You are a number now.

Wankers. I still can't help but be bemused by the irony that the left has introduced this nasty, mendacious, intrusive and outrageously expensive measure.

We have crazed Islamofascists threatening to behead us for publications in a Danish newspaper, suicide bombers, incredible levels of national and personal debt....the list could go on forever....and these twats think the solution is a card and an insecure database.

If there is better a sign of politicians being out of touch with the real world and the people they represent then please someone tell me.

I still can't help but be bemused by the irony that the left has introduced this nasty, mendacious, intrusive and outrageously expensive measure.

What irony? It's the acme of Leftism.

Are these the same lefties who, in the eighties would scream blue murder at the thought of ID cards being introduced by the Tories.

I would argue that the left ignore the individual (ends not means, classless etc) whilst the right acknowledge the individual (property rights, liberty) and therefore would, will and have argued that there is ironic beauty of a leftish leader introducing ID cards. Particularly as he was stupid enough to get this into Hansard:

"Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards as the Tory Right demand, let that money provide thousands more police officers on the beat in our local communities"

(His Toniness to Michael Howard)

Apologies, it wouldn't have got into Hansard (I thought it was a parliamentary debate) but Tone said the above quote at the 1995 Labour party conference in Brighton.

Fucking bastards.

I have an Irish passport at the minute....doesn't look like I'll be getting a British one again.

Reality bites.

I chose to renew my passport early to at least postpone the problem for me.... not that this had stopped the Embassy in Washington DC that issued the passport from trebling the fee presumably to handle the extra future work of integrating with the ID card.

Thank God I have joint citizenship with another EU country. Still, would've been nice to have been able to renew my British passport sometime in the future.

Why worry,just get a false passport and travel as a foreigner

To be fair, this is not the left but the 'radical centre' (i.e. fascism). The sincere left, as represented by the Socialist Campaign Group, produced the great majority of Labour MPs willing to vote against the government on this. See here.

This is not over. The Lords can still resist further. And if the Bill becomes law, it still has to be made to work. The government strategy is gradualist for a reason. Most people still haven't noticed it is happening or what it means. The government doesn't want the people to wake up while they are being fettered. (Cf. PAYE)

My passport accidentally went in the washing machine last night. Still had 5 years left on it, but, oh dear, I need to renew it now.

Guy, indeed. And the cost of "making it work" will run into billions. The moral principle won't break it, but the sheer financial cost probably will.

5(2) Where an individual applies for a designated document he must either apply to be entered in the National ID Register or, if he is already entered, confirm and correct the contents of his entry.

The Lords had changed "must" to "may, if he chooses", so that applying for an Identity Card would be voluntary, and not compulsory for people who needed to have a "designated document" such as a passport. Could someone tell me how many more such amendments would be allowed by the Lords, i.e. how long are they able to drag this out by sending the bill back to the Commons?

My understanding was that in their manifesto the thieving lying NuLabor scum said that they would introduce an ID card which would be voluntary, and the Lords were therefore keeping them to their word. This is of course unacceptable to NuLabor, because what they said was not what they meant, and they are the masters now.

If the Lords are trying to keep the government to its manifesto commitments, rather than seeking to strike down a manifesto commitment, then by convention the government should not use the Parliament Act to force this legislation through. Since we are dealing with a thieving lying bunch of quasi-fascist NuLabor scum, they will.

Brown's contribution was crucial here. We all know he will be PM in 12 to 18 months. Up until now he has been pretty quiet about ID cards, but now he has come down firmly in favour of them. Few NuLabor MPs have any respect for or fear of My Little Toni, who is a busted flush, but Gordon is the coming man, and if he's for ID cards, then any toadying little weasel who wants to get his saggy arse in a ministerial Mondeo knows what he has to do.

I'm worried that if I don't get an ID card/burn my ID card they'll cut off my benefit. I guess that's not really a concern for some of you, as ISTR posters here suggesting that a non tax payer like me shouldn't even have a vote. (I do pay tax in VAT though, so WUWT?)

5789437594321

I still can't help but be bemused by the irony that the left has introduced this nasty, mendacious, intrusive and outrageously expensive measure.

What irony? What do you think the Left does? Why do you think it exists?

Blogner Regis quotes one of Sir Winston's 1945 election broadcasts. Go read it and marvel at how his words apply just as much now as to then.

K,

I'm worried that if I don't get an ID card/burn my ID card they'll cut off my benefit

Exactly. That's the entire point of the system. Population management. The rest of us may find we are not allowed to earn money, or have a bank account to put it in without compliance.

John K,

My understanding was that in their manifesto the thieving lying NuLabor scum said that they would introduce an ID card which would be voluntary,[...]

What they said was, "We will introduce ID cards, including biometric data like fingerprints, backed up by a national register and rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports." This in the section of the manifesto dealing with immigration and "secure borders". Plainly saying as little as possible about the scheme--which had already had one parliamentary outing--in order not to perturb the plebs. John Lettice explains the subtlties here.

What got the Lords' goat in a big way was: (1) The utter misrepresentation at the heart of the promotion, with voluntary=compulsory, and the debate about an original system of national registration, datasharing and surveillance being framed as being about "cards" and ICAO compliant passports; and (2) the Government tried to insist that the Salisbury convention applies not only to what's written in the manifesto but any interpretation they choose to make of it or any intention they might say was behind it.

Were not the largest group in the Lords now Blair placemen who are willingly whipped, there would have been majorities for sanity in three figures in that House. It could never have passed the Commons without the business managers being able to point to weasel words in the manifesto, play on Labour tribal solidarity given the Cameron threat, bully 'ringleaders' among the opponents, and trade compromises on other issues for votes. This week's business has been ordered with enormous care to give the Government momentum.

Guy: initially on a voluntarily basis, as people renew their passports

Now, call me a curmudgeonly old pedant, but this cannot mean "if you apply/renew for a passport you MUST get an ID card". People do not choose to have a passport, they NEED it to exercise their freedom of movement. Thus, linking is compulsion, so the HoL are within their rights to throw out this Sociofascistic nonsense without the Parliament Act being used.

That does not stop it, however.

Also, judging by the ambiguous, disingenuous wording, Tone really HAS been reading the Koran...

The Lords, NO2ID, and the impression in the mind of the public is with you. As is the media, including The Times, which has previously taken its usual passive editorial position with regard to barking Government policy.

However, the Government position as expressed to its own backbenchers is that it is perverse to regard this as other than a promise to compel people. The Home Office position is that you are not compelled if it is obligatory to be registered to travel, drive, work with children or the vulnerable, or otherwise in your professional avocation, get a shotgun licence, etc, etc... since you could choose not to do any of those things.

If pressed the Passport Office will additionally point out they can put any conditions they like on acquisition of a passport in particular since no-one has a right to a passport, it being a privilege granted under prerogative. They may not push this too far, since by contrast it undermines the designation of other documents, but it was the fall-back position allowing the database to be begun if parliament for some reason refused to go ahead with the primary legislation. And of course the Home Office also insists, contrary to common law, both that a passport constitutes 'travel authorisation' and that it is necessary to enter the country.

Surely, the right to travel freely between EU countries could be used to argue against overly restrictive passport conditions, Guy. The EU and the Human Rights Act - a blunt implement but sometimes effective in protecting liberty...

Yes, most members of the House of Commons are scum.

It would be well to have a list of the nonscum.

People should know who they are voting for - such voting lists should be made well know.