A couple of weeks ago, in a post about Birmingham’s vote fraud, I wrote:

Of course, I fully expect someone from the Labour Party - with the sheer brazen chutzpah that comes effortlessly to them - to argue that this is a great argument for ID cards.

Really, it’s just too damn easy:

David Blunkett has called for urgent action on electoral fraud following the Birmingham vote-rigging scandal.

The former home secretary described the case in which six Labour councillors were found guilty of postal vote fraud as “totally outrageous".

He called for individual rather than household voter registration - backed up by a national ID card scheme.

As No2ID point out:

Of course, a moment’s thought reveals that ID cards wouldn’t prevent any kind of “citizen not present” fraud, such as fraudulent postal voting, precisely because the citizen and his ID card aren’t available to be verified.

Spyblog has more, including a transcript of Blunkett’s comments on Question Time. Yet again, it seems that ID Cards are a solution in search of a problem - feel free to make your suggestion as to what they’ll next be dragged out as the catch-all cure for.

One witch is temporarily dead as Charlie the Safety Elephant fumes because the scheme to file, stamp, number and index everyone in the country is foiled by the election. But he promises it’ll be back and even threatens to campaign on it and include it in the Labour manifesto, though I suspect the words there will be more to do with ‘protecting you from bad people’ than ‘gathering all the information we can about you to store on an insecure database and charging you vast sums of money for doing it’. Remember that when they tell you that you should be voting Labour.

Alternatively, print out a copy of this, or anything else from No2ID, and give it to anyone who comes round canvassing on a manifesto that promises to nationalise your identity.

SpyBlog has the details of the House Of Lords’ second reading of the ID Cards Bill. As they report, there are still signs that the Government doubts it will get this Bill through before an election, which is something to be hopeful about:

The debate was poorly attended, and rather short, giving the impression that the Government is just “going through the motions”

Go read it all, if only to wonder at the bizarre pronouncement of Baroness Gibson on her reaction to receiving a leaflet from NO2ID:

Rarely have I received such objectionable and misleading information. It is a great pity that this group of individuals has taken time to print and circulate such information, hiding behind a PO box number. The only named person is a “national co-ordinator", although what and who he is co-ordinating is not clear. I find this worrying piece of literature far more sinister than the proposals to which the authors object.

You may like to note that Baroness Gibson is the President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) - the ID Cards Bill has obviously passed under her radar because it’s deliberately bad, not accidentally.

This is great news, if true:

The Government’s plan to bring in a national identity card scheme is to be shelved until after the general election.

The Identity Cards Bill has been approved by MPs and was due to begin its detailed passage through the House of Lords shortly. But it is unlikely to be allocated more debating time before the general election expected on 5 May. The move follows a change of heart by the Tories, who havehardened their stance against the Bill. Their party supported the measure when it had its second reading in the Commons but abstained in the third reading vote.

Ministers had hoped to see the controversial scheme become law before the election but, with time running out, they now accept that it will not reach the statute book without the active support of the Tories, the biggest party in the Lords.

“The ID cards Bill is dead,” one minister told The Independent yesterday.

Way back when in the mists of time when the Conservatives were in favour of ID cards, I made this suggestion:

It occurs to me that there’s probably a majority in the Scottish Parliament against ID Cards - certainly the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens and Socialists are against it, coming to 56 of the 129 MSPs. I would expect that the independents and SSCUP (another 5) would also be opposed which would then require only 5 Conservative and Labour MSPs to oppose them to have a majority (there are already two Conservatives on the list, and I believe the Scottish Conservative Party has the power to set its own policies on certain matters).

Now, the Parliament doesn’t have the power to stop the cards being introduced in Scotland, but it would have - assuming a Bill could be introduced into session - the power to rule that no governmental body under the supervision of the Parliament would be required to, or even allowed, to request to see someone’s ID card before receiving a service. Nothing major - Scottish residents would still be registered on the national database, for a start - but it would be a small chink of light against the lumbering shadow cast by Charlie the Safety Elephant.

Now, via the Honourable Fiend, I find that this happened today:

The Scottish Parliament has voted against UK Government plans to introduce identity cards.

The measures were branded “regressive” and a threat to personal freedom during a debate called by the Scottish Greens at Holyrood.

Labour insisted that the system would actually strengthen civil liberties.

MSPs rejected ID cards by 52 votes to 47 after the Green motion received cross-party support, although the matter is reserved to Westminster

I doubt that this was after reading my suggestion - they seem to be following the lead of several councils who have rejected ID cards - but it’s nice to know that I can have a good idea sometimes.

I was slightly worried by the statement that ‘The Liberal Democrats abstained from the vote.‘ but it seems that it was more to do with the party not being able to vote against the Administration they’re a part of than any desire to vote in favour of everyone being stamped with the Official Anti-Terrorist Mark of the Safety Elephant. See for instance, this report of a Labour MSP attacking them over it.

Update: The whole debate can now be read online. It also contains one of the most asinine defences of ID cards by a Labour Party member I’ve read in a while - see here for Pauline McNeill MSP arguing that because we pick up cookies while on the internet, ID cards aren’t really that big an imposition on our privacy. Unless there’s been a change in the plans, I expect that ID cards won’t come with an easily executable ‘delete card’ option.

The Deaprtment of Social Scrutiny have an exlusive first look at the form you’ll have to (and I mean have to - you don’t want to be uncooperative do you, citizen?) fill in to get your identity card. Form an orderly queue (as instructed by the Queues and Systems Of Waiting Act 2007).

Matt wrote the other day about Tory proposals to cut the number of MPs, and now it seems they’re planning to cut down the number of candidates they’re standing to get down to that number. Well, maybe not, but it seems quite strange for a party to wait until just a possible few months before an election to decide which of their PPCs are effective and which aren’t and need to be replaced.

And as the sales are on, have two Tory stories for the price of one, with this report of the internal sniping over ID cards continuing.

I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered.

An attempt to derail the government’s controversial plans for identity cards has failed in the House of Commons.

In the first Commons vote on the scheme, MPs voted by 385 to 93 to give the bill a second reading.

Number 6: What do you want?
Number 2: We want information.
Number 6: Whose side are you on?
Number 2: That would be telling. We want information… information… information.
Number 6: You won’t get it.
Number 2: By hook or by crook, we will.
Number 6: Who are you?
Number 2: The new Number 2.
Number 6: Who is Number 1?
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man.

I’m too busy playing Europa Universalis - discovering Australia with Francis Drake right now, if you’re interested - to do any detailed blogging right now so go and read Henry Porter’s Guardian column:

So the important point is not that we need to identify ourselves, but that the government wishes to identify us, which is a different matter and one that should set off alarms. That David Blunkett has been replaced by Charles Clarke, who has shown that he has some reservations about the details of the scheme, should not mean that we relax.

To be anonymous, to go privately, to move residence without telling the authorities is a fundamental liberty which is about to be taken from us. People may not choose to exercise this entitlement to privacy, or see the point of it, but once it’s gone and a vast database is built, eventually to be accessed by every tentacle of the government machine, we will never be able to claw it back. We are about to surrender a right which is precious, rare even in western democracies, and profoundly emblematic of our culture and civilisation. And what for? The government advances arguments of necessity, raising the threats of terrorism, organised crime, benefit fraud and illegal immigration.

It is obvious that the members of criminal gangs will not be deterred by having to apply for identity cards, just as they are not by the need to have a passport. The possession of a legitimate national ID card does not of itself magically prevent criminal intent. It doesn’t in mafia and Camorra strongholds of Italy, so why should it here?

Well, as there’s no longer any need for the name Big Blunkett - and ‘Big Clarke’ sounds more like a statement of fact than a satirical soubriquet - Jamie suggests a title for the new Home Secretary and provides us with, in comics parlance, an origin story.

Elsewhere, those of you suitably annoyed by Michael Howard’s decision to back ID Cards might want to check out the 1952 Committee for “previously pro-Tory bloggers who have decided not to vote Tory because of their support for ID cards“.

Finally, a thought I’ve had about a potential battlefront against the implementation of ID Cards - the Scottish Parliament (those of you north of the border might find the NO2ID Scotland site helpful, by the way). It occurs to me that there’s probably a majority in the Scottish Parliament against ID Cards - certainly the SNP, Lib Dems, Greens and Socialists are against it, coming to 56 of the 129 MSPs. I would expect that the independents and SSCUP (another 5) would also be opposed which would then require only 5 Conservative and Labour MSPs to oppose them to have a majority (there are already two Conservatives on the list, and I believe the Scottish Conservative Party has the power to set its own policies on certain matters).

Now, the Parliament doesn’t have the power to stop the cards being introduced in Scotland, but it would have - assuming a Bill could be introduced into session - the power to rule that no governmental body under the supervision of the Parliament would be required to, or even allowed, to request to see someone’s ID card before receiving a service. Nothing major - Scottish residents would still be registered on the national database, for a start - but it would be a small chink of light against the lumbering shadow cast by Charlie the Safety Elephant.

Like Dave, I find it strange to type that, but he’s got the ID Cards Bill down pat:

a bad law brought in by a bad government for bad motives in a bad way

It’ll be interesting to watch on Monday not just how many Conservative backbenchers join LIlley in voting against it, but how many frontbenchers suddenly discover a pressing engagement that prevents them from joining their leader in the Aye lobby.

The Guardian has more on the Conservative decision to back ID Cards next week, and it’s all down to a single, simple overriding principle - opportunism.

Tory strategists feared they would be wrongfooted if they were seen to be soft on crime, asylum or terrorism in the election run-up.

It had been open to the shadow cabinet to oppose the government’s version of identity cards on the grounds of cost and impracticality, but Mr Howard was determined not to send out a mixed message on law and order which Mr Blunkett could exploit.

So, it all comes down to the basic principle that Michael Howard doesn’t want to be seen as being ’soft on crime’, so he’s going to support a scheme that will cost billions, force everyone in the country to pay more (remember those Tory pledges to cut taxes? Out of the window!) that’s only effect on crime will probably be to increase it as people get charged for refusing to hand over their personal details to the state that Michael Howard believes should be small.

Meanwhile, though, some Tory (or Tory-supporting) (sorry, my mistake in attributing party support to some people) bloggers have been expressing their displeasure with the whole thing - see here, here, here, here and here. And while there doesn’t seem to be anything on the Conservative Party’s site about this, you could always spend a bit of time taking this survey from a Conservative PPC to let him know what you think. Update: See also this Conservative candidate for more.

Anyway, Chris Lightfoot has more on ID cards, so go read him.

Matt was wondering the other day about what the Conservative Party’s line on ID Cards was, as they haven’t made it clear. Well, it seems that Michael Howard has won the argument and they’re going to come out in favour of them:

The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards, the party has said.

The shadow cabinet announced its support ahead of next Monday’s Commons vote on a bill to introduce them.

But never fear, they’re going to put them under very severe scrutiny:

Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives pledged to hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.

They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them.

They also said they would assess their cost effectiveness and whether people’s privacy was properly protected.

“It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect,” a spokesman said.

“It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration.”

So the question of why they’re backing them remains unanswered - if they’re not going to do anything to solve the supposed problems of crime and immigration, then why are they supporting them? And, saving the Government the job of having to come out with a new spin, Blunkett (or whoever’s Home Secretary in January) can just come out and say ‘You voted for them, so you can’t really criticise it now, can you?’

And talking of Blunkett, has anyone suggested to Michael Howard that when you’re the opposition and the Home Secretary is under pressure, one of the best ways to help keep him under pressure is to vote against rather than for one of his flagship bills. I know the whole ‘opportunist‘ thing must sting a bit, but perhaps this is a time when you should maybe be doing your job as Leader of the Opposition and, well, opposing the Government.

But for all those Tories who like to proclaim that their party is the one that believes in freedom for the individual, reducing the power of the state (remember that whole ‘I believe that the people should be big. That the state should be small‘ thing? Or is that just so eleven months ago?) please feel free to continue saying it. I’ll do my best to try and not laugh in your face if you do. (Though Conservatives who do sincerely believe this might want to write to their leader and remind him of his own views and also consider joining NO2ID)

Via Alister, who got it from someone else, as it’s been doing the rounds recently:

Operator: “Thank you for calling Domino’s. May I have your national ID number?”

Customer: “I’d like to place an order.”

Operator: “I must have your NIDN first, sir?”

Customer: “My National ID Number. Erm, haud on, it’s 6102049998-45-54610.”

Operator: “Thank you, Mr. Smith. I see you live at 1449 Great Western Road, and the phone number’s 494-2366. Your office number at Lincoln Insurance is 745-2302, and your mobile number’s 266-2566. Email address is smith@home.net. Which number are you calling from, sir?”

Customer: “Eh? I’m at home. Where did ye get all this information?”

Operator: “We’re wired into the NSD, sir.”

Customer: “The NSD, what is that?”

Operator: “We’re wired into the National Security Database, sir. This will add only 15 seconds to your ordering time". (more…)