover of the pandemic he'd have introduced ID Cards and other restrictions that he tried to push through but failed and the Civil Service would have made them permanent.

    The best person who should be trusted with authoritarian powers is someone who doesn't want to wield them. That's one of the things that makes Boris one of the best possible PMs for this pandemic - and it make Blair the worst possible choice. Even worse than May or Brown.

    Interesting analysis, but I think it misses where Boris was weak: he was too slow to make decisions, and therefore when he did take them, they had to be more authoritarian.

    If the UK had been quicker to close the borders at the beginning of the pandemic, or when it was incredibly obvious that there was a big problem in India with Delta, the number of cases seeded could have been dramatically lower.

    Likewise, there was too much prevarication over vaccinating teenagers and over booster shots.

    It's not that decisions were wrong - it was that they made too slowly. I think both Blair and Thatcher were more sure of themselves (and Cameron was too), and would have made faster decisions. And those faster decisions would have meant less authoritarian decisions were needed.
    Oh I absolutely agree that Blair would have been more sure of himself my concern is where that surety would have led to. Look at Blair's record and it speaks for himself. He would have taken the excuse of the pandemic to implement measures under the cover of the pandemic even if they were not needed.

    I expect by now if Blair was in charge we'd have a vaccine passport - and that passport would be designed to permanently transition into an ID Card.
    On the subject of vaccine passports - everywhere that has them (from New York to Israel to Denmark and France) has done them the same way - a scannable bar code in a phone app. So while I understand your concern, I struggle to see how that can transition into an ID card.
    The scannable QR code is an identifier already. In some ways, an ID card, just by itself.
    I truly don't understand this shit about ID cards. I am weighed down with things which identify me as entitled to draw from my bank, buy stuff on credit, drive a car, occupy seat 3b on a specific plans or train. So is everybody. What people think they are objecting to is an allo allo Papers please sort of society where the Gestapo can arbitrarily insist that you identify yourself. But guess what: first if we get to that stage the having or not of a national ID card is the least of our problems. Secondly in any place where the Gestapo is likely to nail you there are already cameras which can nail you by face and gait recognition even if your phone wasn't broadcasting your identity anyway. From a civil liberties POV you're much better off with an ID card because at least you can tell where and when you've been ID ed. Even by whom, if the Gestapo wear number badges. Which is partly why no government is going to be arsed with them
    It is nothing to do with having a means of identifying yourself. It is the right of the authorities to be able to demand you produce those papers at any time. A national identity card without such a right would not be an issue. But we all know that once one existed it would become a requirement in very short order.

    Saying ah well they can use cameras and face recognition is no argument at all. We should be pushing back against such things not accepting them and making it even easier for them. The Government should not have the right to know where I am or who I am at all times of day and night.
    Every country in the EEA has some form of national ID card. None of their citizens seem to have a problem with them.
    (IIRC, EEA citizens used to be able to travel to the UK just carrying their ID card. While we needed passports...)

    For those EEA countries, in how many are citizens required to carry ID cards?

    Because that's the "thin end of the wedge" that people (rightly) worry about.

    In the UK, we rightly believe that the State is subordinate to the Individual. And in particular, we don't think that agents of the State (police, etc.) should be allowed to demand at will that Individuals identify themselves.

    Of course, there are specific instances where we require identification, specifically related to banking and finance, driving a car, or travelling on a plane. But those are - for the most part - voluntary. (Although the KYC stuff for banking is dangerously close to compulsory.)

    In the US, there are no ID cards. But a driving license (even a non-driving driving license) is basically essential for everyday life. You simply can't get a bottle of wine in a store without it.
    I don't think anywhere requires you to carry ID. Can't find anywhere on an internet search. I think this is all about watching too many ww2 films. I bet that in ww2 UK the police had the right to make you identify yourself to ensure you weren't afifth columnist every bit as much as the Gestapo did.
    Well off the top of my head Belgium and Spain do. In Germany and Austria the police have the right to ask for ID and can detain you if you cannot provide it. This latter one I know from experience.
    (joking)
    That's not a problem in the UK: there are no police on the street to demand your ID!
    (/joking)
    You've made it as clear as possible that you were joking.

    However if you'd ever been arrested for Breach of the Police for merely walking down Union Street (Aberdeen) you wouldn't find it a laughing matter.

    What a Nightmare Nippy and Eck have created.
    Were you wearing your blazer?
    Lol - I honestly can't remember what I was wearing (and I try try to block out the memory of spending 12 hours I spent in a very small "safe place") but I probably was.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    IanB2 said:

    Thatcher Thatcher Thatcher not a man around to match her.

    She'd have understood the science, questioned the scientists, regularly requestioned them, challenged herself with her cabinet and advisors and anchored all of her decisions in both fact and her strong political principles of individual freedom. Quite literally the perfect blend.

    May would have gone into a dark room for days and days as she agonised over the evidence without speaking to anyone. Once she finally emerged, and announced her decision, she'd have expected everyone to jump to it and she'd have been very slow to change her mind - if at all. And she'd have been instinctively authoritarian.

    May and Thatcher chalk and cheese.

    Fatch.

    One thing about Thatch that is over looked in these comparisons, certainly with Johnson, is that she would not have a Cabinet of non entities who were barely able to do their jobs on a good day with a following wind. She had good people around the table.

    Would Hancock have got near a Thatch Cabinet? I think not and yet he ran Britain most of last year.

    Remarkable.
    It is amazing to look back at that classic Spitting Image joke about the Cabinet at a restaurant:

    Thatcher - I'll have steak
    Waiter - and the vegetables?
    Thatcher - They'll have the same.

    I precis a bit. But such a joke now looks amazing when one considers the stature of some of that cabinet - or of Major's or Blair's afterwards.
    But that’s almost the point. They were politicians of stature that she had cowed into obedience for fear of their careers.

    The bunch of amateurs the clown has picked had no stature to begin with, which is of course why they are there.
    Every generation always looks back fondly on the past with rose tinted glasses and considers their own time different.

    Looking upon Boris's Cabinet I don't see any reason to say its any worse than prior ones objectively.

    A very significant proportion of his Cabinet were Cabinet ministers for either Cameron or May too. Another proportion of them were Ministers under those too.

    Of those who've been promoted to the Cabinet, many are deserving of the promotion and Sunak is clearly very deserving and had previously been already wisely tipped as a potential next Prime Minister by a sage on this site.
This discussion has been closed.