U-turn identifies a leader trying to salvage chances for election

Published on Tuesday 30 June 2009 21:13

THE Home Secretary's decision to abandon compulsory ID cards is a victory for personal liberty and for economic common sense. However, his plan to continue with ID cards on a voluntary basis is a fudge – and an expensive one, at that – designed only to let the Prime Minister save face. Above all, the binning of compulsory ID cards is proof that this government has abandoned any sort of consistency in favour of electoral expediency.

Gordon Brown always talks about taking hard decisions but the only decisions he seems to be taking at the moment are those that will help avoid electoral defeat.

The original plan to introduce ID cards was part of David Blunkett's attempt to appear "tough" in the wake of 9/11. But there never was any proof that ID cards would curb terrorism: if ordinary credit cards can be cloned or counterfeited, then so can ID cards. Tellingly, Mr Blunkett became an opponent when he returned to the back-benches. Also, the cost of ID cards was always going to be prohibitive and the technology as faulty as any of the other IT disasters over which the government has presided. And expecting an administration that has lost confidential files by the million to keep our personal information secret is like trusting an alcoholic with the keys to a pub.

As a result of technical problems, rising costs and a chorus of opposition, the government initially retreated to calling ID cards "voluntary". But "voluntary" did not really mean voluntary. Once a significant majority of people had cards, the government intended to force everyone to buy one. Again, designated groups such as airline staff would have to get an ID card: i.e. it was only "voluntary" for some.

Finally, there was the suspicion that the government intended to make anyone claiming any state benefit present an ID card. An ID card would be voluntary but you could not claim a tax credit without one. (This remains a possibility and the Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, must confirm where he sands on it.)

Yesterday, the government staged yet another strategic withdrawal. ID cards remain but the plan to make them fully compulsory after a majority hold them has bitten the dust. Airline workers will be encouraged to posses them, but it will not be compulsory.

Why the change? The recession, and the gaping hole in the government's wallet, may have been the real reason for the retreat. It may also have been a quid pro quo to Labour back-benchers in order to help stave off the revolt against Mr Brown's leadership. And it neutralises Tory and Lib Dem criticism that Labour is authoritarian.

However, the question arises: if Labour thought that compulsory ID cards were so vital to Britain's security, why is it ditching them?

Of course, like Dracula, compulsory ID cards might yet rise from the dead. But only if Labour wins the election. The question is: does a government that drops major policies for reasons for expediency deserve to win the next general election?

Poll delay could backfire on the government

THE voters of Norwich North will get to choose a new MP on 23 July. The by-election has been called following the resignation of the sitting Labour MP, Ian Gibson, following the row over his parliamentary expenses. However, the voters of Glasgow North East will not get to elect their next MP on 23 July, or any time soon. This is despite the fact that the seat became vacant last week when Michael Martin, the former Commons Speaker, also resigned as an MP.

In fact, it looks as if Labour will postpone any by-election in Glasgow North East until as late as November, in order to give its new candidate, law lecturer William Bain, time to fend off the SNP. They fear that holding a by-election during the summer holidays could lead to a repeat of the SNP's victory in neighbouring Glasgow East last July.

Of course, all parties manipulate election dates to suit their own interests. Which is why they should not be allowed to set those dates in the first place. If the voters of Norwich can get a say in who represents them on 23 JulY, why do Glasgow electors have to wait another four months without a representative in parliament?

This flagrant disregard of the voters is also seen by the refusal of the Unionist parties to countenance a referendum in Scotland on either independence or the Calman devolution proposals. Yet a new BBC poll shows that 58 per cent of Scots voters want an independence referendum. It's time the politicians let the people decide.

What did the council ever do for us?

IN March, the town of Aberystwyth finally relented on its 30-year ban on the film Monty Python's Life of Brian. The first "legal" screening was a sell-out and attended by former Pythons Michael Palin and Terry Jones, who directed the film. Also in the audience was the mayor of Aberystwyth, who was responsible for lifting the ban. She is Sue Jones-Davies, otherwise famous as the actress who played Judith Iscariot, Brian's girlfriend, in the original movie. Now Glasgow has followed suit and lifted its long-time ban on the film though there is no evidence that the city's Lord Provost, Bob Winter, was in the film, even as an extra.

Back in 1979, critics claimed The Life of Brian made fun of Jesus. Anyone who has seen the classic comedy knows it is not blasphemous, either by accident or intention. It is actually a very funny but very intelligent satire about religious intolerance – which explains why it is still as fresh today as it was when the towns of Aberystwyth and Glasgow were silly enough to try and ban it.

The prestigious British Film Institute named The Life of Brian to be the 28th best British film of all time. A Channel 4 poll in 2001 revealed it was the 23rd greatest film of all time, and the second best comedy. Yet somewhere, there will still be some Judean People's Front who want to ban it. Or is that the People's Front of Judea?