We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The government’s ‘consultation exercise’ on the introduction of ID cards and which we flagged up last month officially ended yesterday.
A lot of people who hold strong views on this subject, including the Samizdata team, have made those objections known to the Home Office but I rather doubt that that will stymie the determination of HMG to press ahead with their introduction. The governments wants an ID card scheme and, if opinion surveys on the matter are to be believed, so does much of the British public. It is only a matter of time.
A trifling relief though, is that the Independent has decided to live up to its name for a change:
“Initially the state bureaucracy made showing one’s card a precondition for dealing with it. Today, it is business that increases the reach of identity cards. Spaniards have long needed them to open bank accounts; now they are vital for any credit-card purchase, and bureaux de change won’t serve you without them. It’s also impossible to buy a mobile telephone without theDNI, for the network will log its number with that of the phone. I guess the police can see such records: they are certainly told who is checking into Spanish hotels, since Spaniards must show their DNI. The hotel passes its number straight to the police.
Employers love identity cards. They photocopy the DNIs of new staff, whose payslips then carry the number for tax purposes. This, linked to bank records, allows the authorities to track individuals all through Spain’s financial system. What really amazes me is the way Spain’s card is needed for such harmless activities as renting a car or flat – or getting married. Our church did not read the banns but instead asked for DNI numbers. Even the nursery school expected to see it before taking our child.
When I ask Spaniards “Why?”, they seem surprised. Then I remember that at 14 they all had to visit their local police station to be fingerprinted and photographed before receiving their first DNI card. It’s a rite of passage that makes young Spaniards feel grown up, yet the first time they use their card is to sit school exams. Many will argue that such obsessive bureaucracy is cultural and could never come to Britain, but I predict it will. In Spain, British giants such as Barclaycard and Vodafone already ask to see customers’ identity cards and will do so here.”
A salutory reminder of not just the way that compulsory ID cards turn a society into an open-air prison but also of the profound difference between Anglo-Saxon ethos and that of Continental Europe. In Britain sadly, the former has been discarded in favour of the latter. Madness, utter madness.
“Continental experience shows that identity cards will dramatically change life in Britain. It also reveals why Whitehall really wants them. The daily logging of their unique card numbers will create audit trails that lead to that Blairite dream, joined-up government! This already exists in Europe because entire populations dutifully troop along to acquire identity cards, just because they always did. I wonder how Mr Blunkett will force 50 million-odd Britons to do likewise.”
All true enough but, unlike the author, I do not expect either Mr.Blunkett or any of his successors to be thwarted to any significant degree by the public. Due to the enactment of anti-money laundering laws, it is already impossible to open a bank account, transact money or buy a property in Britain without being required to produce a passport or driving licence. These impositions were introduced by stealth in the 1990’s without either a word of dissent or murmer of complaint. Moving to a universal ID card of the continental variety is but another few steps, especially in a few years when the principle of a government audit trail will have become widely accepted as a part of the social landscape.
I daresay the introduction of the cards will prove to be fraught with bungling and bureaucratic horrors but if anyone expects the British people not to stand for it, then they are heading for a crashing disappointment.
The Centre for Policy Studies published a report warning that the National Health Service is “on the brink of implosion” as government plans for a record 40 billion pound cash injection risk being squandered on bureaucracy. The author of the report, Dr Maurice Slevin, is a cancer specialist at a top London teaching hospital:
“I have seen at first hand the steady decay of a great public institution … The NHS is on the brink of implosion.”
Slevin, who came to England from South Africa and now works at Barts and the London NHS Trust, said he was full of enthusiasm when he started working for the NHS 24 years ago. But today it was clear that the quality of care delivered in Britain was far below that of other western countries. He warned that without major reforms, the 40 billion pound promised for the NHS over the next five years would “simply disappear into deeper and deeper layers of bureaucracy, with more and more monitoring of more and more targets.”
“Waste is endemic. The Department of Health itself admits that up to a fifth of the NHS budget is lost through waste, fraud and inefficiency.”
So it’s not more money that needs to be thrown at the public services as some community minded people would have us believe. The NHS is a strange institution, rooted in the meta-context of the collective effort the British nation experienced during the WWII and resisting any rational discourse by both the politicians and the public. Horror stories of patients suffering at the hands of NHS are part of regular reporting routine and yet, it still seems to be a political suicide to talk about real modernisation and de-nationalisation of the health care system.
Public services, being the most direct way for politicians of bribing the public into voting for them, have always been the most sensitive political issue. I have this horrible vision of the entire GDP disappearing into the NHS blackhole before the British public acknowledges the failure of the NHS as a system of health care provision and confronts the gruesome reality of public services.
It is a hallmark of all sinister government programmes that they are never advertised in advance as being sinister. Some might argue that this kind of deception is only to be expected, given the old ‘gently-boiling-frog’ theory. My own view is that the architects of these schemes genuinely don’t see them as the slightest bit sinister. In fact, quite the opposite.
For example, I have no doubt that the Whitehall mandarins behind this proposal regard it as a laudable exercise in sound administration:
“The Office for National Statistics has told the BBC it is planning the first official national wealth survey.
The new survey could include collecting data on a range of wealth indicators, from secured loans, investments, possessions and pensions take-up to house prices – and is aimed at getting a better picture of the country’s and individual wealth.”
A modern ‘domesday book’ listing who has got what and how much of it; a one-stop reference resource that will prove indispensable to the next generation of public sector wealth-grabbers.
Or perhaps not. Perhaps this is just another sterile technocratic exercise formulated for the purpose of providing lots of bureaucrats with years-worth of statistic fiddling, an exercise which they appear to love for its own sake. I certainly hope so but I can’t seem to get the word ‘sinister’ out of my mind, especially when the proposal is expressed in terms like this:
“It is believed the data could be used to formulate fiscal and social policies and to link the government’s policies closer to people’s real wealth.”
Management-speak or polite euphamism?
Chris Bertram of Junius has written:
I’ve just blogged about a matter that I think has potentially serious implications for freedom of expression in British universities. See link.
It is, too. Universities are understandably anxious not to have their names dragged in the dust by things like the Mona Baker affair. These proposals, however, would have a chilling effect way beyond that. As Bertram says:
“We could see, for example, a physicist who feels strongly about Tibet and protests against the Chinese government, being held to account for endangering the reputation of a university. Academic freedom would be no defence.”
UPDATE: Apologies for the bad link, and thanks to those who pointed it out. It ought to work now.
Most of the British armoured vehicles being sent to the Gulf in preparation for war with Iraq’a Ba’athist Socialist regime will arrive not painted in the correct desert warfare camouflage, but rather in the European colours. Not enough money for paint? Did the fact the Army was going to go to Iraq somehow take the Ministry of Defense by surprise?
This shoddy state of affairs is a measure of the true attitude of the Labour Party towards the military they are about to order into action. Yet somehow they find money for welfare payment to asylum seekers and legal aid to burglars who want to sue householders who use force to defend their property.
Whether one thinks government is a necessary thing (if only for fighting other, worse, governments) or not, it is well to remember that one should not place great trust in government.
A recent reminder of this in the British context:
A few years ago the mobile telephone (cell phone) companies paid the British government many billions of pounds for licences.
It is now widely agreed that the companies that got the licences went a bit mad during the auction process and grossly overpaid – but at least they thought they had an asset (even if it was an asset they had paid too much money for).
They were quite wrong. They forgot about the government’s power to regulate (although the very institution of a ‘licence’ should have reminded them of this power).
Now the government regulators have demanded that the mobile telephone companies cut the price of telephone calls.
In short the mobile telephone companies paid many billions of pounds for nothing. The powers that be can come along and regulate their profits away.
The “close working relationship” they had with the government was a sham, their trust in Mr Blair and Mr Brown with their “support for British high tech business” (like the late Harold Wilson’s “white heat of technology” back in the 1960’s) was quite mistaken.
Now the companies are screaming and going to court – but I bet they wish they had not got involved with the government in the first place.
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner warned the British public today in a television interview that Islamic terrorists linked to al-Qa’eda remain at large in Britain and pose a continuing security threat. He believes that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen are seeking to make use of existing terror networks in plans for further attacks.
“We know that there are certain links with al-Qa’eda and, of course, the link with North Africa is proven.”
Presumably, this has nothing to do with Britain’s policy on asylum seekers that allows a Taliban soldier who fought British and American troops in Afghanistan to be granted asylum here because he fears persecution from the new Western-backed government in Kabul (as already mentioned by Perry in the post below).
Although this is the first known case of a Taliban soldier being granted asylum in this country, I have no doubt that many have entered Britain with false documents and identities. They may need not bother anymore. Unless the policy changes, the successful application may open the doors to hundreds of other similar requests.
I wonder whether in few months’ time the police chief will insist that his officers are ‘on top of’ the situation. It seems that the left hand does not know what the right is doing.
Indeed, the state is not your friend.
I read an article a few weeks back, in the Guardian I believe, which consisted of a lament about the lack of originality or creativity in British TV comedy production these days. I cannot remember exactly who or what the writer felt was to blame for this state of affairs (America, probably) but I have my own theory. I believe that no comedy writer in Britain could possibly produce anything as farcical as real-life:
“Former Scotland footballer Duncan Ferguson is being investigated by police over allegations he assaulted a man burgling his home on Merseyside.”
It wouldn’t surprise me if every burglar, mugger and bag-snatch in this country is going to routinely claim to have been assaulted, confident in the knowledge that their claims will be taken seriously. Burglars are rapidly becoming a ‘victim’ class.
“However, the criminal has accused the 6ft 4in former Rangers player of assaulting him during the confrontation.
Merseyside Police are investigating the allegation and officers will speak to Ferguson in the near future.”
Even assuming the allegation proves to be true, I doubt that Mr.Ferguson will actually be prosecuted. At least, I sincerely hope not. But, what are the odds on the burglar making a claim for damages for alleged breach of his Heeeeeeewwwmin Rights?
For the first time in a long while I am prepared, temporarily at least, to suspend my animus towards the BBC. When they are prepared to publish an article called ‘Why Britain needs more guns’ by the outstanding Joyce Lee Malcolm then they have earned a respite from my relentless hostility. Nay, they may even by the worthy recipients of a nod of appreciation.
“The price of British government insistence upon a monopoly of force comes at a high social cost.
First, it is unrealistic. No police force, however large, can protect everyone. Further, hundreds of thousands of police hours are spent monitoring firearms restrictions, rather than patrolling the streets. And changes in the law of self-defence have left ordinary people at the mercy of thugs.”
Amen to that. Testify, Sister Joyce!!
And, yes, it is on the BBC website. No word of a lie. Go and check the link yourself if you don’t believe me. Yes, you could have knocked me down with a feather as well.
Since they have invited comments from their readers this will give ample opportunity for the British ones to rant, scream, pull out their hair, void their bowels and otherwise hissy-fit themselves into a cocked hat. But that doesn’t matter because the truth has been spoken and it’s out there in black-and-white for every anti-self-defence nut to see and try, in vain, to rebut.
This is a good start. In fact, and I don’t want to runoff at the mouth here or jump the gun (pun gleefully intended) but I do believe that we could be getting just a little bit of traction with this issue. About bloody time, too.
Five police officers have been stabbed, one fatally, during a raid on an apartment in Manchester:
“The operation was linked to the discovery of the deadly poison ricin in a north London flat last week and to the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorism operation, police have confirmed.”
‘Linked’ in which way? Sadly there is not enough information here to fill the back of a postage stamp. Probably with good reason.
I wonder how deep this rabbit hole goes?
The story of 15-year-old British man Seb Clover who has sailed across the Atlantic ocean to the Caribbean is a tonic to my jaded tastes. At a tiime when we are precoccupied by Iraq, economic woes, higher taxes and assaults on our liberties, it is good to know that the spirit of adventure lives on in our youth.
It is of course difficult to know whether the current spate of young Brits taking up such challenges hints at anything happening in our culture. But it is difficult to turn on the telly these days without seeing some young Brit reaching the South Pole, sailing single-handed around the globe or performing some other feat. It may be that a few young people have retained sufficient amounts of enterprising spirit to do such stuff, and not much further can be inferred from that. I am not so sure. Are such things a sign that youngsters are not quite the dumbed-down, listless and cynical lot that our Cassandras in the chattering classes make out?
Meanwhile, back to the doom and gloom…
One of the advantages of giving up smoking (10 days now, folks) is that you can defend the rights of other smokers from a higher strategic ground; nobody can accuse you of having a personal axe to grind.
But not having an axe leaves me with a free hand with which to take up cudgels against busybodies and their campaigns for increased state bullying:
“The survey was carried out on behalf of Cancer Research UK, Marie Curie Cancer Care, QUIT, ASH and No Smoking Day.
Officials said they hoped the survey would encourage ministers to take steps to ban smoking at work.”
My own view is that it is up to the owners of the business to decide upon the issue of smoking on the premises and what I find grating is not that these organisations disagree with me or even that they publicise their views on the matter. No, what I find questionable if whether ‘charities’ should be engaging in these kinds of campaigns.
Incidences of charities behaving as political lobbyists are far too frequent to be dismissed as symptoms of altruistic exuberance. In fact, whilst this is probably not true in the case of organisations like Cancer Research UK or Marie Curie, one could be forgiven for suspecting that the label ‘charity’ is, in some cases, used as a fig-leaf to mask a wholly political ambition. It provides an automatic authentication for the views they express and an insulation against criticism of either their opinions or motives.
I wish to make it clear that I am not against charities. In fact, I am very much in favour of charities as voluntary organisations which can and do provide real help to the distressed and the weak with far greater efficiency and humanity that any number of indifferent state bureaucracies. But I do think that the parameters of ‘charitable status’ are overdue for some scrutiny. Organisations that confine their activities to distributing hot soup to the destitute or arranging day-trips for orphans deserve the title and the advantages it brings. Organisations which exist merey to egg on Big Brother and advance an ideological agenda are lobbyists and should be treated as such.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
