Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

Because it is convenient to have one in a modern state where you have to identify yourself and confirm your right to be where you are on a near-constant basis.

[garbon]

Because it is convenient to have one in a modern state where you have to identify yourself and confirm your right to be where you are on a near-constant basis.

Near constant basis? What are you doing? And what is wrong with the current forms of ID you have?

[mongers]

Because it is convenient to have one in a modern state where you have to identify yourself and confirm your right to be where you are on a near-constant basis.

Tamas, I think you might be the victim of some low level racism, those people are hearing you have a bit of a foreign accent and acting negatively?

[Tamas]

Because it is convenient to have one in a modern state where you have to identify yourself and confirm your right to be where you are on a near-constant basis.

Near constant basis? What are you doing? And what is wrong with the current forms of ID you have?

Ask the Windrush people. Or the bruhaha around voter ID.

Maybe I am exaggerating the "near constant" part, but it is a regular part of modern living to prove your identity, ad pretending it is not just creating needless problems and frictions like the all-around racist debate over voter IDs - where the right is pushing for them because of the racist assumption that ethnic minorities would be too dumb and uncaring to get them, and the left opposes it because of the racist assumption that ethnic minorities would be too dumb and uncaring to get them.

[Tamas]

Because it is convenient to have one in a modern state where you have to identify yourself and confirm your right to be where you are on a near-constant basis.

Tamas, I think you might be the victim of some low level racism, those people are hearing you have a bit of a foreign accent and acting negatively?

Nah. But going through a name change like I did last year really highlight on how many occasions it matters what your identity is, and your ability to prove it.

[Gups]

You can argue that the London police being prejudiced and terrible is not a right-wing creation because the latest police chief is a Labour appointment, but I very much doubt she have been able to turn the whole culture of the force drastically around if the officers opposed that switch.

She was appointed by the Home Office in 2017. Labour had nothing to do with it.

[Gups]

Because it is convenient to have one in a modern state where you have to identify yourself and confirm your right to be where you are on a near-constant basis.

I can't think of a single time in the last 10 years in the UK where a bank card hasn't been sufficient.

[Tamas]

Because it is convenient to have one in a modern state where you have to identify yourself and confirm your right to be where you are on a near-constant basis.

I can't think of a single time in the last 10 years in the UK where a bank card hasn't been sufficient.

Which is silly in itself. If I give you my bank card you can identify yourself as me.

[garbon]

Ask the Windrush people. Or the bruhaha around voter ID.

So you have no examples then? Not sure how "Windrush people" or "the bruhaha around voter ID" demonstrate even a frequent need to show ID. I can't but help point out that your 2nd example is an attempt by the Conservatives to increase need for an ID so odd example.

Maybe I am exaggerating the "near constant" part, but it is a regular part of modern living to prove your identity, ad pretending it is not just creating needless problems and frictions like the all-around racist debate over voter IDs - where the right is pushing for them because of the racist assumption that ethnic minorities would be too dumb and uncaring to get them, and the left opposes it because of the racist assumption that ethnic minorities would be too dumb and uncaring to get them.

So this is just a rant about how you think it is racist when people bring up arguments as to why showing ID to vote (something that hasn't been needed in established practice in US and UK) is a bad idea?

[Sheilbh]

No my point is that the lack of an ID card has not prevented any of those.

That's not my point though I'm not saying it would stop hostile environment etc just that we shouldn't add to them. People have to prove who they are far too much and we should be trying to remove that and, in addition, I think any document like this would be used by police to harass people.

As I say this turn came from a comment by the French Interior Minister and he also noted that France deports many more migrants than the UK each year (20,000 v 6,000 - although those are 2020 figures so) which he links to the lack of an ID card and the perception that it's easy to disappear in the UK. Which it isn't because you do need to prove who you are all the time. And I believe being harassed by police for ID cards was an issue that was talked about as a problem in the French anti-racist/BLM protests. I don't look at that and think - there's a power/tool the Home Office/Police could do with.

You can argue that the London police being prejudiced and terrible is not a right-wing creation because the latest police chief is a Labour appointment, but I very much doubt she have been able to turn the whole culture of the force drastically around if the officers opposed that switch.

That's my point though. It's not just London police either. The issues are institutional, not dependent on whatever government's in charge. The police are - with the civil service - the last great unreformed public service in the UK. They are a political actor and they are very, very good at resisting scrutiny and any attempt at reform.

She was appointed by the Home Office in 2017. Labour had nothing to do with it.

But isn't Met Commissioner jointly appointed and responsible to the mayor as London Police and Crime Commissioner and the Home Office. I remember reading at the time that Khan took the lead on that, just like Johnson did appointing her predecessor when he became mayor.

Maybe I am exaggerating the "near constant" part, but it is a regular part of modern living to prove your identity, ad pretending it is not just creating needless problems and frictions like the all-around racist debate over voter IDs - where the right is pushing for them because of the racist assumption that ethnic minorities would be too dumb and uncaring to get them, and the left opposes it because of the racist assumption that ethnic minorities would be too dumb and uncaring to get them.

I find having to prove my address is always the most problematic. I've not moved flat for the last few years but there was about ten years when I moved about every years and the number of times I'd be trying to set up, say, a utilities account and I'd need to prove my address with a utilities bill from the last three months and they never seemed to realise how that might be difficult

So you have no examples then? Not sure how "Windrush people" or "the bruhaha around voter ID" demonstrate even a frequent need to show ID. I can't but help point out that your 2nd example is an attempt by the Conservatives to increase need for an ID so odd example.

Yeah and the latest I read on the voter ID was that they would be providing a free voter ID card - my suspicion is that the voter ID is in part moving to a national ID database by the backdoor.

[Tamas]

The voter ID thing is being pushed by the Conservatives for their own purpose but that does not make it automatically a bad thing.

I think it is a very bad attitude to dismiss voter fraud. I realise, it is a miniscule amount, but single votes should be held sacred and not dismissed off-hand as insignificant if they get cheated. Each of us have a single vote. If we say a single vote cheated does not matter it means our votes don't matter.

With that and Windrush what I wanted to point out was the advantage of having an ID system at all. In terms of frequency, don't tell me you have not had to identify yourself when on official business, or in a bank. The fact that you can sometimes do that with some photo-less bank card should make you dread the ease at which your life could be totally fucked up, and not consider it a good thing.

[The Larch]

Sometimes you just can't win:

[Tamas]

I find having to prove my address is always the most problematic. I've not moved flat for the last few years but there was about ten years when I moved about every years and the number of times I'd be trying to set up, say, a utilities account and I'd need to prove my address with a utilities bill from the last three months and they never seemed to realise how that might be difficult

In Hungary there's a separate Proof of Address Card, which DOES make such things to sort out much easier, but I readily admit that it is mostly a needless administrative burden, as many institutions make it a mandatory part of self-identification (like a bank). For a while I did not have my "No Address" Proof of Address Card, yet I tried to close my Hungarian bank account. Well, the computer said no. I was showing them my Hungarian passport, my Hungarian ID card, my British driving licence, the debit card they issued for the account to my name. But, I could not show a piece of official paper that would confirm that my address is no address, so they wouldn't deal with me.

But still - it is just silly to come to a (self-)supposed pinnacle of civilisation country and find them struggle with basic tasks like being able to identify their own citizens. Just because something wasn't necessary in 1882 doesn't mean it could not have become necessary since.

[Tamas]

Sometimes you just can't win:

[Josquius]

I was just having a discussion this morning in stand up about how world from home is killed ties.