ID Fraud
Tony Blair writes on ID cards in today’s Telegraph. As a master class in how the PM spins a case, it cannot be bettered. IN the future, political scientists will no doubt use this article as a fine example of how Blair’s doublespeak misled people on such a regular basis.
Let’s take the first paragraph, to show you what I mean:
“On any list of public concerns, illegal immigration, crime, terrorism and identity fraud would figure towards the top”.
Quite true, PM. Therefore, if you are concerned about these issues, you must support ID cards. And if you don’t support ID cards, you don’t care about these issues.
“In each, identity abuse is a crucial component”.
Is it? What about Labour’s abolition of immigration controls, militant Islam, the growth of yob culture? In fact, given illegal immigrants won’t have them, why are they relevant? And ID cards don’t stop terrorists, as the Home Office has admitted (and Spain has learned); how will it cut crime unless we all have to carry them compulsorily, which you have said we won’t have to? And won’t it make it easier to commit ID fraud - are you really saying your ID card system will be tamper proof??
“It is all part of a changing world”
Oh I see, ID cards are the future, not the past. But didn’t we abolish them in 1951?
“global mass migration; easier travel; new services and new technologies constantly being accessed”.
And how exactly will ID cards work in this world? By definition, any Government scheme will cost loads and be out of date by the time it is ready.
“The case for ID cards is a case not about liberty but about the modern world”.
Phew. We can just ignore civil liberty arguments then. And while you’re about, why not just lock everyone up, and cut crime in the process. After all, civil liberties are irrelevant. What matters is what works.
“Biometrics give us the chance to have secure identity and the bulk of the ID cards’ cost will have to be spent on the new biometric passports in any event”.
So why do we need ID cards? Silly question. The rest of thsi article will be about biometrics (we have the technology) and, because civil liberties don’t matter, you will be convinced by the end that we are just introducing a new passport.
This article is Blair in a nutshell. He tells you he’s in favour of motherhood and apple pie. Then he tells any one who disagrees with his policy that they are against motherhood and apple pie. And then he doesn’t defend the policy, but only a small part of it which is hard to argue against.
Brilliant. But it ain’t leadership.
Chris said on November 6th, 2006 at 3:38 pm:
Excellent critique Ed. No analysis of the £20bn+ cost of this appalling exercise in government bullying and blackmailing
Len Pannett said on November 9th, 2006 at 12:54 am:
Well said Ed. I’ve been saying for a while that the ID Cards scheme is ill-thought out and completely mismanaged, especially in regards to the practicalities of running such a scheme. The notion of a “joined-up government” that would be needed to make the programme effective is frankly laughable, not to mention worrisome. Even after the wishy-washy explanation that the PM provides whenever the subject is broached, there has been scant resource applied to the requirements for information assurance of a central database.
Dominic said on November 10th, 2006 at 3:25 pm:
Good analysis, Ed. The Conservatives need to fight fire with fire on this issue and just expose the weaknesses in the Government’s argument. I actually happen to believe the core concepts of ID cards is essentially sound, but I would never trust Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or this Labour Government to implement it, as they have demonstrated their ineptitude at introducing new and complex systems. Our existing system of identification clearly needs to be redesigned and updated to help combat illegal immigration, identity fraud and so on, which the present system has clearly failed in doing. ID cards could be the possible solution but mechanisms of such a devise need to be developed further.