Blunkett

[liadnan]

So there goes the worst Home Secretary I can think of, offhand (and yes, I can think of Michael Howard).

To be honest, I find it difficult to care much about how he went. I just think he was an unpleasant and ignorant hyper-authoritarian shit and we're a hell of a lot better off without him in that post.

Comments

is it because

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

of the id cards? :) Seriously, I can understand why Blunkett is so unpopular, but I'm still surprised at how many people are against id cards in Britain.

As for Blunkett, I'm glad he quit. Although I do regret not being in the UK right now; people were already angry and making fun of Blair for trying to anticipate the result of the inquiry (was it in DeadRingers that they spoke of his clairvoyant skills?) It would be interesting to be there right now.
(and probably less traumatic than watching the bus hijack unfold in the channels - that is just so depressing for so many reasons)

Re: is it because

[liadnan]

ID cards are only one of many of his policies and attitudes I consider wrong. I just think they're a stupid and pointless waste of time and money that state and other bodies will come to put dangerous reliance upon.

Re: is it because

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

I don't know; we have had ID cards since ... long before I was born and they're not that bad (as long as they get replaced every 10 years and not be the same for all your life, as is the case with Greece). After all, you still have other identification documents, such as driver's licence or passport.

What frightens me with ID cards, though, is the prospect of having embedded bar-codes with all your information in them, or the thing with retina-scans. They say that new passports will have things like that too, and I'm not that happy about it.

(in other words, I don't get why the big fuss about refusing ID cards since I've always had one, but the way things are going, you ought to refuse them)

Re: is it because

[liadnan]

Well, that's supposedly the whole point of what's being propised: the biometric thing. Although the plans are rather more complex than that, and most of the time they seem to be saying the information itself won't be hard-coded in the card.

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

do you believe them? If it won't be hard-coded in the card, then it will probably be stored in an online database. I see that as being more complicated, and perhaps safer, but from what I read about the new US cards or passports, the information there will be hardcoded in the card and not elsewhere. I hope Europe will choose a different way, but...I sort of doubt it.

[brelson.livejournal.com]

Various European states already have ID cards - it's the UK that's going to be bringing them in in a few years. Once they're in place there will be no risk of us coming under attack from terrorists.

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

I was talking about the biometrics, but I will be checking the ID cards from all my European friends to see if their have it or not. Ours still don't.

Re: is it because

[brelson.livejournal.com]

The point with ID cards isn't that they're "not too bad", it's that they cost so much money and it's so hard to see what benefits, if any, they're going to bring. There was a similar "why not?" mentality in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, with people thinking "it can't do any harm - let's invade". But when the government is preparing to spend millions/billions of pounds on something, a "why not?" attitude is inappropriate. "What good can come of this?" is the question people should be asking.

Re: is it because

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

First of all, I find your comparison of the mentality supporting ID cards and the war on Iraq ... what's the word? It's more than strange, because you're comparing two completely different things: internal affairs versus external policy. I don't see the relevance, but, that could just be me.

As I said, we've had ID cards for ages and I think it's a very useful way of verifying your data and who you are at any given time. I don't understand how people in Britain can prove who they are - by showing their credit cards? What if you don't drive, or you've never left Britain? Is passport obligatory? When my friends first told me that there were no ID cards in Britain, I was shocked. How do you prove that you are who you say you are when you apply for a job, or open a bank account? Or, worse, if you get stopped by the police in the middle of the street. A state without ID cards is still out of my experience.

My main problem is with biometrics and how safe these data would be and how privacy would be protected, and not if it's expensive or not. To be honest, I haven't understood the whole link to fighting terrorism through ID cards, since I'm a bit hesitant about the technology that will be used for this, but I still don't understand why it is a bad thing to replace the multitude of documents that you obviously have to use in order to prove your identity with a single, state-sponsored and issued document. At least, for me coming from a country where we have ID cards, and having just used my ID card several times to get various papers validated and documents renewed, that's the greatest benefit.

Re: is it because

[liadnan]

I think there are two main strands of argument in the UK. The first is deep-rooted English bloody-mindedness liberalism. During WWII they did have to have papers and that actually survived for some years after (standard bit of cardboard I think). I can't remember the details but I think the "why the hell should I have to prove who I am" argument came to a head when a liberal MP refused to produce his ID when requested by the police. That was in the 50s or 60s (?, anyone feel like googling?). In the end this argument comes down to a higher status being placed on personal privacy and the liberty of the individual from the state in countries based on Anglo-Saxon constitutional/philosophical/legal principles than in those based on Roman Law/Code Napoleon/etc. It's for the state to justify why.

Time has indeed moved on, we all carry bits of plastic all the time. But it's actually quite rare, historically, to have to prove identity in this country, and when you do you use paperwork created for other purposes: utility bills and the like.

The second strand is (1) the doubt about how clean the data will be. In the end, all a card proves (subject to arguments about encoding biometric data) is that you are claiming to be the person whose name is on the card. (2) the doubts about bleeding data -the life insurance firm getting their hands on the medical data, for instance, or credit ref agencies. (3) the historic overspends and failures of almost every major government IT project of the last ten years. (4) what real benefit is there? The 11 September highjackers all had papers.

Re: is it because

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

It is quite rare to have to prove your identity in this country too, at least not in the street (though you're obligated by law to carry your ID card with you everywhere, but no one pays attention to it, really). But when dealing with various offices of the civil service (the infamous Greek Demosion - how would you translate that?) then it's quite useful.

The second strand of argument makes sense to me, but only now with the tightening of security measures. I really can't see how carrying an ID would help fight terrorism and I do worry about issue (b) a lot.

What happens in relation to EU if Britain refuses to have ID cards? Or is this were people say 'we don't have to do what Brussels tell us anyway?'

As I said, having an ID card was not a problem so far. Right now, with the introduction of biometric data, I am wary of changing my ID card. That's why I had my passport renewed instead (although I saw they had a retina scanner in the airport so, in the end, it doesn't matter whether I worry or complain or not - I'll probably still get a scan when coming in and out of the country)

Re: is it because

[gmh.livejournal.com]

No. For me at least, it isn't about the ID cards. Part of me is secretly sorry that Blunkett went before he could reap the inevitable 'reward' of the ID card idea (which IMO is going to provide no real benefit, be ignored by the real criminals, and is going to be yet another governmental white elephant and IT cockup).

For me, it's the fact that Blunkett from the start defined himself by belittling the opinions of anyone who didn't agree with him; especially his infamous attacks on 'Hampstead liberals' and 'the liberati'.

(Note for foreigners and aliens: Blunkett seems to find the whole idea of 'human rights' somewhat repugnant. This is a common failing with Home Secretaries; but Blunkett went above and beyond this in many ways; and came up with Daily Mail-friendly crackpot ideas that displayed a staggering contempt for peoples' rights - see, for example, his plan to confiscate the children of asylum seekers if they didn't co-operate with forced repatriation.)

Blunkett was a poster child for the 'ignorant and proud of it' brigade; and couldn't see an issue even remotely close to his ambit without jerking a knee at it.

Good riddance to him, and I hope his political career is over.

Gideon.

Re: is it because

[frankie-ecap.livejournal.com]

What you said.

Thinking about this, I have changed my definition of integrity. It used to be 'believing you are telling the truth'. (And I'm willing to countenance the possibility that Blunkett believes he is telling the truth. Similarly Blair & Bush.)

I think I've now reversed it 180 degrees, to include 'believing it possible you may be mistaken'.

Lord knows I am no friend of the Daily Mail, but someone made the point the other day that the viciousness of the press might be due at least in part to the arrogance of the politicians, and it's worth a second thought.

Re: is it because

[liadnan]

The use of the word "liberal" as an insult is almost bound to start me foaming. If "Western" civilisation is fundamentally about anything it's about liberalism. I think. (For values of liberal which bear in mind that Marx was all about the eventual withering away of the state etc)

Re: is it because

[gmh.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

The insulting connotation of 'liberal' is a product of the US right wing's resurgence in the 1970s; I could write a fairly lengthy essay on the history, except that it would probably annoy me far too much.

As far as I'm concerned, 'liberal' is simply one of the highest compliments for someone's political persona there is. It denotes that the person concerned is mature enough to realise that absolutism or unilateralism are not (and can not be) a serious answer to any real-world problem.

(There is, of course, a down side to this; a tendency to waffle and devolve into committee and wrangle at length; yet I'd still rather people cared enough about finding the right compromise to engage in lengthy discussion, rather than simply inviting others to decide for them.)

As you know, I have strong political opinions of a left-wing persuasion; but in real life, these come a definite second to the rights of others not to be harmed by my opinions.

This probably puts me square in the middle of the liberal do-gooders that Blunkett and his ilk despise.

Well, nuts to them.

Gideon.

Re: is it because

[liadnan]

PS is the bus thing still going on?

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

yes, unfortunately. Last I checked there were only 6 hostages on the bus, but it's just so depressing. You have the people calling the media saying that all Albanians are evil and we should close the borders,the journalists trying not to encourage racism and then showing reports about that other bus hijacker, an Albanian back in 1999, and how he's now considered a hero in Albania and... I really can't stand journalists here (except those I know in person).

And of course, the situation itself is very depressing.

[liadnan]

Albanian? I thought it was Russians. Time to go and trawl the BBC news site some more.

it's just crazy

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

They said they were ALbanians this morning, one of the the hijackers themselves called and said they were Russian, the media came out and said that they're probably Albanian, the Greek minister of public order (I'm not sure what's the British equivalent) called the Albanian ambassador to negotiate with them and the man is now there... Right now, it's very complicated, because even if the hijackers say they're Russian, the journalists insist they're Albanian and, because that was the first report, the people still think they were ALbanian (at least according to the outraged calls they make to tv stations).

Someday, someone will make a great documentary about all this. *sigh*

Re: it's just crazy

[liadnan]

Sounds like a mess. Russian mafia trafficking Albanian illegals perhaps.
Public Order is one of the Home Secretary's things, actually.

really?

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

Home Secretary would be Minister of Internal Affairs here, I think. Public Order is a separate Ministry, dealing with police, firemen and other forces like taht.

And it is a mess - have you ever heard the expression: Greece, country of the irrational? It's not just because we like Beckett or Kafka! :)

bus update

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

it's finally over. The hostages were just released and the hijackers surrendered.

[susumu.livejournal.com]

Well yeah, at least Howard was an actual member of the Conservative party, rather than an aspiring one.

"I find it difficult to care much about how he went"

Personally I'm delighted than a grubby minor scandal has finished him off. No chance now of saying 'my work here is done'.

[liadnan]

One up for Gordon against Blair too. This could all be such fun.

[liadnan]

Oh, looks like it's Charles Clarke. Well, gets him out of making stupid comments about what education is for I guess.

personally,

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

I like minor scandals like that when they happen outside of Greece, but that's because everyone says how corrupt Greek politics are. It's good to remind others that politics are corrupt everywhere (which reminds me of a couple of discussions I've had on German and Polish politics recently *g*)

What will happen now to the security measures he was supporting? Any chance of them being reconsidered or not implemented as he'd planned them?

Re: personally,

[liadnan]

Open to debate. He was personally much associated with ID cards, arguments about trial by jury and the incitement to religious hatred thing, and the labour backbenchers were unkeen. With an election less than five months away (allegedly), the gulf between Blair and Brown quite evident, the European referendums, a host of other problems, and it beginning to look (I think) as though both the LibDems and the Tories could make serious holes in the majority (?enough for a hung parliament -doubtful but just possible?) I reckon various things will head for the backburner. They won't say they're ditching them, but the pressure to get them through this term will probably be significantly less. I have a vague idea that Clarke may have expressed mild doubts about some of the plans.

This is actually quite a big thing for the Government: he was one of Blair's key figures, Blair's man on the home front, which is important when you consider that otherwise domestic policy has largely answered to Brown since 1997, while Blair concentrated on foreign policy.

I see

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

yes, that makes sense that things will be pushed back, for the time being. I remember reading about the opposition to these security measures, and the laws regarding religion and freedom of speech, and discussing these with people (Britih people), and there was lots of disagreement, resentment and even outrage.

The fact that he was mostly on domestic issues explains why I hadn't heard of him when I was in Greece (and, of course, with the bus hijack, we'll hear about his resignation in tomorrow's news).

[greyarea.livejournal.com]

Said elsewhere to similar sentiments, but I agree. He was a genuinely unpleasant bloke, who had genuinely unpleasant policies, and I'm glad to see the back of him.

[clanwilliam.livejournal.com]

My comments on the situation this evening went alog the lines of:

"Yeah, but who are we going to get now? It's a rule that each Home Sec. must be more fascist than the first.

"There was Michael Howard, who was the uber-fascist, we all though. But then we got Jack Straw, who made Howard look like a pinko bleeding-heart liberal. And *then* we got Blunkett."

G. has just told me Charles Clarke is taking over. My reaction was that obviously, all you have to do is screw up as Education Secretary and you get the Home Office.