I’m disappointed, but not surprised, to see this on the BBC News homepage:

Government wins key Commons vote on ID Cards Bill by majority of 31. More soon.

With Labour’s majority severely reduced, I was hoping that pointless legislation would no longer get through the House of Commons. Yet, even after watching the debate for most of the afternoon, I still see no reason for ID cards to be introduced. Maybe I’m just stupid.

One of the main arguments for ID cards in recent days, and the one apparently favoured by Mr Blair, has been that biometric passports are being introduced, and we might as well have ID cards at the same time. To me, this makes no sense. Only people who apply for the new passports will get ID cards, so why not use their passports as ID?

Charles Clarke has now conceded that ID cards won’t really help in the fight against crime, but does claim that they’ll help against serious and organised crime – the example he chose to cite on the Today programme was drug smuggling. Why would anyone smuggling drugs do so with a fake ID? It would just be one further possible trigger for suspicion. Somebody trying to smuggle drugs into the country would surely do so in a way as to appear as inconspicuous as possible. If they’re currently trying to do that using forged passports, then I suggest their logic is slightly twisted.

As for terrorism: The people who commit terrorist offences rarely use fake ID. Again, using fake ID only increases the chance of getting caught. The key to successfully committing a terrorist offence is surely to use people who would not raise any suspicion in their day-to-day lives, but are under the control of the lead fundamentalists. Not to try and get through security checks with fake ID.

And finally, the argument put forward that this should serve as a single form of unquestionable ID is dangerous. The ID cards are to carry three pieces of biometric data, since using only one doesn’t provide suitable efficacy. Now Charles Clarke is making a big deal of the fact that this will mean you’ll no longer have to collect lots of documents together to open a bank account, get a library card, or get a copy of your criminal record in a CRB check. Unless he’s planning on equipping every bank, library, and CRB representative (which include thousands of members of councils, universities, churches, youth groups…) with an iris scanner, facial recognition software, and fingerprinting devices, then these people will not be able to check the biometric data, and so these cards end up being no more secure in day-to-day use than normal photographic ID. So to then announce that this will serve as a sole form of ID makes it much easier to commit identity theft offences, as only one document will need to be forged.

So as far as I can see, our elected representatives have voted to divulge far more about our lives than ever before to governmental departments, and allow them to store this data on computers that will probably not be as secure as they should be, and that will probably cost more than the government says, for no tangible benefit. And the majority wasn’t even that narrow. Good one, guys.

When the Daily Mail starts trumpeting the cause of failed asylum seekers, it’s clear that something is seriously wrong. The issue at hand is the proposed deportation of a hundred failed asylum seekers from Zimbabwe, back to Robert Mugabe’s deplorable regime, where they will almost certainly be presumed to be British spies. They have been on hunger strike now for six days, in protest against their deportation. The Mail is against their deportation (quote from today’s Wrap):

Mail readers who are accustomed to the paper’s demands for a crackdown on asylum seekers may have to pinch themselves today. “FOR PITY’S SAKE LET THEM STAY,” splashes the paper. “How, in all conscience, can the Home Office deport more than 100 Zimbabweans to face torture at the hands of Mugabe’s evil regime?”

Three Zimbabweans involved in the opposition Movement for Democratic Change describe the torture they suffered under President Mugabe’s regime. The Mail wants to know why they are not allowed to remain in Britain while “hundreds of thousands of other would-be refugees” whose asylum applications have been refused are allowed to stay.

The difficulty here is that the asylum seekers are unable to prove that they personally are at risk of persecution. The political difficulty is that one can’t let one set of asylum seekers that don’t meet the necessary criteria stay, whilst deporting others in similar situations. Except, there have been special rules on Zimbabwe for a number of years now, preventing the deportation of failed asylum seekers. Up until the last few days, I wasn’t aware that this rule had been removed, and I can’t begin to understand why it has been changed: The situation in Zimbabwe is clearly not improving, so why remove the protection these people have been offered for so long?

Regular readers will know that I’m incredibly cynical, but is it going too far to question whether this rule was removed in order to improve the figures on deportation of failed asylum seekers in the run-up to a General Election? I have looked around quite a bit, and can’t find any other reason for the decision. But the Prime Minister’s press conference is just beginning – let’s hope that someone asks the pertinent question, and then we might know.

The public sector workers’ union, UNISON, has rejected the very idea of ID cards, and suggests that their members may even refuse to implement it. And the LSE are about to announce that, by their calculations, the estimates of how much the scheme will cost are far too low. It’s all less than good news for the government, who seem intent on forcing through the costly (and largely useless) legislation. The current situation is put most eliquently by Krishnan in today’s Snowmail:

Tonight this is where we are: the government does not know how much ID cards will cost, nor do they know how much it will save in reduced fraud, nor do they think it will prevent terrorist attack. But they want everyone to think ID cards are a good idea. I am left wondering if ID cards are the answer what is the question?

I was going to use this opportunity to make a big post explaining why I think ID cards are a bad idea. But, other than the fact the cost has now almost tripled, my objections are largely the same as they were more than a year ago. So you may as well just read that. And while you’re reading it, perhaps you can come up with the reason I called it ‘ID cards and the constitution, when it doesn’t even mention the latter. Because I’ve no idea.

I’ve pointed out before that, for me, one of the worst aspects of the Blair government is that ministers who resign in disgrace are almost invariably rehired, making a mockery of the idea of resigning because it’s the ‘right thing to do’, and removing all honour associated with standing down because you’re not worthy of office. What had never occured to me until today, thanks to a good journo asking an intelligent question of the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson, is that these ministers get payoffs for resigning from their posts, and then get rehired. And, on top of that, there’s not any wish to reform the system.

So not only is there no honour to resigning in disgrace any more, but it’s actually incentivised. The politician who’s done something so inescapably bad that they are forced into resigning gets a nice fat pay-off, and then is rehired. So they are, effectively, paid for being naughty. Even Dr Tanya Byron can see that’s not a good idea. And, frankly, it’s disgraceful.

Look at Estelle Morris, for example. Her mistakes put thousands of teenagers’ life plans off course, and caused untold worry and stress in families across the country. So she resigns, apparently very sorry for the mess she’s made. And I truly believe she was sorry – she seems a very open and honest woman. And yet, I guess it’s not all that difficult to be truly sorry when you know you’re going to get a nice big pay-off and a job back in government, with the associated huge salary, within a matter of months.

Tony Blair may have aspired to heading the washing-powder ‘whiter-than-white’ government, but his government is, at the very least, as soiled as the last. He should be ashamed.

I know a Blair apology is a rare old thing, but I’m sure that the poor people who are being asked to pay back tax credits they received due to government errors, despite the fact that they can’t afford to do this, are terribly grateful.

And, in a classic Blair non-apology, he didn’t apologise for the error itself, but for the ‘hardship or distress’ it caused. Which could easily have been avoided if his government had simply drawn a line under its own mistake, instead of effectively penalising those on the receiving end of the error.

And then he launched into a speech about why tax credits are normally wonderously marvellous things, and that the whole system is bascially perfect except for this one small error, that’s resulting in people having to live on £56 per week. He’s not even suggesting any way of helping these poor people out.

He should be ashamed of himself, and he should take some action to sort this mess out, not try and brush over it with a vacuous apology and self-congratulation. Pathetic.

As widely predicted (even by me), Nick Robinson is on the move from ITV to the Beeb, as their new political editor. He’s not the person I would’ve chosen, but the only other real candidate is Martha Kearney, and she’s not a favourite of mine either – of the two, frankly I’d prefer Robinson.

But there’s a wider issue here, as Polly Toynbee points out in tomorrow’s Grauny: Robinson is yet another macho attack-dog of a politcal reporter, in an organisation full of them. Personally, I would prefer to see someone like Elinor Goodman as political editor. But clearly the decision has been made, and, no doubt, I’ll come to like Mr Robinson over time. Even if at the moment, I think he’s a bit useless – but that’s probably more to do with ITV that it is him. Hopefully.

Apologies for the slight technical hitch which meant that this post only appeared about 24hrs after it was supposed to – I clicked the wrong button!

From the Times:

Potato farmers held a noisy protest outside Parliament today to get the term “couch potato” removed from the Oxford English dictionary, claiming it harms the vegetable’s image.

A similar rally took place outside the offices of the dictionary’s publishers in Oxford, with demonstrators carrying signs that read “couch potato out” and “ban the term couch potato”.

The British Potato Council wants the expression stripped from the Oxford English Dictionary and replaced in everyday speech with the term “couch slouch”. It says the phrase makes the vegetable seem unhealthy and is bad for its image.

That seems foolish. What seems more foolish, however, is that Nigel Evans MP has spent in the region of £1000 of taxpayers’ money tabling an EDM on the subject. Normally I wouldn’t object to that, especially given that there have been such protests – it is important that these people’s feelings are recognised. But when the OED has already told the protesters that words are not taken out of the OED, since their usage has contributed to ‘the patchwork of the English language’.

So either Mr Evans has wasted your money by expressing support for a futile campaign, or else he wants to change the nature and function of one of Britain’s most respected institutions, the OED. Which is it?

Gordon Brown, in a very Prime Ministerial speech, today announced that the G8 finance ministers have agreed, subject to conditions, to wipe out 100% of the debt owed by eighteen countries with immediate effect using an IVA. Those countries are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. A further nine (Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Malawi, Sao Tome, and Sierra Leone). This will cost, in total, around about $55bn.

That at first glance, seem relatively laudable. But really it’s not that helpful. Adding all of the debt African countries owe to external countries and bodies, we get to $300bn. This is aid worth $55bn, and Bolivia, Guyana, and Honduras aren’t actually in Africa. So it probably leaves Africa around $250bn in debt. According to Freedomdebtrelief.com reviews, ActionAid reckon that there’s another forty countries that need immediate 100% debt relief.

And as a sidenote, how many of those people walking round wearing white bands supporting this kind of action could point on a map to any of the countries named above? Some people would say that’s irrelevant, and that they are showing caring for people rather than demonstrating their knowledge. But the campaign is a political one. How can they possibly support a particular political campaign if they don’t understand it’s mechanisms and implications, and can’t even place the countries on a map?

Back to the point… Compared to what’s gone before, this debt relief is a pretty big leap. But far more needs to be done to make a huge impact, and I hope that the G8 will throw up some bigger and brighter ideas. Whether debt relief is the best way of helping these countries is also open to question, and I have to say that I’m not convinced. We need much more open public education and debate on these issues. The campaign should be raising awareness and educating, not just asking people to send letters that they quite possibly don’t understand to Tony Blair.

Essentially, whilst the action that’s been taken is clearly laudable, a lot more must be done, and it’s not time yet to rest and feel good about ourselves. Hundreds of thousands of people die needlessly every day, and this won’t stop that. We just have to hope that one of the great minds of our generation can think of a real solution, and that the conscience of the world will lead us to implement it – even at great cost.

There’s a title I never thought I’d be writing. I refer, of course, to his little performance in the Commons today:

The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period.

His choice of American idiom has caused something of a storm. As the ObserverBlog puts it,

Has someone, like, just come back from the States, or what?

I have to say that his particular choice of word doesn’t particularly bother me: It just highlights how out-of-touch he is with the British people. And that hardly constitutes news.

But with Mrs Blair yesterday and Mr Blair today, one does have to wonder if this blog is turning into something of a family affair. Tomorrow: Meet Ewan.

Not really.

Given the slightly silly way in which Mrs Blair has had to be included in the recent trip by the Prime Minister to the USA, with the two just ‘co-incidentally’ being in the US at the same time on different trips, and Mr Bush just ‘happening’ to invite her along, would it not seem logical to formalise the arrangements and have an official role for the Prime Minister’s spouse, a role on which they could be elected alongside their husband rather than just happening into a job of such power?

Even the Prime Minister’s Spokeswoman agrees with the general idea that Mrs Blair is an important stateswoman: After all, earlier today, when asked why Mrs Blair was introduced to the President by Her Majesty’s Ambassador to Washington DC, she responded that this was normal for

any prominent British citizen visiting Washington DC

I might be overanalysing this, but my dictionary defines prominent as ‘conspicuous in position or importance’. As far as I am aware, Mrs Blair has no official elected position, and certainly no formal importance.

I have no ideological problem with the Prime Minister’s spouse taking a bigger official role – I think that a First Lady style position could be very useful in some circumstances – and I think Mrs Blair is given an exceptionally bad press in this country for no good reason. But to take a bigger role means that they will no longer be able to hide behind the ‘privacy of the family’ excuse when things get tough. Mrs Blair simply cannot have it both ways: She cannot be both a stateswoman and also free from accountability. She has to take one with the other. And if she does, then good luck to her.