not to weigh in too heavily (just putting on my ‘if this were to happen in Oz’ hat), even if there is a sound logic to its implementation, im against it on two fundamental levels
just fuck off…i understand if i want to drive on the public roads, or if i want to travel to a different country i need a form of proof of identity, but to just exist…nah…all good, you dont need a photo of me for that…as for needing it to hold a job down…why? never been needed before…it will lead to a centralised payment system where the government gets your money as you earn it, and pay you whats left after they administer it (with added costs)…as if PAYG isnt quite getting enough of our wedge ontime.
probably most importantly, it just will be too expensive to establish, will create a top heavy department for no reason, be administered pourly, and just to prove the need for its own use will be required for proof on a number of things that have survived without it for decades
i had to do a few things online recently, nothing of major importance, and they all required my LIc. and passport verification…was really weird…
All I’ve seen and heard re. identity cards seems to be scaremongering. “They’ll be able to do this”, “They’ll be able to do that” sort of thing.
An example. Could they not do this anyway? The government knows everything they need to know about me already I’m sure.
Why can’t a card just have your picture and name on it?
Not having a go at anyone btw, I just don’t get the extreme scenario’s being presented.
And I’d much rather that this is organised by a government considering checks and balances and backed by legislation restricting who/how/why this info can be requested instead of an overseas corporate entity that says ‘trust us’ while selling the data.
Farage has opposed the idea. Just a very strange move from Labour all round, but it has been a weird little fetish for Blair and his New Labour minions (ie, Starmer) for decades.
Speak of the devil, The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change is heavily funded by Larry Ellison, founder of Oracle, which makes money selling databases software.
It will cost a fortune and there is no pressing need. British Citizens have no great difficulty in proving their identity. Like Nuclear Power, ID cards are a classic ‘solution looking for a problem’. Under Blair they were the answer to the war on terror. Now it’s about migration.
The reason why ID cards crop up every now and then is because massive US data companies lobby for it. They promise the world - we’ll bring jobs, we’ll solve your current problem - all you have to do is surrender your citizens personal data. I don’t think that it’s a coincidence this has cropped up just after a US state visit.
ID cards always come with a presumed infallibility. One ID to rule them all sounds attractive, but if your digital ID is compromised, you are fucked. It places too much power in one card/system.
ID cards represent a redrawing of the relationship between the state and its citizens. We’ve never had a ‘papers please’ mentality in this country, and as citizens we’ve never had to prove our existence to the state. Governments should be afraid of citizens, not the other way round.
Speaking of which, the reason you worry about ID and increased control of personal data is not the current benign government. It’s what a future government could do with that data and control. That was a big concern when Labour tried this before, and it’s not like we’re further away from an authoritarian government now.
It’s been floating around UK governments for at least the last 40 years in one form or another. With much of the government’s service going digital, it is understandable why they would look to bring in an ID such as this now.
I hear king Charles III and Camilla are visiting the Pope soon. I presume it’s to get a good cleansing after having to support the orange ogre for so long.
Because, in theory at least, it should be a more efficient way for citizens to access and interact with information the government already holds and for sections of the goverment to work together behind the scenes to provide its services.
yeah, id probably be more concerned thats its really just another government division getting fat off a budget for no net benefit…
they tell you its needed, and present some ridiculous spreadsheet on how it will ‘save red tape and be save money by streamlining a process’ or some such shite, but itll generally just be more fat for net zero gain.
The why is more to do with “Do we need so many new homes and especially in the shape of new towns”. The inner city development seems reasonable but whole new towns seems a bit drastic with a level of investment that feels out of reach.
Redevelopment and expansion come with other issues.
Anecdotally. Where I lived, just on the other side of the South Downs from Brighton, there was a expansion of the town in 2 phases. One about a 15 years ago and one that started about 3 years ago. The new plan was to build around 500 new homes through various developers. The main issue I had with it was the lack of infrastructure that existed or faithfully planned for. Our development, this was the decade old one, was built by developers that promised to build a new infants and primary schools - to cater for the children that would require them as the houses were taken up. It was not built. These new 500+ homes will definitely need new schools but the houses were up and no sign of the schools. Beyond the schools, there is very little access to shops (for food) that you can access by walking. The public transport is a non-starter. The roads were woefully under the requirements for the capacity that were (and now definitely) needed.
I guess I lack a bit of trust in question of new towns and why we need the huge numbers of houses we seem to need. I acknowledge that housing is unaffordable for most but is building more and more houses the only answer - maybe it is the most practical one.
Agreed. There are so many brown field sites in our major cities, especially in the North which could be developed. They are already near the infrastructure you describe and wouldn’t need the amount of planning that somewhere in Sussex or similar would require.
Of course, this would need economic investment in those areas too, but that should be high on the list of a Labour government’s priorities anyway.
Wasn’t there a report out a few years ago, indicating that there were enough empty houses in Britain that could be bought and updated and allowed to be rented, by the local council, or bought by persons in Britain, without building on brown space areas, and green space areas…increasing jobs for the building sector, income for the council and apprentices learning a trade…I understand people like the thought of new houses…but it would help with the housing shortage.