Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

MyLifeMyID - The UK governments database state footbullet.

2

Posts

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Lets refer back to Zimbabwe - the current government has not repealed any of the anti terrorism/security legislation from Ian Smith's UDI government. Why would they get rid of well written legislation designed to make it legal to control or crush opposition?

    Sure Mugabe was widely known to be a bit of a jerk when he won elections back in 1980, but I have to wonder that if in some ways his regime's quick descent into repression was in part based on the previous model inherited from the defeated UDI regime.

    So, to bring it back to the UK, if a government led by people who cut their political teeth fighting Thatcher can pass the insane amount of civil liberty inhibiting legislation that they have done so far (not inc 42 days) what hope have we got for a future government that may not be made up of such upstanding Liberals?

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    My standard response to national ID fearmongering:

    National IDs are coming with or without the government. Businesses want them, and more importantly, consumers want them. Do you know why our SSNs here in the U.S. became so valuable? They were originally just designed so that we could track one's contributions to SS throughout their life to ensure they got their retirement when they got old enough. But holy jeepers, how valuable was it for business and consumers to know that there was a unique ID assigned to every citizen that could be verified by a business? How many things are SSNs now used for that have absolutely nothing to do with SS? Society took that number and grew it into an immensely valuable tool. The government provided the infrastructure to make it possible.

    But the SSN isn't enough anymore. Businesses and consumers want more. Government agencies want more, too. Pictures, biometrics, age verification, purchasing power, travel, security, and so on. Cry all you want, it's coming.

    The question is whether or not the government ought to play some role in standardizing and regulating society's desire to identify one another, and again, whether or not it is our government who is in the best position to provide a successful infrastructure to support it. I say hell yes. There are about 10,000 functions government has taken on that I wish they'd leave alone, but this particular collective need is something perfectly suited for public governance. Better them than a corporation. Better them than 40 different corporations, or 51 different states and districts, each with different rules and standards.

    Let's worry about totalitarianism and rights abuses when we actually get any inkling that we are headed towards them, not just when a tool that society desperately wants for valid reasons might also be viewed as a potential tool for totalitarians and abusers.

    I'm not sure the american situation applies so specifically in the UK. We have plenty of means of identification.

    And to clarify:
    People against ID cards are against the database state.
    People for ID cards are for cards which identify you.

    These are both very different things. (I've no problems with my ID card - it's called my passport - I've a big problem with a database state.)

    There is also the issue that this isn't just about paving the way for totalitarian abuse. This is also about giving information that is too dangerous to be all in one place.

    Recently the UK Governement left the entire Child benifit database of 25 million people, on a train. Names, addresses, bank details. Enough info to massively defraud half the populace.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Zimbabwe is actually a very good example. For me and my points. Guess how long the police can hold you in detention without trial in Zimbabwe? 2 days.


    edit:
    Recently the UK Governement left the entire Child benifit database of 25 million people, on a train. Names, addresses, bank details. Enough info to massively defraud half the populace.

    Haven't you got two separate incidents muddled up there? No-one's yet found where the CSA discs went; it was national security information left on the train (and handed in to the BBC). Point taken mind.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Scrap the army then. You see how this works?

    Welll considering the countless accounts of militaries overthrowing governments - yes, yes I do.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    Scrap the army then. You see how this works?

    Welll considering the countless accounts of militaries overthrowing governments - yes, yes I do.

    Not quite sure what you're arguing here. Do scrap the army? Don't scrap the army because it might overthrow a dictatorship?

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Zimbabwe is actually a very good example. For me and my points. Guess how long the police can hold you in detention without trial in Zimbabwe? 2 days.


    edit:
    Recently the UK Governement left the entire Child benifit database of 25 million people, on a train. Names, addresses, bank details. Enough info to massively defraud half the populace.

    Haven't you got two separate incidents muddled up there? No-one's yet found where the CSA discs went; it was national security information left on the train (and handed in to the BBC). Point taken mind.


    I was referring more to the general state of their security/anti terror legislation and how much of it was taken from a previous repressive regime they fought against, not specifically detention w/o trial

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    So what do you suggest then Æthelred? That our Government can tear up the magna carta and it doesn't matter because all we can do either way is hope that nice people stay in?

    I'm not trying to be a dick I just don't understand your view point. It just seems to be apathy.

    EDIT: Yeah your right, but the fact that there are two cases of massive fuck ups, to mix up in the first place strengthens my point! But yeah the CSA stuff was lost in the post. :)

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    The Magna Carta was not and is not the start of "English liberty", for a start. I'm well disposed towards the Whig view of history, but it just isn't.

    What I'm saying is that basing current government structure on the assumption that a fascist government would a) get in to power and b) be so weak as to need pre-existing legislation to achieve their goals is pretty foolish. That's not the same issue as mission creep - local councils are uniformly petty bureaucrats who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near much power of any sort - or as the slow descent into dictatorship, of which there's no evidence of whatsoever. The main problem with surveillance, say, is not that there's too much of it, but that's it's not very good - most of it is there for show, with poor picture quality and frequently no picture at all.

    Labour seem to have pretty much given up on ID cards, by the way.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    Scrap the army then. You see how this works?

    Welll considering the countless accounts of militaries overthrowing governments - yes, yes I do.

    Not quite sure what you're arguing here. Do scrap the army? Don't scrap the army because it might overthrow a dictatorship?

    My point is that a just society has to have the frame work of it's laws and rights be written in such a way to protect the rights of the people, and to prevent the exploitation of the people by a corrupt goverment or military.

    Do I think such laws would be ultimately futile? Yes totally.
    Did I ever think that a labour goverment would create anti-terror laws for exceptional circumstances, then use them to spy on people who might be in the wrong catchment area of their school? Never.

    Open societies baby step themselves towards oppressive regimes, and we need to fight against that.

  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    And it's not info standard in passports. Because an optional form of ID with the infomation of a passport is a passport. This will have over 50 pieces of information on you.

    Most of which are already provided to the government or even provided by the government
    . I mean, are you seriously worried that
    (b) the number of any ID card issued to him
    will appear on your ID card, if you choose to get it at all?

    I agree that there is potential for ID cards to 'creep', but that's why we oppose ID cards when their purposes slide and if they become compulsory, not when they are actually pretty useful and optional.
    Lave II wrote: »
    I'm pretty certain he didn't vote for 28 days either.

    Heroic?

    Check out his record on gay rights as well, the only time he hasn't voted against them, he's been absent. The idea that Davis is a heroic freedom fighter is pretty laughable.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Ok, I see where you are coming from now. Though I don't agree. A responsible system, should have checks and fail safes to protect itself.

    And on the issue of survelliance I completely disagree. I think it changes society in massive ways - almost all for the worse.

    'A good' system that could see well, would be a horrible, horrible thing. As are the talking and lip reading cameras that are being trialed.

    Getting a bit hippy here, and now I'm only speaking my opinion, but I think that extensive CCTV makes society think less of itself. It makes people feel other people can't be trusted. I think it makes the world seem more dangerous, and it is horrendously open to abuse.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    What I'm saying is that basing current government structure on the assumption that a fascist government would a) get in to power and b) be so weak as to need pre-existing legislation to achieve their goals is pretty foolish.
    LBJ wrote:
    You do not examine legislation in the light of the
    benefits it will convey if properly administered,
    but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the
    harms it would cause if improperly administered.

    That's in no way a proof to the contrary, just a statement I happen to mostly agree with.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Regarding the database state: same argument applies. The information is already being gathered. The databases already exist. Equifax knows more about you than you could imagine.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    And it's not info standard in passports. Because an optional form of ID with the infomation of a passport is a passport. This will have over 50 pieces of information on you.

    Most of which are already provided to the government or even provided by the government
    . I mean, are you seriously worried that
    (b) the number of any ID card issued to him
    will appear on your ID card, if you choose to get it at all?

    I agree that there is potential for ID cards to 'creep', but that's why we oppose ID cards when their purposes slide and if they become compulsory, not when they are actually pretty useful and optional.
    Lave II wrote: »
    I'm pretty certain he didn't vote for 28 days either.

    Heroic?

    Check out his record on gay rights as well, the only time he hasn't voted against them, he's been absent. The idea that Davis is a heroic freedom fighter is pretty laughable.

    Thank God for that. I didn't want to start having to vote Tory. At least he's still got that Tory twatishness about him. But like my Girlfriend said after watching Taking Liberties, any issue that has Tony Benn AND Boris Johnson agreeing has got to be important. I think I remember him saying that 28 days was his line in the sand now or something. But glad to be corrected. Cheers.

    But stop saying it is optional. During it's introduction it is optional. But even from the get go to get a passport you have to join. The database state isn't opt in.

    And yes I do have a problem with my fingerprints my biometrics, and other irreplaceable data being connected to all my other data in one place.

    Still gotta go now. Catcha later thread.
    No2ID FAQs

  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    The bye-election is a great way of keeping this issue up there. It forces everyone in the media to keep talking about the issue and forces the likely next governing party to confront the issue squarely on (I think given the Tory's law and order history they could also be taken in by the SECURITY angle), it also gives the opposition to the Bill a much needed shot in the arm to help rally opposition in the Lords to the Bill.

    The other bad news for David Davis is that the number of people who oppose 42-day detention has remained largely unchanged. If anything, it has dropped since his resignation. PoliticsHome has twice asked the PHI 5000: "do you support or oppose extending the period that terrorist suspects can be held without charge from 28 days to 42?" On the 20th June, 65% supported the extension and 31% opposed. On the 7th July, 66% supported 42 days and 30% opposed it.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Meh, hardly anyone thinks that Davis is Universal Herobot, Here to Save Us. It doesn't take much to see that this isn't the case. However, since he is the only politician willing to make a solid political gesture on this issue then we have to take who we get.

    Would have I liked a Labour MP to have done this? Sure, would have had more impact too, being the party of government and with the polling. But they didn't, so we have to live with what we have.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Look, regardless whatever rational reasoning exists for a database like this in the UK, I look at the UK in general and see these things:

    1. Gun laws which either prohibit private citizens from owning a firearm altogether or require citizens to tell the government exactly what firearms they own.

    2. Massive numbers of public government cameras used to, hypothetically, prevent crime and track criminals but can just as easily track completely innocent citizens for nefarious purposes.

    3. Impending laws that would create a large, detailed government database of profiles of an entire generation of UK citizens.

    I'm not even a citizen of the UK and the combination of just these three issues gives me a serious case of the heeby-fucking-jeebies. It may not be putting any one person in position for a dictatorship, but it sure is building a high-speed, gold-plated conveyor belt complete with an in-transit gourmet meal and the whole thing labeled "enter here to rule the UK with an iron fist". The whole situation seems like a zany Doctor Who episode.

    PAJoe_zpsc20d21e8.jpg
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Yar wrote: »
    Regarding the database state: same argument applies. The information is already being gathered. The databases already exist. Equifax knows more about you than you could imagine.


    Firstly that doesn't make it any better.

    And secondly that doesn't mean that emptying all those eggs into one basket becomes any more sensible.

    And thirdly, it's the start of feature creep. At some point you have to say "hey all this info you are collecting, maybe you should stop now."

    I'm saying that the database will be that step to far. You are not. But we both agree there must be point where it is too far. We just have to understand why we disagree on what this step represents. And why those in favour don't believe that it will go further than it already does.

    I mean just the fact that this over the top idea to use id cards to record everything we buy apparently put forward by Gordon Brown, should be enough to worry even the most ardent supporters?

    Anyway gotta go.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Meh, hardly anyone thinks that Davis is Universal Herobot, Here to Save Us. It doesn't take much to see that this isn't the case. However, since he is the only politician willing to make a solid political gesture on this issue then we have to take who we get.

    Would have I liked a Labour MP to have done this? Sure, would have had more impact too, being the party of government and with the polling. But they didn't, so we have to live with what we have.

    I had a big conversation with my MP who was against the 42 day bill but thought that voting yes, but being critical of it was more important (as it kept him in the "inner circle") than making a fuss.

    I told him he lost my vote.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Look, regardless whatever rational reasoning exists for a database like this in the UK, I look at the UK in general and see these things:

    1. Gun laws which either prohibit private citizens from owning a firearm altogether or require citizens to tell the government exactly what firearms they own.

    2. Massive numbers of public government cameras used to, hypothetically, prevent crime and track criminals but can just as easily track completely innocent citizens for nefarious purposes.

    3. Impending laws that would create a large, detailed government database of profiles of an entire generation of UK citizens.

    I'm not even a citizen of the UK and the combination of just these three issues gives me a serious case of the heeby-fucking-jeebies. It may not be putting any one person in position for a dictatorship, but it sure is building a high-speed, gold-plated conveyor belt complete with an in-transit gourmet meal and the whole thing labeled "enter here to rule the UK with an iron fist". The whole situation seems like a zany Doctor Who episode.

    That first one isn't really a starter though - gun ownership and gun control are looked at differently here. Hell, the police are not even armed here and haven't ever been, outside of war or occasional civil emergency. If I see a cop with a gun in the UK it is a big deal and I must either be near some sensitive government installation or something big or bad may be going down

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    The bye-election is a great way of keeping this issue up there. It forces everyone in the media to keep talking about the issue and forces the likely next governing party to confront the issue squarely on (I think given the Tory's law and order history they could also be taken in by the SECURITY angle), it also gives the opposition to the Bill a much needed shot in the arm to help rally opposition in the Lords to the Bill.

    The other bad news for David Davis is that the number of people who oppose 42-day detention has remained largely unchanged. If anything, it has dropped since his resignation. PoliticsHome has twice asked the PHI 5000: "do you support or oppose extending the period that terrorist suspects can be held without charge from 28 days to 42?" On the 20th June, 65% supported the extension and 31% opposed. On the 7th July, 66% supported 42 days and 30% opposed it.

    From the start Davis has said that that polling question is completely dependent on what you ask. And I agree.

    Terrorist suspect? Sure you'll get support.

    But ask the same question but with "Terrorist Suspect" replaced with "anyone despite having no evidence" and you'll get a different one.

    Though at the same time Im not suprised. It's all hideously depressing how much support the public has for throwing it's rights away.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    David Davis will of course win the by-election, simply because no major political party is standing against him. I wish Kevin MacKenzie had gone ahead and stood; simply because he's an odious little snot who could have done with a good kicking. He'd have probably won the damn thing though, as Coyote points out.

    Davis is to the Right of the Conservatives, Lave, so you probably won't agree with him on much else besides this issue. He's just going to make himself look a bit of a tit with it all though - I don't think he's helping the cause at all. Only a contested by-election could have had that effect.

    He was on course to be much more than deputy PM - with the Tories sitting pretty in the polls, he'd have become Home Secretary. He's got a better background than most Tories (i.e., not Eton), but his general policies aren't very palatable to you or I.

    On CCTV cameras: It's a well known fact that having more policemen on the beat actually increases fear of crime, so you may be right. Usually people are quite effusive about seeing them though.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Meh, hardly anyone thinks that Davis is Universal Herobot, Here to Save Us. It doesn't take much to see that this isn't the case. However, since he is the only politician willing to make a solid political gesture on this issue then we have to take who we get.

    Or we can stand up for ourselves and call this gesture empty, because that's what it is. The only potential beneficial side effect is that it might affect Tory doctrine for their next manifesto, but with Davis out of the Shadow Cabinet, this is less likely than before the by-election.

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Yeah the guns thing is a bit different. If one wants to get to a level playing field with a cop, one just buys a stick.

  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    I do actually see armed officers fairly regularly outside my local crown court nowadays.
    I'm not even a citizen of the UK and the combination of just these three issues gives me a serious case of the heeby-fucking-jeebies. It may not be putting any one person in position for a dictatorship, but it sure is building a high-speed, gold-plated conveyor belt complete with an in-transit gourmet meal and the whole thing labeled "enter here to rule the UK with an iron fist". The whole situation seems like a zany Doctor Who episode.

    Again, you seem to be one of those who's afraid of the tools, rather than the wielder. The government (whichever country you're in) can already fuck your life up if it wants to.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    At some point you have to say "hey all this info you are collecting, maybe you should stop now."
    Except people want it. The economy wants it. Info is valuable.
    Lave II wrote: »
    I mean just the fact that this over the top idea to use id cards to record everything we buy apparently put forward by Gordon Brown, should be enough to worry even the most ardent supporters?
    No. That's a very opinionated article, but the only point it makes is that this system could be used to positively identify someone (and their credit line) when they make a credit purchase. Which I think would be great. Give me on secure ID card, and let me configure what credit account to use by default when I swipe it, and make damn sure it's me before you authorize it. I want it. Consumers want it. Banks want it. Businesses want it. Put the thing on an RFID in my arm; I can't wait. Let me swipe my arm over a prox reader on my way out the door and just charge my preferred account after you've biometrically verified my identity. Heck, now I don't even have to show the doorman at the bar my name, address, birthdate, etc., I can just swipe my ID and he gets a red or green light on his PoS that tells him if I'm 21 or not. That's privacy. And convenient.
    Lave II wrote: »
    Anyway gotta go.
    Catch ya later, d00d!

  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    David Davis will of course win the by-election, simply because no major political party is standing against him. I wish Kevin MacKenzie had gone ahead and stood; simply because he's an odious little snot who could have done with a good kicking. He'd have probably won the damn thing though, as Coyote points out.

    Davis is to the Right of the Conservatives, Lave, so you probably won't agree with him on much else besides this issue. He's just going to make himself look a bit of a tit with it all though - I don't think he's helping the cause at all. Only a contested by-election could have had that effect.

    He was on course to be much more than deputy PM - with the Tories sitting pretty in the polls, he'd have become Home Secretary. He's got a better background than most Tories (i.e., not Eton), but his general policies aren't very palatable to you or I.

    On CCTV cameras: It's a well known fact that having more policemen on the beat actually increases fear of crime, so you may be right. Usually people are quite effusive about seeing them though.

    I agree with you, but it would have been different if Labour had dared to field a candidate. So obviously it was in their best interest not to.

    And yeah I'm sure this is the only issue we would agree on. But the very fact that I'm agreeing with a tory shows how important it is. And the fact he would give up being home secretary to make a point even more so.

    CCTV camera's - yeah it's only speculation but I think the rise of CCTV cameras has created "hoodies" and all that jazz, and made people scared. Young people feel untrusted, and so hide, which scares people so they trust less.

    I think CCTV feeds a loop of mistrust that undermines society. But thats just personal opinion, and a seperate issue to the thread really.

  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Similar things happen in the Netherlands: the terrorist scare, the war against drugs, general hate towards foreigners made my country gullible to the creation of elaborate databases collecting all sorts of information on everyone.

    When I express my worries to my parents their opinion is that "I have nothing to hide, so I don't mind", my counterpoint is that the problem is not that they have nothing to hide for the department of justice, but that that same department is filled with wankers who keep losing their fucking laptops on the train. Then I ask them if they're okay with the underworld knowing everything about them.

    Never got a clear answer on that...

    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • Lave IILave II Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Christ I disagree with your last post Yar! But yes I've got to go.

    (Also: Buy Omega Five)

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Meh, hardly anyone thinks that Davis is Universal Herobot, Here to Save Us. It doesn't take much to see that this isn't the case. However, since he is the only politician willing to make a solid political gesture on this issue then we have to take who we get.

    Or we can stand up for ourselves and call this gesture empty, because that's what it is. The only potential beneficial side effect is that it might affect Tory doctrine for their next manifesto, but with Davis out of the Shadow Cabinet, this is less likely than before the by-election.

    So why ever make a political gesture about anything? If having a bye-election about an issue that you care about deeply is an empty gesture when would it ever be appropriate to do so? What issues exactly would pass your test?

    Besides, while this bye-election may have not changed how the weekly polls report back but it has got the chattering classes um chattering about the issue and it has kept it in the media eye. It has forced it to remain an issue and it can't now be swept under the rug again. Davis may have managed to force the Tories to take a position about this that he may not have got had he stayed in the inner circle, lolcabinetresponsibility and all that shit. I think on balance his actions will probably contribute to him getting the result he wants, namely no 42 Day Detention rule.

    Who after all listens to the Shadow Home Secretary? Why wait till 2010 when he might be the real Home Secretary and the victorious Tories may have more important priorities (like say trying to revive the economy) than repealing anti terror legislation. Better to do something now while he can stop this bill becoming law.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
    Feral wrote: »
    It's having effective safeguards built into the system that prevents a totalitarian government from forming. We don't give any one person or one small group of persons unnecessary access to power. That's the whole point of checks and balances. I would argue that the same principle applies here.

    Yes, let's talk about the safeguards in the FRA law.

    An "integrity committee" will have a look at what FRA is doing. After they've already done it.

    The people on this committee are elected by the same administration that voted the FRA law through. There will be no public view into what this committee investigates.

    The FRA law also means that what FRA has been doing will become legal in 2009. Which, given the Swedish constitution, means that what they've been doing since the 1970s has been illegal up until now. And the current administration are going "oh, better legalize it then. Those 30 years of illegal surveillance? Eh, who cares."

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I want it. Consumers want it. Banks want it. Businesses want it. Put the thing on an RFID in my arm; I can't wait. Let me swipe my arm over a prox reader on my way out the door and just charge my preferred account after you've biometrically verified my identity. Heck, now I don't even have to show the doorman at the bar my name, address, birthdate, etc., I can just swipe my ID and he gets a red or green light on his PoS that tells him if I'm 21 or not. That's privacy. And convenient.

    And I have no problem with that. You're free to it. Banks are free to it. Consumers are free to it.
    Where do I opt out?

    Edit: Also, I know you were just shooting examples left & right, but I'm pretty sure those could be abused with eyes closed.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Any of you guys read the Edrigram? Its put out by an organisation that keeps an eye on digital civil rights issues in the EU

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User
    edited July 2008
    Cameron has not committed to repealing the 42-day legislation when/if in government. It doesn't seem wild conjecture to assume that this was an especially large bone of contention between him and Davis. Cameron certainly doesn't want the whole by-election hoopla.

    People consider resigning and having a by-election a meaningless gesture not because of the cause it's aimed at supporting, but because of the emptiness of the exercise. There's going to be no grand debate between the two parties on the issue (further than there has been that is). Partly this is down to Labour not fielding a candidate, but Davis should have foreseen that. I don't think he did.

    When he returns to parliament, he won't come back waving a mandate for civil liberties - he'll have faced no serious opposition and the public are firmly behind the 42-day extension. He won't be able to steer the Conservatives in that direction. He's angered his leader, pissed off his party and lost his influential position as Shadow Home Secretary, from where he could really have forced the agenda. He'll just become a single-issue backbencher.

    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I couldn't give a flying fuck if he spends the rest of his life on the back benches to be honest, I just appreciate the gesture he made, as I think it will make a difference.

    It will help keep the antis in the Lords on side, it may help give Labour rebels some backbone, it might help mobilise the civil rights/ancient liberties wing of the Tories - any one of those things is a good enough result so far as I am concerned. At least compared to being Shadow Home Secretary. Would he have been made Home Secretary in 2010? Maybe, but that is 2 years away, so maybe not.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Meh, hardly anyone thinks that Davis is Universal Herobot, Here to Save Us. It doesn't take much to see that this isn't the case. However, since he is the only politician willing to make a solid political gesture on this issue then we have to take who we get.

    Or we can stand up for ourselves and call this gesture empty, because that's what it is. The only potential beneficial side effect is that it might affect Tory doctrine for their next manifesto, but with Davis out of the Shadow Cabinet, this is less likely than before the by-election.

    So why ever make a political gesture about anything? If having a bye-election about an issue that you care about deeply is an empty gesture when would it ever be appropriate to do so? What issues exactly would pass your test?

    Besides, while this bye-election may have not changed how the weekly polls report back but it has got the chattering classes um chattering about the issue and it has kept it in the media eye. It has forced it to remain an issue and it can't now be swept under the rug again. Davis may have managed to force the Tories to take a position about this that he may not have got had he stayed in the inner circle, lolcabinetresponsibility and all that shit. I think on balance his actions will probably contribute to him getting the result he wants, namely no 42 Day Detention rule.

    Who after all listens to the Shadow Home Secretary? Why wait till 2010 when he might be the real Home Secretary and the victorious Tories may have more important priorities (like say trying to revive the economy) than repealing anti terror legislation. Better to do something now while he can stop this bill becoming law.

    The by-election was empty because Davis has a strong majority in Haltemprice and Howden, with the Liberal Democrats in second and Labour in a distant third. With Labour being nationally unpopular and even more unpopular in Davis' constituency, Labour could have fielded Jesus giving out candy, while riding on a dragon, and they would have still lost their deposit, even if they could force the by-election on to a single issue. Davis gave up his job, knowing full well he could take it back in a few weeks, that's what makes the gesture empty.

    By remaining Shadow Home Secretary, he could have gained a position of power in the next government. By being Shadow Home Secretary now, he could have made repealing the Bill an election promise in the Conservative manifesto. This is far more important than being an embittered backbencher, after all, who listens to backbenchers?

    The Bill will be stopped by the Lords, not Davis' petulance.

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Never thought I'd see someone describe a politician making a stand on a principle of civil rights as "petulance"

    He's kept this issue in the news and in discussion, that alone makes the whole exercise worthwhile, let alone if he actually manages to get Tory policy firmly on his side. Being a shadow cabinet minister 2 years out from an election is like being Head of the I'm Awesome Club. It sounds nice but doesn't mean much until you get paying members/or get into government. Till then its all speculation. Perhaps in 2 years Cameron might have replaced him, him being a known competitor. Who knows. It is the whole bird in the hand/two in the bush conundrum but in real life

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • Space CoyoteSpace Coyote Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Kalkino wrote: »
    Never thought I'd see someone describe a politician making a stand on a principle of civil rights as "petulance"

    He's kept this issue in the news and in discussion, that alone makes the whole exercise worthwhile, let alone if he actually manages to get Tory policy firmly on his side. Being a shadow cabinet minister 2 years out from an election is like being Head of the I'm Awesome Club. It sounds nice but doesn't mean much until you get paying members/or get into government. Till then its all speculation. Perhaps in 2 years Cameron might have replaced him, him being a known competitor. Who knows. It is the whole bird in the hand/two in the bush conundrum but in real life

    He's achieved nothing. He stood down and got re-elected. 42 days detention wasn't an issue for the Haltemprice and Howden by-election. He would never have lost his seat and certainly not over 42 days.

    This is resigning on principle.

    In two years, 42 days might not even be an issue in the minds of the electorate. The Conservatives are probably going to romp to victory whenever the next general election is held, but now Davis isn't in a position to rally socially liberal conservatives as effectively. It's a bird in the hand, wasting public time and money conundrum, but in real life.

  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Lave II wrote: »
    Yeah the guns thing is a bit different. If one wants to get to a level playing field with a cop, one just buys a stick.

    I wasn't even remotely thinking of the police when it comes to firearms. A tyrant would use a segment of the military which is definitely armed. Yes, it's a little more complicated than simply waking up one morning and suddenly the secret military police are running your life, but intelligent populations still get duped and end up in bad situations. A pistol is a far cry from an assault rifle, but it beats being effectively helpless against an armed aggressor.
    Again, you seem to be one of those who's afraid of the tools, rather than the wielder. The government (whichever country you're in) can already fuck your life up if it wants to.

    I don't understand how you reached that conclusion concerning my view on firearms. The reason I agree with the concept of an armed populace is that if the government decides to send people after somebody, those people had better be damned sure what they're doing is worth getting killed over. It's tough for a government to put pressure on you by threatening your life or the lives of those you care about if everybody simply has the capability of resisting the government on their own. I don't trust the government, which is why I'd like to have a decent tool to fight back if it tries to step on me.

    Frankly, I don't believe that the UK will really end up as a dictatorship anytime soon just because firearms are prohibited. However, with the UK government continuing to push for laws that track and monitor the populace while restricting any adequate means of self-defense, I don't see how anybody could look at this set of circumstances and not be a little nervous. Personally, I think the chances of the UK getting turned into a dictatorship are pretty slim, but obviously that doesn't mean it can't happen.

    PAJoe_zpsc20d21e8.jpg
  • VidaVida Registered User
    edited July 2008
    *delurking for one time only*

    I just want to say something that always comes to mind when reading about David Davis, oh and I've only skimmed the thread, so excuse me if someone else has pointed this out. I've just been holding in this rant for ages, and this is as good a place as any to actually say it.

    David Davis is an egotistical bastard who is doing this for two reasons. Firstly, obviously, cheap publicity stunt. Secondly, my theory, to get back at Cameron for beating him, Davis has boosted his profile and now Cameron won't dare shunt him aside when the Tories inevitably win the next election. Anyone who believes that a right-wing, anti-women homophobe who wants to bring back hanging is some kind of saint or hero for his risk-free stunt is being an idiot. Anyone on the left, or hey, even the centre, who is buying into this is embarrassing themselves. The issue of civil liberties has been debated endlessly for years now, the notion that somehow we should like such a despicable man for "bringing into popular discourse" is utterly laughable.

    Why not hero-worship the Lib Dems for their continual opposition to what are deemed to be Labour's draconian moves (I'm not getting into my own views, they are irrelevant to this rant.) The Conservatives are just doing whatever they can to undermine the Government, if they were in power they'd be worse. Correction, when they're in power, they'll be worse. The Government is often restrained in it's endless drift to the right by the twin pressures of their traditional voters and the back benchers. Who the heck do you think will complain when the Torys get their authoritarian on.

    Oh and please, don't bother arguing with this post, I wont be reading. I just wanted to rant at the decent people who are taken in by Davis. Good God, Labour have screwed us so much that we're forgetting who the Tories are. Home Secretary Davis is gonna be such a champion of civil liberties aint he.

    Oh and a final point, I'm no great champion of the Lib-Dems, but the reason we don't have a genuine party of the left anymore is because we (even those on the left) pay more attention to a pointless egotistical stunt by one of the most right-wing mainstream politicians around than we do the Lib Dem's continual opposition to this sort of thing.

    David Davis: liberty for all, unless you're one of them gays...

    *relurk*

    edit: Just noticed someone mention Robin Cook...precisely. He was no saint but his resignation made people sit up and take notice, and it actually cost him something. Davis is tonight celebrating the greatest PR victory for a politician in years. Far from throwing away his position in the shadow cabinet he is now basically going to be Cameron's Brown, if you get the reference. Anyway, got to stop ranting.

    *rerelurks*

2
Sign In or Register to comment.