A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
I'm moving from London to Somerset in September, and plan to become a south west nationalist. I'm already offended by this government's make-up. Bet they will put up tax on cider and destroy my acquired identity.
If you want cider Herefordshire is the best place in the U.K. for that.
A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
I'm moving from London to Somerset in September, and plan to become a south west nationalist. I'm already offended by this government's make-up. Bet they will put up tax on cider and destroy my acquired identity.
If you want cider Herefordshire is the best place in the U.K. for that.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
I think it's a great idea but I doubt our capability to deliver it. We don't seem to be good at big projects. There's also our aversion to the so called 'papers please' society and a fear of being surveilled/tracked 24/7 by the government and/or other snooping bad actors.
I find a lot of this opposition to be based on ignorance and paranoia but it's genuinely felt. Then add in the fact that money is short and there are many other ways to spend it that are easier sells and likely to deliver more short term political benefit. All in all this was probably quite an easy call to make.
ID cards are another topic that I'm unsure about. On the one hand, I'm not quite convinced of the need for them. On the other hand, I've seen how convenient they are in Germany, which is far from being a dystopian wasteland. The cost of introducing them may, or may not, be offset by the savings resulting from their convenience. I don't know. But I don't think that either introducing them or not introducing them will be a particularly consequential event.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Your argument totally falls over at the first fence though. Just because something in theory could be done over an entirely indefinite timescale, and with absolutely no guarantees, it doesn't make it politically acceptable, and it wasn't. Reform delayed is reform denied.
Cameron was attempting to negotiate with the EU on British priorities for over 5 years before he even got to the referendum, and failed.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Is there a job more futile than the reporter who is currently BELLOWING questions at cabinet ministers on the way into Number Ten? Mate, they're not going to stop for a chat with you because you're screaming at them.
It’s an initiation thing. Willing to bellow impotently and debase yourself? You’ll go far lad (or lass).
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
We microchip pets. Lets do babies too. Unique id, scannable at point of care. Job done.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
I think it's a great idea but I doubt our capability to deliver it. We don't seem to be good at big projects. There's also our aversion to the so called 'papers please' society and a fear of being surveilled/tracked 24/7 by the government and/or other snooping bad actors.
I find a lot of this opposition to be based on ignorance and paranoia but it's genuinely felt. Then add in the fact that money is short and there are many other ways to spend it that are easier sells and likely to deliver more short term political benefit. All in all this was probably quite an easy call to make.
ID cards are another topic that I'm unsure about. On the one hand, I'm not quite convinced of the need for them. On the other hand, I've seen how convenient they are in Germany, which is far from being a dystopian wasteland. The cost of introducing them may, or may not, be offset by the savings resulting from their convenience. I don't know. But I don't think that either introducing them or not introducing them will be a particularly consequential event.
Oh it wouldn't be.
I used to love doing projects for European banks as the story for confirming the customer is who they claim to be was get ID card, confirm picture matches and continue rather than 14 pages of if buts and maybes as you worked out all the plausible paths.
Now granted Europe did have issues when the id card had been lost / stolen but it was a very niche path which I never had to worry about.
Is there a job more futile than the reporter who is currently BELLOWING questions at cabinet ministers on the way into Number Ten? Mate, they're not going to stop for a chat with you because you're screaming at them.
It's the fallback if they can't get a direct interview, and they can then tell their bosses/readers that they asked a direct question to so-and-so and they didn't bother answering.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
The current system is very very messy and not at all good. I basically had a perfectly valid paper driving license to the 2040s, which I carried with me, but over the last few years it has become untenable, when I visit places they don't just want your company badge any more to sign you in, increasingly it is government photo ID. So, it got to the point where it was get a photo driving license or carry your passport with you everywhere so you don't forget, which I baulked at.
And I did forget and spent a day stuck in the reception area of a data center a few months ago. It is exacerbated by the fact that the people on reception desks have changed - they are a later generation, they themselves have increasingly not grown up in the UK, rules have tightened, so the level of sensible discretion is so much less.
It is not helped either by how much the ersatz bits of this ID system vary from check to check. If it is not to be a universal ID, then there is still a strong need to standardise how people are checked, so if you don't drive and you can't get a passport (my mother's passport was the better part of a year to sort due to her complicated history), that there is an easy path to verifiable identity.
To a great extent, at this stage, identity, because it has become a requirement for many entitlements, has become a personal right as well - denying identity for those excluded people is every bit as problematic as debanking. Unless you roll back identity requirements 20 years, the government should be providing good, simple and universal means of identifying oneself.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Your argument totally falls over at the first fence though. Just because something in theory could be done over an entirely indefinite timescale, and with absolutely no guarantees, it doesn't make it politically acceptable, and it wasn't. Reform delayed is reform denied.
Cameron was attempting to negotiate with the EU on British priorities for over 5 years before he even got to the referendum, and failed.
You already replied to my post 107 minutes before this latest attempt.
Absolutely. It shows that he has the political instincts that Starmer lacked.
So he funds the 5% cost of tax on electricity by cancelling digital id cost that isn't in any budget. He is an idiot.
Even if the ID cards cost was in next year's budget, it's largely one-off setup costs. Whereas VAT-free leccy is going to be ongoing in practice, if not in theory. (Go on- when is the time ever going to be right to reverse this?)
Thinking that you can use one-off savings to fund ongoing commitments was bad when Lawson and Sunak did it, it's bad when Burnham does it. Great politics, bad government which is one of the reasons we are where we are.
VAT shoukd never have been levied on energy bills in the first place. VAT was supposed to be on non essential items. Hence the exemptions for energy, food, children's clothes and books.
As with so many other things he did, Major was a fecking idiot for introducing it when he didn't have to.
Absolutely. It shows that he has the political instincts that Starmer lacked.
So he funds the 5% cost of tax on electricity by cancelling digital id cost that isn't in any budget. He is an idiot.
Even if the ID cards cost was in next year's budget, it's largely one-off setup costs. Whereas VAT-free leccy is going to be ongoing in practice, if not in theory. (Go on- when is the time ever going to be right to reverse this?)
Thinking that you can use one-off savings to fund ongoing commitments was bad when Lawson and Sunak did it, it's bad when Burnham does it. Great politics, bad government which is one of the reasons we are where we are.
VAT shoukd never have been levied on energy bills in the first place. VAT was supposed to be on non essential items. Hence the exemptions for energy, food, children's clothes and books.
As with so many other things he did, Major was a fecking idiot for introducing it when he didn't have to.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Your argument totally falls over at the first fence though. Just because something in theory could be done over an entirely indefinite timescale, and with absolutely no guarantees, it doesn't make it politically acceptable, and it wasn't. Reform delayed is reform denied.
Cameron was attempting to negotiate with the EU on British priorities for over 5 years before he even got to the referendum, and failed.
You already replied to my post 107 minutes before this latest attempt.
Yes, and then you rehearsed yourself with this again which I find no less convincing for the repetition.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Your argument totally falls over at the first fence though. Just because something in theory could be done over an entirely indefinite timescale, and with absolutely no guarantees, it doesn't make it politically acceptable, and it wasn't. Reform delayed is reform denied.
Cameron was attempting to negotiate with the EU on British priorities for over 5 years before he even got to the referendum, and failed.
You already replied to my post 107 minutes before this latest attempt.
Yes, and then you rehearsed yourself with this again which I find no less convincing for the repetition.
You are better than this.
No, I mean you literally replied to the same comment twice, 107 minutes apart.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
The current system is very very messy and not at all good. I basically had a perfectly valid paper driving license to the 2040s, which I carried with me, but over the last few years it has become untenable, when I visit places they don't just want your company badge any more to sign you in, increasingly it is government photo ID. So, it got to the point where it was get a photo driving license or carry your passport with you everywhere so you don't forget, which I baulked at.
And I did forget and spent a day stuck in the reception area of a data center a few months ago. It is exacerbated by the fact that the people on reception desks have changed - they are a later generation, they themselves have increasingly not grown up in the UK, rules have tightened, so the level of sensible discretion is so much less.
It is not helped either by how much the ersatz bits of this ID system vary from check to check. If it is not to be a universal ID, then there is still a strong need to standardise how people are checked, so if you don't drive and you can't get a passport (my mother's passport was the better part of a year to sort due to her complicated history), that there is an easy path to verifiable identity.
To a great extent, at this stage, identity, because it has become a requirement for many entitlements, has become a personal right as well - denying identity for those excluded people is every bit as problematic as debanking. Unless you roll back identity requirements 20 years, the government should be providing good, simple and universal means of identifying oneself.
Which is why over the past 20 years I've changed my mind and think that a universal id card is a essential.
Mind you I wouldn't be letting anyone near a data centre without proof that you are who you claim to be. 25 years back I had post its reminding me you are off to Staffordshire police tomorrow take your passport with you...
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Your argument totally falls over at the first fence though. Just because something in theory could be done over an entirely indefinite timescale, and with absolutely no guarantees, it doesn't make it politically acceptable, and it wasn't. Reform delayed is reform denied.
Cameron was attempting to negotiate with the EU on British priorities for over 5 years before he even got to the referendum, and failed.
You already replied to my post 107 minutes before this latest attempt.
Yes, and then you rehearsed yourself with this again which I find no less convincing for the repetition.
You are better than this.
No, I mean you literally replied to the same comment twice, 107 minutes apart.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
Yes, but you need to do all the "real work" costs for ID cards that you want to do whether there's ID cards or just a supplement to passports etc.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
Yes, but you need to do all the "real work" costs for ID cards that you want to do whether there's ID cards or just a supplement to passports etc.
Which you are now going to have to share across the 8 million people without passports rather than the 50 million with them
the cost of providing an ID card to someone with a passport was minimal, the actual costs were elsewhere.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
I note that you seem to have finally accepted that people without passports are at a major disadvantage when it comes to getting a job thanks to the way checks work.
VAT can be on anything the government wants, at whatever level, for whatever reason and you can't bind future governments.
We keep hearing this sort of things from people, be it about pensions or planning. The belief that there was some unwritten law that protects them from things they don't like.
I remeber as a Councillor someone objecting to planning for housing in the field below their house.
The reason; he had been told they would never be anything built there. Who told him? the builder selling him the plot.
None the less he thought that should be legally binding for eternity. Why? because he didn't want them building on that field!
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
Yes, but you need to do all the "real work" costs for ID cards that you want to do whether there's ID cards or just a supplement to passports etc.
Which you are now going to have to share across the 8 million people without passports rather than the 50 million with them
If you want to "share the costs" amongst everyone then fund it out of general taxation, no need to create an authoritarian universal ID to do so.
A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
I'm moving from London to Somerset in September, and plan to become a south west nationalist. I'm already offended by this government's make-up. Bet they will put up tax on cider and destroy my acquired identity.
If you want cider Herefordshire is the best place in the U.K. for that.
A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
I'm moving from London to Somerset in September, and plan to become a south west nationalist. I'm already offended by this government's make-up. Bet they will put up tax on cider and destroy my acquired identity.
If you want cider Herefordshire is the best place in the U.K. for that.
@Casino_Royale you stated on the previous thread that vat on fuel being reduced to 0% is only possible due to Brexit.
Not true. Perfectly permitted within the EU.
My understanding is you can have 0% in the EU, but you can't reduce it to 0% if it was already on the oridinary or reduced rate - a ratchet effect if you will. This is why Blair could only reduce it to 5%. Can't add new things to 0% rate hence tampon tax difficulties etc.
But happy to be corrected - this is from memory.
The EU changed the VAT directive rules in 2022, so that, for example, Ireland has been able to reduce the VAT on period products to 0%.
This is one of the things that was always missing from the EU debate in Britain. EU rules can be changed.
So Brexit forced them to change their tune?
Interesting.
Or, y'know, politicians who were willing to put the effort in to work within EU structures to get rules changed put that work in and got the rules changed.
A rule that we were told couldn't change pre-Brexit and was a catalyst for such change post Brexit.
We've heard all these arguments before. Yes, you can change something but only if a QMV supermajority of the whole EU agree.
Sure, it suited lots of people to pretend that the rule couldn't be changed - doesn't make it true.
No, it was entirely sincere. If you can't find 14 countries to agree with you then it can't be changed.
In practice, it's very very difficult, as Cameron found out to his cost. It's not like lobbying your MP.
Right, so it can be done, if you can find the agreement with other countries to make the change. Sure, that's hard, and it takes time and effort.
Cameron rushed his attempt at a much more fundamental renegotiation, because he wanted to get the referendum don and out of the way so that he could do other things before resigning on his own terms. A pretty good example of how not to approach negotiations at the EU level.
Your argument totally falls over at the first fence though. Just because something in theory could be done over an entirely indefinite timescale, and with absolutely no guarantees, it doesn't make it politically acceptable, and it wasn't. Reform delayed is reform denied.
Cameron was attempting to negotiate with the EU on British priorities for over 5 years before he even got to the referendum, and failed.
You already replied to my post 107 minutes before this latest attempt.
Yes, and then you rehearsed yourself with this again which I find no less convincing for the repetition.
You are better than this.
No, I mean you literally replied to the same comment twice, 107 minutes apart.
VAT can be on anything the government wants, at whatever level, for whatever reason and you can't bind future governments.
We keep hearing this sort of things from people, be it about pensions or planning. The belief that there was some unwritten law that protects them from things they don't like.
I remeber as a Councillor someone objecting to planning for housing in the field below their house.
The reason; he had been told they would never be anything built there. Who told him? the builder selling him the plot.
None the less he thought that should be legally binding for eternity. Why? because he didn't want them building on that field!
Peter.
So what was no more than a sales puff should be legally binding
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
VAT can be on anything the government wants, at whatever level, for whatever reason and you can't bind future governments.
We keep hearing this sort of things from people, be it about pensions or planning. The belief that there was some unwritten law that protects them from things they don't like.
I remeber as a Councillor someone objecting to planning for housing in the field below their house.
The reason; he had been told they would never be anything built there. Who told him? the builder selling him the plot.
None the less he thought that should be legally binding for eternity. Why? because he didn't want them building on that field!
Peter.
So what was no more than a sales puff should be legally binding
What a mug.
As my wife continually points out - unless you own the land you view things will change...
VAT can be on anything the government wants, at whatever level, for whatever reason and you can't bind future governments.
We keep hearing this sort of things from people, be it about pensions or planning. The belief that there was some unwritten law that protects them from things they don't like.
I remeber as a Councillor someone objecting to planning for housing in the field below their house.
The reason; he had been told they would never be anything built there. Who told him? the builder selling him the plot.
None the less he thought that should be legally binding for eternity. Why? because he didn't want them building on that field!
Peter.
Says history and the Government at the time. VAT was brought in in 1973 to replace Purchase Tax which was levied on luxury goods. Hence the reason when it was introduced that essential items were excluded. It was sold as such by the Government at the time to emphasise it was not an increase in taxation.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
VAT can be on anything the government wants, at whatever level, for whatever reason and you can't bind future governments.
We keep hearing this sort of things from people, be it about pensions or planning. The belief that there was some unwritten law that protects them from things they don't like.
I remeber as a Councillor someone objecting to planning for housing in the field below their house.
The reason; he had been told they would never be anything built there. Who told him? the builder selling him the plot.
None the less he thought that should be legally binding for eternity. Why? because he didn't want them building on that field!
Peter.
Says history and the Government at the time. VAT was brought in in 1973 to replace Purchase Tax which was levied on luxury goods. Hence the reason when it was introduced that essential items were excluded. It was sold as such by the Government at the time to emphasise it was not an increase in taxation.
Indeed, no Parliament can bind its successors so if a Government wants to change VAT to being on essential items they can do so, but it would be a tax increase. However they still pretend its on non-essential items by pretending essentials are non-essential.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK - which is where the problem comes from.
Without a passport it's a whole pile of work to confirm right to work and the none standard way carries significant risks...
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
You need primary ID which is basically a passport or driving licence. Provisional licences should be accepted (Government does) but I am told some banks etc don't. Voter ID for some reason isn't accepted. You also need proof of address which basically means you need to have your name on the council tax or a utility bill, and sometimes it has to be a paper one. Mobile phone bills aren't accepted. It's a real mess. There is a real need for some sort of primary ID.
We have multiple forms of primary ID already, no need for a universal new one.
If you wish to make it easier to get primary ID for those who lack it, then tackle that. Lower costs on that if needed, or spend money on making it it free, don't make a new authoritarian universal piece nonsense for everyone.
We effectively already have an ID card, it's called a driving licence. Just have to issue it to non-drivers.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
Issue replacement birth certificates for free if needed would be much cheaper than a new ID scheme.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK - which is where the problem comes from.
Without a passport it's a whole pile of work to confirm right to work and the none standard way carries significant risks...
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
One of our other cognitive biases that leads to bad government...
Having a single ID that you can be confident everyone has is likely to make the country work better and save the country money; you replaces the maze of processes we have at the moment with a single process. That's before we get onto the fairness thing; if some people can prove who they are more easily than others, that has bad consequences- see voter ID. Those with passports, driving licenses etc don't realise what a pain it is to provide papers when necessary. Because they, as is said, are all right, Jack.
But because the benefits are distributed whereas the costs are in one place, it's easy to misjudge the balance.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
If someone has taken all correct ID legally mandated then they should not be fined. Fix that, if they are, again no need for a new ID scheme.
Is there a job more futile than the reporter who is currently BELLOWING questions at cabinet ministers on the way into Number Ten? Mate, they're not going to stop for a chat with you because you're screaming at them.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
We microchip pets. Lets do babies too. Unique id, scannable at point of care. Job done.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
You need primary ID which is basically a passport or driving licence. Provisional licences should be accepted (Government does) but I am told some banks etc don't. Voter ID for some reason isn't accepted. You also need proof of address which basically means you need to have your name on the council tax or a utility bill, and sometimes it has to be a paper one. Mobile phone bills aren't accepted. It's a real mess. There is a real need for some sort of primary ID.
We have multiple forms of primary ID already, no need for a universal new one.
If you wish to make it easier to get primary ID for those who lack it, then tackle that. Lower costs on that if needed, or spend money on making it it free, don't make a new authoritarian universal piece nonsense for everyone.
We effectively already have an ID card, it's called a driving licence. Just have to issue it to non-drivers.
Doesn't work online, which is the big focus, doesn't show residency, employment or benefits status. But agree as stop gap measure a driving licence that doesn't necessarily allow you to drive could be the universal document to prove photo ID and address.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
I'm not a fan of ID cards (I'm more a "roll ID checks back 20 years" type), but assuming we wanted to do it, why wouldn't we just insist everyone got a passport, and use that as ID. Running a parallel system to prove exactly the same thing seems nuts, and the "what if it gets lost or stolen" problem will be just as significant with your ID card as your passport.
How about simply making a passport one's Digital ID & providing it for free ?
Cost of passport £100. People without passport 8 million. Years a passport lasts (10, in reality say 9.5, mixing in children's 5 yrs say 7 years on average) £800M / 7 = £114M/yr for people who don't have them to get them for free. (Extra cost for the gov't) "Others" save the cash they would have spent on a passport with their increase in taxation (In the round). The passport scheme is existing so it doesn't need a whole load of new setup costs.
Allocate a theoretical £102 in today's money for anyone who needs a passport and is eligible with that to purchase one for £102.
People who lose them every 5 minutes, frequent flyers etc can buy another in the normal way.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
You best start campaigning to fix the law then because at the moment it's really simple
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
If you think that is the reason the Government wanted to introduce ID cards and the associated database then I have a bridge to sell you.
1,320 soldiers and 94 artillery/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today. Another net 520 troops not availble to pursue the SMO compared to yesterday.
@MarqueeMark. Where do you get these figures from? They are staggering numbers. Is that 1320 Russian soldiers killed or wounded in the last 24 hours?
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
You best start campaigning to fix the law then because at the moment it's really simple
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
So we're settled then that there's no need for introducing universal ID.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
If you think that is the reason the Government wanted to introduce ID cards and the associated database then I have a bridge to sell you.
If you think that the reasons for why people dislike ID cards don't occur every day at the moment I've got a bridge to sell you.
The reality is -
1) an ID card would simplify a whole set of processes where we have complexity.
2) if a database exists people will abuse it and the bits everyone is scared about is actually covered by one login anyway...
The government knows fucking everything about us anyway so the privacy argument is bollocks.
The only argument for not doing digital ID, apart from a pungent and irrational streak of gammony reactionism, is that they'll fuck up the implementation in an expensive catastrophe.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
I'm not a fan of ID cards (I'm more a "roll ID checks back 20 years" type), but assuming we wanted to do it, why wouldn't we just insist everyone got a passport, and use that as ID. Running a parallel system to prove exactly the same thing seems nuts, and the "what if it gets lost or stolen" problem will be just as significant with your ID card as your passport.
I wrote the following letter to my MP last October when they were promoting ID Cards...
I am writing to you as a constituent in North Leith to express my deep concern regarding the proposed UK Digital Identity Bill, particularly the mandatory “BritCard” system. While I understand the government’s stated aims of improving service delivery and tackling illegal immigration, I believe this proposal raises serious issues that merit your attention - especially given your commitment to parliamentary integrity, civil liberties, and protecting vulnerable communities.
Firstly, the Bill was not included in the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto. Introducing such a significant change to the citizen-state relationship without a clear democratic mandate undermines public trust and the principles of parliamentary accountability. As a member of the Procedure Select Committee, I hope you will agree that legislation of this scale should be subject to full scrutiny, consultation, and a free vote.
Secondly, the proposed system centralises biometric data and links it to facial recognition infrastructure already being deployed across the UK. This raises profound civil liberties concerns, including the erosion of anonymity in public spaces, the risk of surveillance creep, and the potential for exclusion of digitally marginalised groups. These issues intersect with your work on the APPG for Commercial Sexual Exploitation, where protecting vulnerable individuals from systemic harm is a core concern.
Thirdly, the claim that this system will effectively address illegal immigration is questionable. Most undocumented work occurs outside formal systems, and enforcement - not identification - is the real bottleneck. Without stronger oversight and resourcing, this policy risks being symbolic rather than substantive, while introducing new risks to liberty and privacy.
I urge you to raise these concerns in Parliament and advocate for:
A full public consultation Independent statutory oversight A voluntary, privacy-preserving identity framework A free vote on any future legislation
The UK has a proud tradition of protecting civil liberties and resisting compulsory identification schemes. I believe we must ensure that any digital transformation respects those values and does not compromise the rights of the people it aims to serve.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
Mahmood not Mahmood.
A Delphic utterance.
Mahmood Not Mahood FFS. Predictive text !!
Taz, it could have been Manhood so you struck lucky
So, a prolonged debate on the pros and cons of ID cards. Just after the proposal has been scrapped. Never change, PB.
one chief aim of ID cards was to solve right to work checks.
Binning ID cards means we are stuck with a system that has obvious flaws if you are close to the system that most people simply don't care about because they haven't been subjected to them..
Witness me explaining how checks are actually done compared to @BartholomewRoberts who is talking about theory rather than reality...
I had a very good conversation with the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Andy Burnham. We discussed many subjects, including the outstanding relationship we have had with the UK. We will be meeting in the not too distant future for topics of mutual interest. The Prime Minister has got a big job ahead of him, but he will be able to do it and, of course, the U.S.A. will be there to help! We discussed North Sea Oil, Trade, the Military Alliance, Demining of the Hormuz Strait, and many other topics. The call was interesting, and went very well. I wished Prime Minister Burnham, GOOD LUCK AND GODSPEED! President DONALD J. TRUMP https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116954623645571071
The government knows fucking everything about us anyway so the privacy argument is bollocks.
The only argument for not doing digital ID, apart from a pungent and irrational streak of gammony reactionism, is that they'll fuck up the implementation in an expensive catastrophe.
Does it know about you failing to complete the census and driving 150mph in your souped up racer?
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
You best start campaigning to fix the law then because at the moment it's really simple
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
So we're settled then that there's no need for introducing universal ID.
You're tackling the problem at the wrong end.
No I'm pointing out a problem in reality that you don't seem to care about because you've got your house a job and a passport.
Darren Jones goes in two-footed. Burnham needs to call an election to put a stop to that.
Burnham should have kept Darren Jones within the tent. I think it was probably the biggest mistake of his first day.
Burnham can ignore Darren Jones easily.
Burnham's big mistake was keeping Mahood in Home because of what to do about her immigration policies. I don't personally like her policies but I am making a business of government point here.
If you agree with what Mahood is trying to do, and I assume Burnham broadly is in favour, you don't want Mahood to be leading on it because she is toxic and has made the policies toxic with your most important stakeholders. You want someone else these stakeholders will give time of day to to lead the initiative.
If on the other hand you want to change the policies, Mahood won't do that meaningfully. She is massively invested in them
Mahmood not Mahmood.
A Delphic utterance.
Mahmood Not Mahood FFS. Predictive text !!
Taz, it could have been Manhood so you struck lucky
How about simply making a passport one's Digital ID & providing it for free ?
Cost of passport £100. People without passport 8 million. Years a passport lasts (10, in reality say 9.5, mixing in children's 5 yrs say 7 years on average) £800M / 7 = £114M/yr for people who don't have them to get them for free. (Extra cost for the gov't) "Others" save the cash they would have spent on a passport with their increase in taxation (In the round). The passport scheme is existing so it doesn't need a whole load of new setup costs.
Allocate a theoretical £102 in today's money for anyone who needs a passport and is eligible with that to purchase one for £102.
People who lose them every 5 minutes, frequent flyers etc can buy another in the normal way.
Though you can not be eligible for a passport and also have the right to work.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
You best start campaigning to fix the law then because at the moment it's really simple
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
So we're settled then that there's no need for introducing universal ID.
You're tackling the problem at the wrong end.
No I'm pointing out a problem in reality that you don't seem to care about because you've got your house a job and a passport.
The problem isn't the lack of ID cards.
The problem is stupid draconian rules for employers, which are a sticking plaster applied to try and fix the fact that we've virtually no control over illegal immigration.
And as so often is the way, said rules cause expense and inconvenience for decent upstanding citizens, whilst troubling Abdul's hand car wash (all drugs charged extra) very little, not least because if they do get raided by immigration control they'll turn out to have no assets to pay the fines anyway.
If we actually went to the trouble of rooting out and booting out all our illegal immigrants, we could move away from this sort of "papers please" society, and back towards a traditional British high trust society, which should be our aim.
The government knows fucking everything about us anyway so the privacy argument is bollocks.
The only argument for not doing digital ID, apart from a pungent and irrational streak of gammony reactionism, is that they'll fuck up the implementation in an expensive catastrophe.
Does it know about you failing to complete the census and driving 150mph in your souped up racer?
A digital ID card will cover that as well, amazing
The government knows fucking everything about us anyway so the privacy argument is bollocks.
The only argument for not doing digital ID, apart from a pungent and irrational streak of gammony reactionism, is that they'll fuck up the implementation in an expensive catastrophe.
Does it know about you failing to complete the census and driving 150mph in your souped up racer?
Yes, but I don't know If this guy completed his census form.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
You best start campaigning to fix the law then because at the moment it's really simple
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
So we're settled then that there's no need for introducing universal ID.
You're tackling the problem at the wrong end.
No I'm pointing out a problem in reality that you don't seem to care about because you've got your house a job and a passport.
Every peasant should be forced to get a passport or they get their free dosh , rent , etc stopped pronto. Couple of takeaways and a packet of fags/vapes and it is covered.
Latest Voting Intention: Burnham begins and Labour close gap on Reform Con 18% (+1) Lab 28% (+8) Lib Dem 10% (-2) Reform 28% (-) SNP 3% (-) Plaid 1% (-) Green 10% (-3) Other 2% (-2) Fieldwork: 17-20 July 2026 (Comparison: 12-15 June) Sample: 2,027 GB adults
Latest Voting Intention: Burnham begins and Labour close gap on Reform Con 18% (+1) Lab 28% (+8) Lib Dem 10% (-2) Reform 28% (-) SNP 3% (-) Plaid 1% (-) Green 10% (-3) Other 2% (-2) Fieldwork: 17-20 July 2026 (Comparison: 12-15 June) Sample: 2,027 GB adults
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
You best start campaigning to fix the law then because at the moment it's really simple
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
So we're settled then that there's no need for introducing universal ID.
You're tackling the problem at the wrong end.
No I'm pointing out a problem in reality that you don't seem to care about because you've got your house a job and a passport.
Every peasant should be forced to get a passport or they get their free dosh , rent , etc stopped pronto. Couple of takeaways and a packet of fags/vapes and it is covered.
And their brand new motability BMW which, when they get fed up,of it and want another brand new one can be sold to people working to fund their lifestyle.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
So you are wasting £200m and creating an authoritarian nonsense that should not exist, lose/lose.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Nope - I'm making it easier - as the rules will be standard, to prove right to work status check the ID card..
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
The rules already are standard. You object that some people don't have something, so want to create a universal nonsense rather than fill in the gap - when you can just fill in the gap for less without doing that.
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
The easiest would be to issue driving licences to non-drivers on request
Except a driving licence doesn't confirm a person has the right to work in the UK.
Photo ID is not legally mandated for proof of right to work, birth certificate and NI number combined are sufficient.
And what tells me that the person named on that birth certificate is the person presenting that birth certificate...
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
Photo IDs are available for free for elections for those who don't have drivers licences, what stops that being used with a birth certificate?
I risk a £60k fine, what protection do I have given that that photo id is issued for elections alone.
If you've done your due diligence and taken photo ID, birth certificate and NI number then that should be it. That is more than the law requires.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
You best start campaigning to fix the law then because at the moment it's really simple
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
So we're settled then that there's no need for introducing universal ID.
You're tackling the problem at the wrong end.
No I'm pointing out a problem in reality that you don't seem to care about because you've got your house a job and a passport.
We agree a problem exists, we disagree on the solution.
The problem is authoritarian regulations being misapplied to address an unrelated problem.
Your solution is more authoritarianism. My solution is less.
Leaving aside the funding of a VAT cut, I think the politics are dicey for two reasons. First, bills will probably rise from today's point even with the VAT cut. Reducing the increase in the cost of living doesn't work. We've tried this: it's expensive and ineffective. (1/2)
Second, cost of living isn't in your control so you shouldn't stake your credibility on it. What might happen with Iran...? This is a classic 'people are upset so we must say we will do something'. But if you can't solve it, don't make it your platform!
I agree with her on the first point, but not the second. If you distill what bothers the electorate the most into a single thing, it's cost of living, and has been at least since COVID and probably before that. Governments of all stripes have completely ignored the issue thus encouraging a pissed-off electorate towards populist charlatans such as Farage.
Just because it's difficult doesn't mean governments get to choose what the population care about!
Ha! But that second point is spot on. It’s what the Burnham Government and Labour for 20years will be remembered for.
When Rishi chose his lectern message to be “Stop The Boats” experienced heads on Tory back benches shook in disbelief. That’s not the way to do politics. To make it boats stopping or fucked is massive naivety.
Covid and energy shock came at a price - UK high tax and maxed out on borrowing. Add to that no growth for UK for next 4 to 5 years and further energy price shocks, all voters will feel is pain and more pain. This reset Labour government will be shredded and clear third in polls within a year, taken there on the hope and promise it naïvely inscribed on its lectern from the start.
As much as the Labour cabinet replaced yesterday was disliked, this incoming one is made up by the most stupidest people in the Labour movement. It’s a massive gift for Reform and the Conservatives. 🙂
Interesting that there is still a 10 pt gap between Reform and the Tories. That feels significant now and probably points to Farage becoming LOTO if Burnham maintains his popularity going into the next GE.
Interesting that there is still a 10 pt gap between Reform and the Tories. That feels significant now and probably points to Farage becoming LOTO if Burnham maintains his popularity going into the next GE.
Polling from other companies are available, showing a very different picture than this one poll. But what is most important in political betting and commentating are the smarts in where it’s going to go.
Replace the smart people with the stupid people, replace a clear plan with no plan, replace the long haul with short term gimmicks, replace policy for a reality of difficulties with policy from a fantasy world where you are not defined by how you managed difficulties, the ultimate destination here is utterly obvious.
The House GOP budget up for a vote this week projects U.S. debt to reach more than $56 trillion, up from $39 trillion now. That's even with an arguable economic assumption that shaves $2.6 trillion. https://x.com/JNicholsonInDC/status/2079276312678535438
Totally OT but was in my PayPal app before and noted they now have a loyalty points scheme which I did not know about so signed up. Then read the details and it is not exactly the most attractive.
£10 for every thousand points, with one point per £10 spent. Cool, so I only need to spend ten thousand pounds to get a tenner.
But wait there is a premium model if you get 25,000 points in a year. So only need to spend quarter of a million on Paypal per annum to be in their blue tier.
I appreciate for some here that's a pair of shoes, but a little out of my tax code.
1,320 soldiers and 94 artillery/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today. Another net 520 troops not availble to pursue the SMO compared to yesterday.
@MarqueeMark. Where do you get these figures from? They are staggering numbers. Is that 1320 Russian soldiers killed or wounded in the last 24 hours?
They're from the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The 1,320 is killed, wounded or (sometimes) captured in the last 24 hours (or at least reported in that period, the Ukrainian armed forces are quite digitised, but I don't know whether there might be reporting delays still).
One of the features of this war is the vast amount of information available. About 90% of strikes are now made by drone, and most of these will be transmitting video right up until the point of impact, which makes measuring enemy casualties much easier than when using artillery without drone observation.
A small yet significant announcement. The overture to an autumn budget.
Compare and contrast with Starmer/Reeves first announcement being to cut the WFA...
Indeed; as a spending matter it's in the roundings, and not doing the ID card scheme is clearly an avoided cost to balance it off, in the short term at least. The more pertinent point is that Darren Jones, previously a mild mannered, competent and loyal minister, is clearly very p***ed off.
Loyal to the old government, which makes him dangerous. He may be overdoing it, but if I had been sacked from the cabinet to make space for Louise Haigh, I think I would be an unhappy bunny.
BTW, anyone done a map of the constituencies of the old and new cabinet? My impression is that the Granadaland mafia thing is real, but I'm not sure and some evidence would be good.
R4 this morning said, as I recall, four from London and the South East, seven from the NW, four from Yorkshire, others spread around the country. Aside from Labour now being very London-lite, it didn't sound too bad.
I'm moving from London to Somerset in September, and plan to become a south west nationalist. I'm already offended by this government's make-up. Bet they will put up tax on cider and destroy my acquired identity.
If you want cider Herefordshire is the best place in the U.K. for that.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
There is something to be said for an overlap of ID with Driving Licence, in that we already have ghost licences eg for underage scrotes caught on Surrons. If they get points, and then GET a licence, the points will be on there.
Interesting that there is still a 10 pt gap between Reform and the Tories. That feels significant now and probably points to Farage becoming LOTO if Burnham maintains his popularity going into the next GE.
The Reform lead over the Tories is only 2pp in the latest YouGov, 3pp in the latest Opinium and Survation, 4pp in the latest More in Common and Find Out Now. Though also 7pp with BMG and 8pp in Ipsos.
If anyone can work out if there's a reason for the difference, it would be very interesting.
1,320 soldiers and 94 artillery/MLRS not reporting for duty in Ukraine today. Another net 520 troops not availble to pursue the SMO compared to yesterday.
@MarqueeMark. Where do you get these figures from? They are staggering numbers. Is that 1320 Russian soldiers killed or wounded in the last 24 hours?
They're from the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The 1,320 is killed, wounded or (sometimes) captured in the last 24 hours (or at least reported in that period, the Ukrainian armed forces are quite digitised, but I don't know whether there might be reporting delays still).
One of the features of this war is the vast amount of information available. About 90% of strikes are now made by drone, and most of these will be transmitting video right up until the point of impact, which makes measuring enemy casualties much easier than when using artillery without drone observation.
Burnham’s coronation had brought me back to PB after a long absence.
Healey was the obvious choice for Chancellor. I’m surprised the commentariat are surprised: Miliband too dangerous; Mahmood no proper experience.
Haigh becoming Minister for Policy (essentially) also a good move, despite my misgivings over her old fraud conviction. She was one of the few Starmer appointments with a working policy brain.
Streeting to Defence - interesting; Phillipson sidelined - good; new AI ministry - excellent.
In other areas, I have a more mixed opinion. Too many firings of perfectly serviceable ministers, just because they were Starmerites, if such a thing ever really existed. Perhaps more accurate to say they were not firm Burnhamites. The new government is thereby “clubbier” than any I remember - this can be seen in the sheer concentration of Northern ministers.
The electricity announcement shows that Burnham is politically canny in a way that Starmer could never be. It’s a rounding error on the national accounts, and it signals that the new government is “on your side”. This is a positive start.
Darren Jones says none of VAT cut is funded. There was zero in Government budget for Digital ID.
So you're saying, Darren, that your ID card project was completely unfunded and it's a massive gotcha that VAT on electricity bills is also unfunded.
Difference is he never said digital ID was funded. Burnham government did however say the VAT cut was funded. Either incompetent or dishonest.
ID cards are just as funded, or unfunded, as removal of VAT on Electricity bills. Darren Jones was simply, and inadvertently, pointing out this fact about his own project.
Governments can forgo tax or move expenditure around as they wish. On their own rules they are supposed to get OBR to check the numbers add up. Burnham can point to a temporary offset that will last them until the next budget when the whole thing will go through the OBR washing machine.
It's a nonsense basically.
It's worth repeating that the government is scrapping only the digital ID card, not the intended uses of the card. So the "plan" I guess is to rely on driving licences, passports, bus cards, gas bills, notes from a doctor, and all the other rubbish ad hoc approaches to determining someone's identity, age, residence, etc.
This is might be smart politics, but it's bloody stupid governing.
Yes and no. The ID card project was dead. Burnham had the choice of killing it off for the time being, letting it hang around as a zombie project, or put serious political and financial capital behind a workable replacement project. So he chose the first and killed the project in a performatively showy way.
But the logic of universal digital ID is unstoppable IMO and the need for it hasn't gone away.
The need of it was never there in the first place.
The need for it is there - just ask anyone living on a council estate without a passport Trying to get a job from a firm that outsources status checks
No, it is not. There are a myriad of ways to pass checks. Like many PBers I have to undergo strict background screening and had to go through it again recently and there were a plethora of ways to do so, which I was easily able to do - so no need for a new universal system to do that.
Now if you want to fix the problem for limited numbers of people struggling to access things then target them, not universality. Make it easier for them to get something, don't be creating a new behemothic system for everyone.
So you are 1 of 10 people want a simple (anyone can do it) job - and you don't have a passport. Well those other 9 people can equally do the job and have suitable id to pass the checks.
Care to guess what happens (and yes I see this daily because it's ID checks is one of my sidelines)..
So make it easier for people who need it to get a passport, or something similar that is equally easily checkable, don't make a new universal ID for everyone.
And we repeat the loop - the whole point is these people don't have the £102 and all the other paperwork to hand.
And that's before the interview they are likely to have to pay £100 to travel to...
Which was my point, don't go for something universal that needs to be paid for everyone, go for something that is equally easily checkable but only needed by those who need it.
Go on then - how do you do that given that you would need to duplicate all the checks that are done when issuing a passport?
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
Um no -
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time. Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
Yes, but you need to do all the "real work" costs for ID cards that you want to do whether there's ID cards or just a supplement to passports etc.
Which you are now going to have to share across the 8 million people without passports rather than the 50 million with them
the cost of providing an ID card to someone with a passport was minimal, the actual costs were elsewhere.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
I note that you seem to have finally accepted that people without passports are at a major disadvantage when it comes to getting a job thanks to the way checks work.
I haven't got a driving licence or a passport any more. The only official ID I've got is a bus pass.
Comments
...from Burton on Trent.
Cameron was attempting to negotiate with the EU on British priorities for over 5 years before he even got to the referendum, and failed.
I used to love doing projects for European banks as the story for confirming the customer is who they claim to be was get ID card, confirm picture matches and continue rather than 14 pages of if buts and maybes as you worked out all the plausible paths.
Now granted Europe did have issues when the id card had been lost / stolen but it was a very niche path which I never had to worry about.
only picked as it was the top link and it's the Mail..
Edit - also here it is from Gbeebies https://www.gbnews.com/politics/keir-starmer-labour-digital-id-scheme-cost-billions
And I did forget and spent a day stuck in the reception area of a data center a few months ago. It is exacerbated by the fact that the people on reception desks have changed - they are a later generation, they themselves have increasingly not grown up in the UK, rules have tightened, so the level of sensible discretion is so much less.
It is not helped either by how much the ersatz bits of this ID system vary from check to check. If it is not to be a universal ID, then there is still a strong need to standardise how people are checked, so if you don't drive and you can't get a passport (my mother's passport was the better part of a year to sort due to her complicated history), that there is an easy path to verifiable identity.
To a great extent, at this stage, identity, because it has become a requirement for many entitlements, has become a personal right as well - denying identity for those excluded people is every bit as problematic as debanking. Unless you roll back identity requirements 20 years, the government should be providing good, simple and universal means of identifying oneself.
As with so many other things he did, Major was a fecking idiot for introducing it when he didn't have to.
You are better than this.
First time: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5607788/#Comment_5607788
Second time: https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5607886/#Comment_5607886
Mind you I wouldn't be letting anyone near a data centre without proof that you are who you claim to be. 25 years back I had post its reminding me you are off to Staffordshire police tomorrow take your passport with you...
The same goes for a new universal ID except you're wanting to make that universal so you need to pay for that for everyone, whereas if you only do it for those who need it then it will be cheaper.
The Jew as Foreign Secretary is very clever. Sanctions against the Jewish state are going to happen big time. @UKLabour are pure scum.
https://x.com/richmillett/status/2079273377634631970?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Passport renewal - issue id card at same time.
Id card - check existing passport, confirm photo matches (following the existing logic used on issuing a replacement passport) issue id card
Only for those without a passport do you need to do any real work - the rest is easily handled.
the cost of providing an ID card to someone with a passport was minimal, the actual costs were elsewhere.
So to provide ID cards for those without passports the cost is say £1.5bn, the cost to give everyone else 1 is say £200m more..
I note that you seem to have finally accepted that people without passports are at a major disadvantage when it comes to getting a job thanks to the way checks work.
Wes Streeting said that (announcing) £4.5bn for walking and cycling was madness after defence secretary resigned.
https://x.com/FennellJW/status/2079472159722782828
Says who?
VAT can be on anything the government wants, at whatever level, for whatever reason and you can't bind future governments.
We keep hearing this sort of things from people, be it about pensions or planning.
The belief that there was some unwritten law that protects them from things they don't like.
I remeber as a Councillor someone objecting to planning for housing in the field below their house.
The reason; he had been told they would never be anything built there.
Who told him? the builder selling him the plot.
None the less he thought that should be legally binding for eternity.
Why? because he didn't want them building on that field!
Peter.
Both cheaper and less authoritarian not to do that. Win/win.
Fizzy piss from concentrate !!
What a mug.
But again - I'm pleased to see you agree that without something a lot of people have problems getting a job because of their lack of easy to verify ID..
There is no problem that needs fixing with a universal ID. Just do a solution for those who lack it, free at the point of use.
Hoping to see out July !!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2026/jul/21/mitie-takeover-ocs-london-stock-market-uk-government-contractor
Without a passport it's a whole pile of work to confirm right to work and the none standard way carries significant risks...
Issue replacement birth certificates for free if needed would be much cheaper than a new ID scheme.
Having a single ID that you can be confident everyone has is likely to make the country work better and save the country money; you replaces the maze of processes we have at the moment with a single process. That's before we get onto the fairness thing; if some people can prove who they are more easily than others, that has bad consequences- see voter ID. Those with passports, driving licenses etc don't realise what a pain it is to provide papers when necessary. Because they, as is said, are all right, Jack.
But because the benefits are distributed whereas the costs are in one place, it's easy to misjudge the balance.
(See also: Brexit)
Been there - know people who were defrauded and handed a £20k fine.
If someone has taken all correct ID legally mandated then they should not be fined. Fix that, if they are, again no need for a new ID scheme.
If you do what the law requires there should be no fine. If there is, then fixing that is better than issuing a new ID card.
Cost of passport £100.
People without passport 8 million.
Years a passport lasts (10, in reality say 9.5, mixing in children's 5 yrs say 7 years on average)
£800M / 7 = £114M/yr for people who don't have them to get them for free. (Extra cost for the gov't)
"Others" save the cash they would have spent on a passport with their increase in taxation (In the round).
The passport scheme is existing so it doesn't need a whole load of new setup costs.
Allocate a theoretical £102 in today's money for anyone who needs a passport and is eligible with that to purchase one for £102.
People who lose them every 5 minutes, frequent flyers etc can buy another in the normal way.
No means of doing remote verification (i.e. no passport) - next candidate please...
It doesn't matter what the law allows, most people want a risk free approach at the cheapest price possible...
You're tackling the problem at the wrong end.
The reality is -
1) an ID card would simplify a whole set of processes where we have complexity.
2) if a database exists people will abuse it and the bits everyone is scared about is actually covered by one login anyway...
Just after the proposal has been scrapped.
Never change, PB.
The only argument for not doing digital ID, apart from a pungent and irrational streak of gammony reactionism, is that they'll fuck up the implementation in an expensive catastrophe.
I am writing to you as a constituent in North Leith to express my deep concern regarding the proposed UK Digital Identity Bill, particularly the mandatory “BritCard” system. While I understand the government’s stated aims of improving service delivery and tackling illegal immigration, I believe this proposal raises serious issues that merit your attention - especially given your commitment to parliamentary integrity, civil liberties, and protecting vulnerable communities.
Firstly, the Bill was not included in the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto. Introducing such a significant change to the citizen-state relationship without a clear democratic mandate undermines public trust and the principles of parliamentary accountability. As a member of the Procedure Select Committee, I hope you will agree that legislation of this scale should be subject to full scrutiny, consultation, and a free vote.
Secondly, the proposed system centralises biometric data and links it to facial recognition infrastructure already being deployed across the UK. This raises profound civil liberties concerns, including the erosion of anonymity in public spaces, the risk of surveillance creep, and the potential for exclusion of digitally marginalised groups. These issues intersect with your work on the APPG for Commercial Sexual Exploitation, where protecting vulnerable individuals from systemic harm is a core concern.
Thirdly, the claim that this system will effectively address illegal immigration is questionable. Most undocumented work occurs outside formal systems, and enforcement - not identification - is the real bottleneck. Without stronger oversight and resourcing, this policy risks being symbolic rather than substantive, while introducing new risks to liberty and privacy.
I urge you to raise these concerns in Parliament and advocate for:
A full public consultation
Independent statutory oversight
A voluntary, privacy-preserving identity framework
A free vote on any future legislation
The UK has a proud tradition of protecting civil liberties and resisting compulsory identification schemes. I believe we must ensure that any digital transformation respects those values and does not compromise the rights of the people it aims to serve.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Binning ID cards means we are stuck with a system that has obvious flaws if you are close to the system that most people simply don't care about because they haven't been subjected to them..
Witness me explaining how checks are actually done compared to @BartholomewRoberts who is talking about theory rather than reality...
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116954623645571071
Just shows my predictive text is fine !!
The problem is stupid draconian rules for employers, which are a sticking plaster applied to try and fix the fact that we've virtually no control over illegal immigration.
And as so often is the way, said rules cause expense and inconvenience for decent upstanding citizens, whilst troubling Abdul's hand car wash (all drugs charged extra) very little, not least because if they do get raided by immigration control they'll turn out to have no assets to pay the fines anyway.
If we actually went to the trouble of rooting out and booting out all our illegal immigrants, we could move away from this sort of "papers please" society, and back towards a traditional British high trust society, which should be our aim.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/minister-for-defence-readiness-and-industry-luke-pollard-mp-keynote-speech-at-agf-defence-summit-farnborough-international-air-show
It is good to see you all here today and thank you to everyone at AGF for the chance to address you, and apologies for giving you the fright, as you have a minister who has not yet been confirmed in his place speaking on a platform, and so I appreciate it. I’ve left my phone on loud at the back of the room, so if the PM rings, you’ll all be able to hear it. Don’t worry...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-55177486
Kemi fans please explain.
Latest Voting Intention:
Burnham begins and Labour close gap on Reform
Con 18% (+1)
Lab 28% (+8)
Lib Dem 10% (-2)
Reform 28% (-)
SNP 3% (-)
Plaid 1% (-)
Green 10% (-3)
Other 2% (-2)
Fieldwork: 17-20 July 2026
(Comparison: 12-15 June)
Sample: 2,027 GB adults
https://x.com/deltapolluk/status/2079542421193458131?s=46
28/28 is even.
Jobs a good un.
The problem is authoritarian regulations being misapplied to address an unrelated problem.
Your solution is more authoritarianism. My solution is less.
When Rishi chose his lectern message to be “Stop The Boats” experienced heads on Tory back benches shook in disbelief. That’s not the way to do politics. To make it boats stopping or fucked is massive naivety.
Covid and energy shock came at a price - UK high tax and maxed out on borrowing. Add to that no growth for UK for next 4 to 5 years and further energy price shocks, all voters will feel is pain and more pain. This reset Labour government will be shredded and clear third in polls within a year, taken there on the hope and promise it naïvely inscribed on its lectern from the start.
As much as the Labour cabinet replaced yesterday was disliked, this incoming one is made up by the most stupidest people in the Labour movement. It’s a massive gift for Reform and the Conservatives. 🙂
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d8p0l29pxo
Replace the smart people with the stupid people, replace a clear plan with no plan, replace the long haul with short term gimmicks, replace policy for a reality of difficulties with policy from a fantasy world where you are not defined by how you managed difficulties, the ultimate destination here is utterly obvious.
https://x.com/JNicholsonInDC/status/2079276312678535438
£10 for every thousand points, with one point per £10 spent. Cool, so I only need to spend ten thousand pounds to get a tenner.
But wait there is a premium model if you get 25,000 points in a year. So only need to spend quarter of a million on Paypal per annum to be in their blue tier.
I appreciate for some here that's a pair of shoes, but a little out of my tax code.
NEW THREAD
Lab 28% (+8)
Reform 28% (-)
Con 18% (+1)
Lib Dem 10% (-2)
Green 10% (-3)
SNP 3% (-)
Other 2% (-2)
Plaid 1% (-)
con 39 seats
lab 255
lib 67
ref 239
gre 6
snp 21
pla 3
oth 2
NI 18
marginal lib-lab coalition, esp when sf don't sit
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=18&LAB=28&LIB=10&Reform=28&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=100&TVLAB=100&TVLIB=100&TVReform=100&TVGreen=100&TVUKIP=&TVNAT=100&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
One of the features of this war is the vast amount of information available. About 90% of strikes are now made by drone, and most of these will be transmitting video right up until the point of impact, which makes measuring enemy casualties much easier than when using artillery without drone observation.
The Kyiv Independent report the figures daily or you can pick it up from the General Staff on facebook or telegram.
Edit: There's also this website which has a bunch of graphs put together from the daily data, and data from other sources, at https://datastudio.google.com/reporting/dfbcec47-7b01-400e-ab21-de8eb98c8f3a/page/p_h5j2ttv2rd?s=staTP1OHo_A
If anyone can work out if there's a reason for the difference, it would be very interesting.
eg https://x.com/DefenceU/status/2079426861000536261
Burnham’s coronation had brought me back to PB after a long absence.
Healey was the obvious choice for Chancellor.
I’m surprised the commentariat are surprised:
Miliband too dangerous; Mahmood no proper experience.
Haigh becoming Minister for Policy (essentially) also a good move, despite my misgivings over her old fraud conviction. She was one of the few Starmer appointments with a working policy brain.
Streeting to Defence - interesting; Phillipson sidelined - good; new AI ministry - excellent.
In other areas, I have a more mixed opinion. Too many firings of perfectly serviceable ministers, just because they were Starmerites, if such a thing ever really existed. Perhaps more accurate to say they were not firm Burnhamites. The new government is thereby “clubbier” than any I remember - this can be seen in the sheer concentration of Northern ministers.
The electricity announcement shows that Burnham is politically canny in a way that Starmer could never be. It’s a rounding error on the national accounts, and it signals that the new government is “on your side”.
This is a positive start.