You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans
Roger Warren Evans
|
|
You are in the
company of
Roger Warren Evans |
|
| Part of www.LivePolitics.net < Back to Home Page |
NewLiving Diary Index
|
item0057A 870, 871 870 17 November 2003 What is the question, to which ID cards are the answer?
Do you want to see FEW? A Fully Enumerated World? I do not. Erstwhile opponents of ID-cards are gradually switching to support the Blairite authoritarian cause – even Government Minister Fiona MacTaggart, once proud to be a LIBERTY officer, writes plaintively of her conversion, in The Guardian.But I remain 100% opposed. Nothing has happened to change the balance of the argument. There is no point in treading this path unless compulsion is eventually intended. And compulsion would be a disaster for future forms of human civilisation. These are the claims that are made for the "mischiefs" that would be addressed by universal compulsory ID cards. Yet what proportion of Benefit Fraud is currently attributable to "identity" issues at all? Many scams are explained by ingenious manipulation of forms and procedures, regardless of ones "identity". Even if the "identity" component could be be confirmed, the figure for "benefits lost" would be miniscule compared with the corporate and City fraud, and the seedy world of tax evasion. To move to full enumeration for this reason would be wholly disproportionate. That "identity theft" would be reduced - even though the majority of these scams are where "the cardholder is not present" and could not in any event have his irises checked. In this respect, the 100%-perfect ID card is a solution without a problem.That illegal immigration would be easier to monitor , "illegals" easier to punish and deport. It is true that somebody entering the UK wholly illegally (smuggled in a lorry, for instance) might have no papers, no ID Card (although counterfeiting would became a major and lucrative business) and would therefore be immediately identifiable. But what does that imply about the trawl of searches through the "legal population"? Will everyone be stopped and checked, just to winnow out the tiny proportion of "illegals"? Or will only those be stopped who "look foreign"? Difficulties with the identification and removal of illegal immigrants are just as great in countries which have always had identify cards, and they do not promise any greater effectiveness.That hospital entitlement would be easier to establish . These issues are not ones of identity, rather they arise from the rules themselves. It is true that in the UK we have, since 1948, avoided the tough pre-admission checks practised elsewhere - we have treated first, and asked questions afterwards. And there is no doubt that this has given rise to some "health tourism", which should arguably restricted, particularly if relating to elective operations. But that is a matter of good administration, not of failure to identify the person presenting for treatment.Wherever one looks, the arguments fall away upon close examination. There is no major problem of misidentification in modern society - many other problems, yes, but not this one. Just as Governments are grossly exaggerating the "threat of terrorism" merely to keep their own people submissive and compliant, so they are exaggerating the risk of identity error or fraud. It is true (I accept) that we are drifting towards the phenomenon of the "membership state", where all citizens are seen as fellow-members of a gigantic friendly society, to which they have contributed and from which they benefit. That drift is occurring, but it a dangerous development which I deplore, and which should be strictly contained. If unchecked, it could lead to introverted "fortress societies" - which would certainly impede the progress of mankind.
Indeed, the political challenge is to develop State institutions which will require only such minimal proof of identity as is necessary for their instant purpose. A 9-year-old child does not need to "prove identity" in order to be entitled to school education. No patient in urgent need of treatment should have to "prove identity" before receiving it. All public systems should be designed to reduce the requirement for proof-of-identity, not vice-versa. Only if we use our ingenuity to design our "State" along those lines will future "civilisation" be viable.
Where do you stand on this critical issue? Drop me a line
7 November 2003 I do not believe
Radical Labour businessman Chris (Lord) Haskins has proposed a radical shake-up of all our "countryside" organisations, at the behest of Margaret Beckett, now the Minister responsible. But as I listen to BBC's Farming Today, at the beginning of each working day, I strive to identify any distinctive countryside issues. I cannot. The greater truth is that our tiny agricultural industry is "just another business", closely integrated with the wider economy and the wider UK constitution. The politics of town and country are indivisibly intertwined, and require the same imagination, the same analysis, the same political solutions. Just consider the political roll-call... Chris Haskins claims that the "main thrust of his reforms is to move jobs and power out of London and into the regions, where local people understood the needs of their towns, villages and the landscape". Great - but that is, in my book, the overriding challenge of modern politics generally. 
Environmental Protection Both town and country-dwellers have a keen parallel interest in reducing environmental pollution, indeed towns are arguably worse off than the countryside in this regard.
GM crops This is a global issue which affects us all, not merely those who plant the seeds and harvest the crops - this is a generic global issue.
Create new UK-wide countryside "Land Management Agency" This could make a major difference to the quality of UK government - but the key land-management issue which we face is the reconciliation of conflicting demands of two and countryside. "Land" is being deliberately taken out of farming production and neutralised - yet at the same time there is a crisis in the supply of land for housing. Our politicians find it difficult to locate a new airport, or to push through motorway improvements - all because of the opposition of "countryside interests", and the last thing we need is the separate institutionalisation of the "country interests".
Favour the agricultural industry Small farmers as small businessmen are said to deserve or require special financial support which is not available to failing shopkeepers, or post-offices, or any other business sector - what is the justification for that?
Rural Deprivation The "countryside" is said to be uniquely deprived in terms of personal services and public transportation - but there are hundreds of deprived urban areas where residents suffer similar deprivations, without attracting the same political attention.The truth is that the UK is a closely integrated modern economy, in which "town" interpenetrates the "country", both economically and physically. It is a fallacy to consider their problems separately. What do you think? Drop me a line
|
|
|
| Created by GMID Design & Communication COPYRIGHT
NOTICE
|
