“Burnham to scrap Starmer’s digital ID scheme in ‘reset of priorities’”, the Guardian reports.
Andy Burnham is expected to scrap Keir Starmer’s plans for digital ID cards in a “reset of priorities” when he enters Downing Street on Monday.
The new Labour leader plans to redirect the resources earmarked for the scheme towards tackling the cost of living, his team indicated on Saturday.
The Guardian understands the proposals are being outlined in an attempt to distance the incoming prime minister from unpopular choices made by his predecessor. A petition opposing the introduction of digital ID cards when it was announced last year attracted about 3m signatures.
Well done to all who signed it.
“One of the first things this government will do is put its focus where people need it right now: creating breathing space and delivering change they can feel in their everyday lives,” Burnham’s spokesperson said.
“That means all the time and resource that was going to be spent on a national ID scheme will go instead to where it’s most needed, such as helping with the cost of living.
Although the cost of the scheme would have been great (projected to be 1.8 billion pounds and we all know it would have gone astronomically over budget), the foolish things Mr Burnham will do with the money saved, such as free bus travel for 11-16 year olds according to the Telegraph, will add to inflation, making the cost of living higher.
But the money scarcely matters. The important thing is that this series of Yookay ends with Starmer’s monster being chased away. It’ll come back, it always does. Some of those old Blair episodes were right scary before they announced “Giant ID computer plan scrapped”. But for now, let the credits roll and make yourself a cup of tea.
Yes. Somewhere in the not too distant future there is a whole raft of problems just waiting to be solved by ID cards. In fact there is probably a whole department in Whitehall thinking up such problems.
Interesting.
At least Lord Hermer (an anti British fanatic who, for example, years ago, traveled thousands of miles to wave the flag of a foreign nation over the Chagos Islands – he really did that, “Death to Britain!” appears to be the personal motto of Lord Hermer, which he insists on shouting in the faces of the public) is no longer Attorney General.
And David “Reparations – the British must give us money” Lammy is no longer Deputy Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Burnham will, most likely, NOT change any major policies – but he does see that having members of the government who make their hatred (and it is hatred) of Britain, of the British people, obvious – is a problem. The message appears to be that hating Britain is one thing, but making it obvious (going around spitting in the faces of the British people) is not sensible.
Still. Glad that Hermer and the rest have been given the Spanish Archer. Lammy in particular was hard to bear.
Hopefully the Chagos surrender is allowed to quietly die in a corner now those who were clearly profiting from selling it to a Chinese ally have been thrown out.
First look at Burnham… Two things:
1) Burnham is just too young to remember that the Labour party in the 1970s was the reason they were then out of power for almost two decades. More of that, Andy lad, will lead straight to the grave for them.
2) All the namaste malarkey will grate like a swine come the first act of violence on his watch perpetrated by the folk he protects.
“OK, three! Three things!”
3) At least we have got rid of the actually stupid people from the Cabinet.
I am a similar age to Burnham. I remember the 70s and the 80s. To me, 1985 is strong in the memory. I remember Neil Kinnock, the much derided Welsh windbag. For Burnham, it was this man whose rhetoric enthused him into joining the Labour Party. Kinnock! I can barely find the words. If that is really the case, there is no hope for Burnham.
The 1980s were an exciting time for Britain, an exciting time to be British. No more three day weeks, power cuts and endless strikes. Victory in the Falklands. One could actually feel proud to be British. And yet the rhetoric of Neil Kinnock turned Burnham into a Labour member? The man is mad. He is deluded. He cannot really have lived through the 1980s, he literally must be an alien, it is the only explanation. Nothing else begins to make sense.
JohnK – to make Neil Kinnock one’s role model is indeed odd.
As for the 1980s – 1979 to 1982 was not good, higher taxes (overall), higher government spending, nothing done about union power and-so-on – Employment Secretary James Prior was a disaster (look at the unemployment levels) and so was the much over praised Chancellor Howe.
But after James Prior was got rid of, and Howe moved out of the Treasury – the situation dramatically improved. In those days a minister had real power (unlike now) – and Norman Tebbit as Employment Secretary and Nigel Lawson as Chancellor achieved a lot – as did Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
I am happy to have lived in the period – but after 1990 has not been good.
As for Mr Burnham – he says he is influenced by “Catholic Social Teaching” – he does not mean opposition to abortion or homosexuality, or opposition to “feminism”, he means ECONOMIC teaching – and he is talking about a specific strand in economic teaching which dates from 1891.
The Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (possibly written under the influence of the rather weird Cardinal Manning – Leo himself was a “prisoner in the Vatican” – his only knowledge of the outside world was what-he-was-told).
The first paragraph of the Encyclical states that capitalism has reduced most people to terrible poverty – not true, wages had never been higher (not lower – higher).
It then praises “working class solidarity” – meaning unions and government backed Collective Barganing, which, in reality, is a machine for creating UNEMPLOYMENT.
And the paragraph also claims that capitalism has produced terrible “moral depravity” – this was in 1891 when Gladstone was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and such things as births out of wedlock were rare (certainly no more common than in previous centuries) – to claim that society was more immoral in 1891 than 1791 or 1591 was false – utterly false.
This first paragraph, this opening of the 1891 Encyclical, is what all the rest is based on – and it is nonsense, it really is nonsense.
Paul:
Agreed about the period 1979-1981. The victory in the Falklands saved Mrs T, despite John Nott’s attempts to cut the Royal Navy. It was still four times bigger then than it is now. Weakness always invites aggression.
I am still amazed that Burnham could have been so inspired by the speeches of Neil Kinnock that he joined the Labour Party in 1985. There were so many good things you could do with your life in 1985. Joining the Labour Party was not one of them. There is something very wrong about him.
Probably the only one turning in a full days work!
We don’t get much good news in this country at the present time, so I will take any glimmer of hope that I can. The temporary scrapping if digital ID cheers me in the same way that the 2010 Coalition’s scrapping of ID cards did. Maybe it is a sign that popular discontent counts for something in the calculations of the political elite.
Christopher, unfortunately it really hasn’t been scrapped
Are you implying that Andy For Us is a disingenuous toad? Surely not! He’s from the North you know. He sometimes mentions it.