?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

ID card pledge

perlmonger spotted this pledge "to refuse to register for an ID card and donate £10 to a legal defence fund but only if 10,000 other people will also make this same pledge'. I signed up when there were only ten people on the list but I didn't scoop the confirmation mail out of my junk filter until today, where there are around 2,000 people signed up already. The signup rate is about one a minute and if the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill is coming up soon it would be nice to have enough people opposing the scheme to put paid to the idea that there is no opposition except from conmen and crooks. If you haven't got round to it, go stand up for your views ;-)

Comments

( 29 comments — Leave a comment )
muninnhuginn
14th Jun, 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Well, you beat me to it by about a thousand and I signed up earlier today.

I think we'll be parting with those tenners. Just hope they won't be needed.
moral_vacuum
14th Jun, 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Petitions make no difference to policy. Sorry to be so negative...
(Deleted comment)
moral_vacuum
14th Jun, 2005 17:39 (UTC)
Laudable, true. But with the current administration, the usual rules of politics seem not to apply (and they'd see it as a badge of honour to shove this legislation through). Whilst I didn't agree with the coutryside alliance, they had a hell of a lot of resource and support, and it still didn't work. Oh well, before long we'll all be microchipped...

I really ought to stop this, I'm evidently feeling far too nihilistic for civilized discourse this afternoon!
(Deleted comment)
moral_vacuum
14th Jun, 2005 17:51 (UTC)
Fair enough. And believe me, I don't want to see this in place either!

Leaving aside the civil liberties aspect, which is a bloody huge thing to leave aside but the arguments don't need reiteration, a Government IT project of this size and scope would be a financial, logistical and political disaster of the greatest magnitude. And whatever fallout they get from it, they would deserve threefold.
fjm
14th Jun, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
Mostly you are right, but if Blair has any historical memory he will wonder whether he wants something like the poll tax debacle on his hands. You never know, it's always worth a try, and in this case there is money being pledged also.
moral_vacuum
14th Jun, 2005 17:44 (UTC)
The level of resistance over the longer term would depend on what the penalties are for not having one, or what it becomes more difficult to access because of not having one.

Most people, if faced with a massive fine or a short jail term or finds themselves unable to get car insurance or whatever, will cave in.

muninnhuginn
14th Jun, 2005 17:49 (UTC)
If it were really thought through, then the joined-up government systems would require you to insert your ID card into the black box in the car in order to clock up your tax on miles driven.
moral_vacuum
14th Jun, 2005 18:00 (UTC)
There are few things more depressing than when politicians have one of their periodic fits of techno joy.
muninnhuginn
14th Jun, 2005 18:18 (UTC)
Yup, especially when in the distance there's the cloud of inevitable overspend and botched implementation looming.
(Deleted comment)
muninnhuginn
14th Jun, 2005 22:51 (UTC)
Well the possibility of tracking has been mentioned in various places, but I wonder about how accurate--let alone reliable--any such system would be.

I'll stick to being a non-driver, I think.
marypcb
14th Jun, 2005 23:45 (UTC)
if they plan to tell the difference between B roads and the motorways they run alongside they'd better have something that resolves to GPS level... in a year or so GPS tranceivers will be a $5-10 chipset
marypcb
14th Jun, 2005 23:39 (UTC)
Jeremy Clarkson pointed out that they'll know not just where you are - but how fast you're going...
fjm
14th Jun, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
You are absolutely right, but the cost is projected to be so high that I think it will have the same target effect as the poll-tax. Non-working wives who do not qualify for any kind of reduction will find it a problem. In effect, the same segment of middle-England that refused to pay the poll tax and looked so damn embarrassing in court.

In the end tho', for me it comes down to, doing nothing is much, much worse.

I do recommend that you all get new passports now however.
moral_vacuum
14th Jun, 2005 17:59 (UTC)
The key here is if they do what they intend and make everyone pay a hundred quid for one. If central government paid for it, it would defuse a lot of the resistance (but there is no way on this earth the Treasury would let it happen, not least because if HMT resists then it makes Gordon that much more electable).

The problem is, people don't seem to mind "government money" paying for something, as even though it's taxpayers money it's not felt to be a direct cost to them personally. But making them pay directly for something? Whoo boy, trouble in store.
marypcb
14th Jun, 2005 18:22 (UTC)
I've seen seen costs of up to £300 per card; that kind of cost should give people pause for thought but by that time they're here and we're all a bit stuffed.
moral_vacuum
15th Jun, 2005 09:29 (UTC)
Especially on top of HMG making people convert to digital TV in a similar timescale...
marypcb
15th Jun, 2005 13:03 (UTC)
HMG must be soooo pleased with E4 putting BB on Freeview and selling digital TV for them
moral_vacuum
15th Jun, 2005 18:46 (UTC)
E4 on DTT is, for my money, the proof that the platform is mature. Also of course Channel 4 know full well that the policy is that it's happening no matter what the uptake is, as long as "the most vulnerable are protected", whatever that means. I'm SO glad I don't work on switchover any more...

Crown Castle and SDN were seen as short-sighted flogging so many slots to shopping channels etc, but they were all on short-term contracts, so once the platform took off more quality channels would be willing to pay lots to get on there.
muninnhuginn
14th Jun, 2005 17:47 (UTC)
Even if all 10,000 cough up when the target's reached, that's only a fund of £100,000. This won't go far if mounting a legal defence of a refusnik does become necessary (and I rather expect that it will).
marypcb
14th Jun, 2005 18:18 (UTC)
quite possibly - I suspect it might need 100,000 pledges to get any significant attention - but we can but try! And if there are people getting counted as opposing it, can they keep claiming no-one opposes it? And, basically, I can't bear to do nothing. Write to your MP too, of course.
(Deleted comment)
marypcb
14th Jun, 2005 18:40 (UTC)
when did the people who elect the politicians become so irrelvant to them?
moral_vacuum
15th Jun, 2005 09:40 (UTC)
The following isn't cynicism, this is based on experience:

You write to your MP. He writes to the relevant Secretary of State/Minister saying "well?". SoS/Minister's office sends it down to the part of the department dealing with this policy/project. A reply is drafted by a junior manager trotting out the official line. Amongst the other 500 or so other things the Minister/SoS sees/sings that evening in the red box is the letter. They might, if you're lucky, actually read it before signing it, but this really doesn't happen very often. That's it.

Letter-writing/postcard campaigns: Minister's Office sends bundles of stuff down to the section dealing with this issue and that's all they do with it. Some junior manager not only drafts the replies trotting out the official line, but also sends them out. So the upshot is an underpaid overworked civil servant has to write lots of letters saying the same thing. Well that was worth it.

What might make a difference:
Massive public disobedience. Electoral upsets. Lobbying by powerful/famous people. Common sense prevailing (this has actually been known to happen). Europe saying "do this and we'll fine your ass". Lack of funding from Treasury. Massive votes against in the Commons - but free votes are rare, and the Whips are very powerful. The Lords used to stop stuff, but now the Parliament Act is being abused to force through badly thought through legislation they have less power.

Why some MPs don't care: They know that it is rare for someone to be voted out over a single issue. They want to toe the party line and become Ministers. There's something in their past/present that the Whips know about. They don't want the support from Central Office to be cut off in the next election.
marypcb
15th Jun, 2005 13:06 (UTC)
this was why I found it so depressing when the RIP disaster was mitigated not by consultation by by the minister's son telling him not to be a dick. The end result was good but the means are *terrifying*

Do you think the increase in correspondance from sites like FaxYourMP makes any impression on them?
moral_vacuum
15th Jun, 2005 18:50 (UTC)
On MPs, posssibly. But on Ministers? Probably not.

The problem we have is an idealist government whose ideals have become skewed, and they indulge in groupthink. Which means that they have a bright idea, we have to make it happen come what may, and anyone who diagrees is "the forces of conservatism". What gets me is how much they spend on Special Advisors, who are meant to be politically savvy, but they make SO many fundamental political mistakes!
marypcb
15th Jun, 2005 13:10 (UTC)
what counts as massive? obviously the million marchers wasn't enough, but I guess you don't need as many rioters, and maybe not as many stationery protesters... we need a calculus of protest.
moral_vacuum
15th Jun, 2005 18:54 (UTC)
Perhaps we need Euan and Nicky Blair to tell their dad to stop being a dick? It's worked before...
( 29 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

full steam ahead
marypcb
Mary Branscombe
Simon & Mary

Latest Month

September 2017
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow