ID Cards set to be scrapped & Other Coalition stuff

[Guest Bilo]

Identity cards will be scrapped under plans announced by the new Conservative and Lib Dem coalition government, new Home Secretary Theresa May has said.

Their abolition is among measures the parties have agreed to reverse what they say was "the substantial erosion" of civil liberties in recent years.

Other proposals include reforms to the DNA database, tighter regulation of CCTV and a review of libel laws.Labour claims ID cards help tackle benefit fraud and identity theft.

The Tories and Lib Dems have both opposed ID cards from the outset, arguing they are expensive, intrusive and have done little to tackle the most serious threats to society such as terrorism and organised crime. In a statement, the Home Office said it would announce "in due course" how the process of rescinding ID cards and the accompanying National Identity Register would move forward.

Until Parliament passes legislation banning them, ID cards remain valid and people can still apply for them. Migrant workers from outside the EU and thousands if British citizens in the North-West of England, where the scheme was being piloted, have already been issued with cards. Home Office officials said they would advise anyone thinking of applying to wait for further announcements. Compulsory ID cards were introduced for foreign nationals in 2008. However, attempts to require certain workers in sensitive roles, such as airport workers, to have them ran into trouble.

UK nationals have been able to apply for an ID card, on a voluntary basis, since last autumn with the application process being rolled out across the country. The new government is also proposing to scrap all future biometric passports and the Contact Point Database as part of a new so-called "Freedom or Great Repeal Bill". It wants to "roll back" powers it says were taken by the state under Labour and has pledged to defend trial by jury, restore rights to non-violent protest, end the storage of internet and email records without good reason, introduce safeguards against the "misuse" of anti-terrorism legislation.

The new government also wants extra safeguards over the retention of people's DNA by the police. During the election campaign, the Lib Dems argued the DNA of innocent people should be removed from the national database and not be stored there in future while the Conservatives called for new safeguards to protect privacy. Labour have strongly argued that the DNA database is an invaluable crime-fighting tool.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: "We will be scrapping ID cards but also introducing an annual cap on the number of migrants coming into the UK from outside the European Union." She said there was a "process to be gone through" to decide the annual limit. The coalition government was committed to introducing elected police commissioners and cutting police paperwork to "give the police more time on the streets," she added.

On the DNA database, she said: "We are absolutely clear we need to make some changes in relation to the DNA database. For example one of the first things we will do is to ensure that all the people who have actually been convicted of a crime and are not present on it are actually on the DNA database.

"The last government did not do that. It focused on retaining the DNA data of people who were innocent. Let's actually make sure that those who have been found guilty are actually on that database." There is no mention in the parties' policy document of Conservative plans - included in their manifesto - for a British Bill of Rights to supersede the Human Rights Act. The Lib Dems support a Bill of Rights but have said overriding the Human Rights Act would be "shameful".

Kind of adds to my impression that this coalition government might not be as shit as people are saying. Great to see on two levels, no shameful waste of taxpayer's money on a scheme that will not improve our security any (the Madrid train bombers and 9/11 hijackers all had ID cards) and could represent the beginning of the end of a culture instigated by Labour that has seen our privacy and civil liberties eroded continually over 13 years. This is exactly the kind of change this country needs and one of the main reasons I didn't vote Labour.

[Jon the Hat]

I suggest everyone reads the coalition document - Here

Personally I think it is excellent.

Edit: And better than it might have been under a Tory majority.

[FoxyPV]

I suggest everyone reads the coalition document - Here

Personally I think it is excellent.

Edit: And better than it might have been under a Tory majority.

I will be amazed if this lasts more than a year.

[Jon the Hat]

I will be amazed if this lasts more than a year.

I don't think the alternatives are very appealling for either the Tories or Lib Dems. How would another election benefit them? I can see some Tories being unhappy about AV coming in, but if they stick with it they get 5 years, and if they are that marginal they might well lose their seat more quickly if there was an election sooner. Lib Dems would consign themselves to big losses also i think.

[purpleronnie]

I cant see it lasting either, but scrapping ID cards is the correct decision.

[FoxyPV]

I don't think the alternatives are very appealling for either the Tories or Lib Dems. How would another election benefit them? I can see some Tories being unhappy about AV coming in, but if they stick with it they get 5 years, and if they are that marginal they might well lose their seat more quickly if there was an election sooner. Lib Dems would consign themselves to big losses also i think.

I don't know if they will be able to stick it even if they do set 5 year terms (further americanisation of politics imo).

Libs have far more to lose now if an election is called (since they jumped into bed with the tories) but I can see the whips not being able to control both sets of MPs sufficiently to make this last.

The manifesto put out seems to have a lot of Lib ideas in it and I can't the the tory right taking this too well.

ID cards were a load of bollox.

[l444ry]

Not sure what to think about this issue. In the end I doubt this will make a blind bit of difference to our civil liberties. It will save some money theoretically but in practise not much, as a lot of money has already been spent, or will be spent in closing it down.

Also, even the ConDem government will embrace new technology in the end. CCTV has had an impact on crime, people are being caught because of it, ditto the DNA database which has not only captured criminals who would never have been caught but actually enhanced our liberties by proving innocence of those already convicted or accused of crimes.

A lot of propaganda is about technophobia, not all of it, but a lot. There is far more surveillance by the private sector than by the government. Somehow this is strangely more accepted by the general population. Perhaps its the fact the Tory fanzine press are obsessed with anything negative about a government when their people don't control it and the private companies spend billions to tell us how nice they are in the same Tory press, which buys the media silence.

[Fosse Boy]

Big fan of civil liberties. Inclined to agree with Bilo. I'm loathed to say it as someone who's pretty anti-Tory but maybe we should just give this thing a chance?

[FoxyPV]

Not sure what to think about this issue. In the end I doubt this will make a blind bit of difference to our civil liberties. It will save some money theoretically but in practise not much, as a lot of money has already been spent, or will be spent in closing it down.

Also, even the ConDem government will embrace new technology in the end. CCTV has had an impact on crime, people are being caught because of it, ditto the DNA database which has not only captured criminals who would never have been caught but actually enhanced our liberties by proving innocence of those already convicted or accused of crimes.

A lot of propaganda is about technophobia, not all of it, but a lot. There is far more surveillance by the private sector than by the government. Somehow this is strangely more accepted by the general population. Perhaps its the fact the Tory fanzine press are obsessed with anything negative about a government when their people don't control it and the private companies spend billions to tell us how nice they are in the same Tory press, which buys the media silence.

Your DNA is meant to be wiped if you are found innocent but the police have been keeping it on file and then are using it to see if anyone who has been held under suspicion of anything is then guilty of an unsolved crime.

Clearly it's far better to have the private sector spying on us than the govt the public make no sense.

[AoWW]

The DCSF (Dept for Children, Schools and Families) has already been changed, rebranded and renamed The Department for Education. Or the website has, at least.

Must admit, they've moved phenomenally fast on that one.

[Guest Bilo]

The DCSF (Dept for Children, Schools and Families) has already been changed, rebranded and renamed The Department for Education. Or the website has, at least.

Must admit, they've moved phenomenally fast on that one.

I must say that that is remarkably quick. I'd have been really pissed off by that if it had happened a few weeks earlier, seeing as I wrote a 4000 word essay on political interference in the curriculum with the DCSF as a major part of it.

[Tilley]

The DCSF (Dept for Children, Schools and Families) has already been changed, rebranded and renamed The Department for Education. Or the website has, at least.

Must admit, they've moved phenomenally fast on that one.

Really? Interesting.....

Was still called the DCSF at work today in a meeting, must be behind.

[Daggers]

Repeal the Digital Economy Act

[Jon the Hat]

Repeal the Digital Economy Act

I think this repeal bill is removing the right to hold email and phone data without a court order. Read that somewhere.

[l444ry]

There is to be a referendum on the replacement of the first-past-the-post electoral system with the alternative vote (AV).

The odd thing is, both the Conservative Party and the LibDems opposed this policy during the campaign.

Democracy in action, eh?

[breadandcheese]

There is to be a referendum on the replacement of the first-past-the-post electoral system with the alternative vote (AV).

The odd thing is, both the Conservative Party and the LibDems opposed this policy during the campaign.

Democracy in action, eh?

Surely it proves democracy better than anything. The two parties, opposed to the AV system, are letting the public decide and will be bound by the result, even if they don't like it.

I don't get your sarcasm.

[FoxyPV]

Toadying political class do anything to stay in power?

[l444ry]

Surely it proves democracy better than anything. The two parties, opposed to the AV system, are letting the public decide and will be bound by the result, even if they don't like it.

I don't get your sarcasm.

Have a word with yourself.....you party politico's are all the same!!!

I repeat....

Neither.....the.....Tories......or......Literal Democraps........supported........the........alternative..........vote..........system..... before......the .........election.

[Shrenchel]

I repeat....

Neither.....the.....Tories......or......Literal Democraps........supported........the........alternative..........vote..........system..... before......the .........election.

It's a coalition. They make concessions. Both taking some policies from one party and others from the other party and also developing policies that are a compromise between their two viewpoints.

How can you call it undermocratic when it's going to a national referendum. The most pure form of direct democracy.

In 1997 Labour promised to reform the electoral system, 13 years later and they still hadnt done it. They promised a referendum and never delivered it. But this is undemocratic?!

[Jon the Hat]

Have a word with yourself.....you party politico's are all the same!!!

I repeat....

Neither.....the.....Tories......or......Literal Democraps........supported........the........alternative..........vote..........system..... before......the .........election.

it was slightly out of the blue that is for sure. Some middle ground between the FPTP and Full PR I guess.

[Jon the Hat]

In 1997 Labour promised to reform the electoral system, 13 years later and they still hadnt done it. They promised a referendum and never delivered it. But this is undemocratic?!

Which is another reason the Lib Dems would not have touched Labour with a barge pole...

[l444ry]

The Literal Democraps wanted rid of Trident. The Tories said, "Not on your life."

Can we expect a referendum on whether we should protect the country with spud guns?

[breadandcheese]

Have a word with yourself.....you party politico's are all the same!!!

I repeat....

Neither.....the.....Tories......or......Literal Democraps........supported........the........alternative..........vote..........system..... before......the .........election.

As far as I'm aware, the Tories are not going to be running a yes campaign for AV, so they are putting a proposition to the country and will be bound by it even if the result is one they don't like. The Lib Dems don't support AV either, but recognise it is better than first past the post. They'll be campaigning for it but will probably see it as a step from which to build a stronger case for proportional representation.

So, I still don't see how this is not democracy in action, with us the public getting a choice of whether to switch the voting system from first past the post to the AV system.

Incidentally, Labour took the same line as the Tories so I don't really see how you can play the party political card.

[breadandcheese]

The Literal Democraps wanted rid of Trident. The Tories said, "Not on your life."

Can we expect a referendum on whether we should protect the country with spud guns?

Seriously, I know you're smarting from Gordon going, but I can't see where you're going with this.

[Jon the Hat]

The Literal Democraps wanted rid of Trident. The Tories said, "Not on your life."

Can we expect a referendum on whether we should protect the country with spud guns?

Presumably someone sat Cleggy down and explained to him the realities of global security and our required commitments to the US in terms of cost sharing on Trident (etc). Cameron would already have known the rules as leader of the opposition, but there would have been little point involving Clegg before the election.

The Tories understood that Clegg could not bring the federal executive along without a referendum. It is very simple.