The privacy piggies keep on squealing

Regular readers will remember that when it was announced that ID cards were for the chop, I couldn't resist delighting in the news that those who had paid for an ID card weren't going to be recompensed. If you play with matches etc...

Soon after, David 'Big' Blunkett moaned that it was all terribly unfair and threatened to sue the new Government. His empty threat was pushed one-step further by deluded Mancunian hack Angela Epstein, who proudly announced she was filing her form to the small claims court.

Now this trickle of ID card apologists trying to defend their pathetic little scheme has turned into a torrent - and it's time it stopped.

Julie Hilling, the Labour MP for Atherton, has been bleating that her constituents feel terribly hard done by.

Roberta Blackman-Woods, Labour MP for Durham, has used a different method and complained about the damage that will be done to all of 60-odd jobs in her area.

Even the notorious bad-boy of the Commons, Dennis MacShane, has thrown his hat into the ring with an op ed entitled 'I love my ID card.' 

I am genuinely perplexed. As was revealed last week, in the end just 13,200 people actually paid for an ID card in the five months they were on offer - a pathetic number of people for this sort of reaction. In addition, both the Lib Dems and Conservatives (who between them polled 17.5 million votes compared to Labour's 8.6) ran on a policy of scrapping the ID card.

The war is over - the ID card sympathisers lost. It's time they realised it.

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[Andrew Ampers Taylor]

Is this about ID Cards?

Are you sure?

[guy herbert]

13,200 cards were issued is not the same as 13,200 people paying for them. The same article points out that *at least* 3,000 were distributed 'free' - i.e. we taxpayers paid for the enrollment. Since even £30 was a grotesque subsidy price, invented to persuade innumerate Labour backbenchers during the passage of the bill that the scheme would not be a burden on their poorer constituents, in fact all the people of Britain paid for those cards, and the massive programme to issue them, by way of taxes.

[Simon Evans]

When the ID card programme was rolled out it was said that cardholders would have to pay for 'biometric enrolment' - ie getting a digital photo and their fingerprints taken. The cost of this was going to be about 30 pounds in addition to the cost of the card. But to persuade people to sign up for cards at all they had to cost significantly less than a passport, so the cost of photos and fingerprints was quietly forgotten about (although not for passports!). The Identity Commissioner (whose only job was to see that the IPS played by the rules) spent 585,000 pounds - about 44 pounds per card issued! The total government expenditure on the system will never be known as much of it has been buried, but runs to at least 500m - probably 40,000 pounds per card issued, and more if you just count the cards actually paid for. Repaying those who wasted their money will not happen.

[Redacted]

Turkeys who voted for Christmas.

[Martin Keegan]

volenti non fit bloody injuria

[blastproof]

Does anyone know whether or not we are still to be required to surrender our fingerprints for a passport and if so when will the fingerprinting requirement start?

[Alex Deane]

@blastproof: it's my understanding that the new Government has suspended this.

[Vincent]

I take it from your article that you feel therefore that, as a general principle, it's perfectly acceptable for a incoming government to invalidate without compensation any contractual agreement reached by a previous administration with individual citizens concerning a policy it disagrees with? And when the current administration loses power (as they all do) it will be perfectly OK for its successor to adopt the same principle: to be perfectly within its rights to refuse to honour any contract concerning a policy that it objected to while in opposition, and any contract between the then government and those citizens that concerned that policy? Unfortunately this effectively gives any defeated Opposition party an effective veto over the legislatiive programme of the democrtatically elected government of the day. Interesting.

Or maybe you only think it should apply to this particular group of citizens. In which case, in addittion to being inconsistant, you seem unpleasantly vindictive and partisan. Prove me wrong Alex. Tell me our New Conservative Party isn't just the old Nasty Party in disguise.

[Dee Jay]

I suppose these are the same people who might complain when an item they bought last week has been reduced in a sale this week.
Tough. You wanted it and you went and got it.

[Biffo]

I blame the Labour govt for this. They knew from Day 1 that there were a number of objectors & objections to the ID card scheme & particularly the NIR database behind it. A number that grew & grew as each new example of Civil Liberties being curtailed by the ID card & its options for ever more intrusive surveillance were unveiled. They chose to ignore the wishes of the majority, forgetting in their arrogance & wrong-headedness that they are there to serve us - not us serve them. They also chose to ignore the fact that both the other main Parties said they would get rid of ID cards. So let anyone peeved with losing their £30 go & approach their local ex-Labour MP (or even a not so local ex-Labour MP)& attempt to get the money from them - after all, they've all had a golden goodbye and are therefore best placed to deal with the dismal failure of a misguided & unwanted surveillance system which they thought they could foist on the voters. Thank Christ for General Elections is all I can say.

[blastproof]

@Alex ~ thank you for letting me know.