What he is is unwilling to vote against the whip.

He's a good MP, just clueless on this issue.

He's not a moron; morons don't have two degrees and a doctorate (in proper, hard sciences: Chemical Engineering (BSc), Process Analysis and Control Theory (MSc), Fluid Mechanics (PhD) - these qualify him as a Clever Bastard™), and morons don't get re-elected in formerly hostile constituencies.

To be honest, when you start frothing like that, I stop listening; that may be the way American politics is conducted, but we do things slightly differently over here. I can guarantee you that if I write to him and call him names, he'll write back saying "thank you for your letter" and that'll be the end of the dialogue.

And you really need to understand how a party whip works in a parliamentary democracy before diving in feet first; it's neither as simple nor as clear-cut as you seem to think.

Sorry if this sounds boringly condescending.

14th February 2006

Dear Mr Whysall,

Thank you for you faxed letter of today's date regarding ID cards. Thank you also for your kind words.

I have to say that whilst I appreciate your sincerity and your arguments, I do have to say that I am basically in favour of ID cards and voted for the Government on this issue yesterday. They can prevent identity theft - a growing problem in this country. They can strengthen immigration and border controls, they can help misuse and fraud of public services and they can be a deterrent to organised crime.

As usual, the actual "how" is carefully glossed over in favour of a repeated assertion that ID cards will act as some kind of universal salve for the irritations of ID theft, illegal immigration, benefit fraud and crime. It's time to give us details. ID thieves will continue to operate, and the potential winnings will increase. Illegal immigrants don't have any identity details at the moment, so nothing would change; illegal immigrants with lots of money will simply spend more of it to get faked ID cards. Benefit fraudsters don't usually forge their identity, and neither do most criminals. Again, the criminal elite will simply obtain a forged or cloned or stolen identity card. What have we solved? Have we raised the bar for drink-fuelled violence, petty street crime, car theft or burglary? Do the crimes which involve identity manipulation even occur all that often? I feel that these questions must be answered in detailed but plain English. I suspect, however, that there will be no explanation or justification forthcoming, but rather repeated assertions that ID cards Will Deliver The Security Goods.

Look in particular at identity theft and the possible misuse of public services - to me the two key issues and two key benefits of any scheme.

OK.

Improvements in technology have made all our lives easier. Transactions usch as paying a bill which once took many minutes are now done in seconds over the telephone and the Internet. But these advances also bring risks. Criminals are recognising that our identities are just as valuable, if not more so, than our material possessions. A few items stolen from a rubbish bin such as utility bills and credit card statements can lead to huge financial losses as well as distress and inconvenience for victims in putting their records straight. On average victims can spend 60 hours restoring their records. An ID cards scheme - as the legislation says - is first and foremost for the benefit of citizens, giving them a means to protect their identity and to be able to prove it in a secure and straightforward manner.

And when the ID card is cloned, as it will be, because an identity will now be of much more value than before, how many hours will it take for the victim to recover their records? How will an ID card prove anything? Will I be required to present it when making a purchase? When applying for a new credit card? When opening a bank account?

In terms of misuse of public services I believe than an ID card scheme will give people assurance that those using public services are entitled to do so and are not abusing the scheme. It will also make access to public services for thise who are entitled to them more straightfoward and secure. Expectations about the quality of public services are increasing, yet citizens are inconvenienced by having to re-identify themselves to public services on different occasions. This also wastes public resources. The range of services that can be offered on-line can be limited without a definitive, highly secure and reliable means of proving identity.

This entire argument rests on the presupposition that people who defraud public services use false identities to do so. They don't. They use their own identities and simply lie. Unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary. ID cards are not fraud prevention devices; they are citizen control devices.

Many people are, I admit, concerned about possible costs of such a scheme. The steps needed to improve security will incur costs. However the costs need to be weighed against the benefits that I have listed above. I suspect that some of the costs that have gained wide publicity are wide of the mark, and I do know that the Home Secretary is looking at this aspect of any scheme seriously. I feel there may well be a capped cost, but this is still open to debate.

Oh, a "capped cost". What you really mean is that the Home Secretary will attempt to shout the cost into submission. This is management by wishful thinking, and it doesn't work. It will cost whatever it costs, because the government will be unable to resist the PFI/PPP mantra and the private sector always gets its pound of flesh. At least, I suppose, no-one's (yet) mentioned the idea of implementing the database as a DBFO. This, too, raises further questions; will the National ID Register (or whatever it shall be called) be built on British technology, or that imported from abroad? Put simply, will the most important database in the country be constructed on software that we fundamentally cannot trust?

I hope that this is helpful and this answers your question. Put simply the only ones who should fear ID cards are those who may have reasons to be fearful. They should not bother the honest law abiding person.

This is, quite simply, a terrifying statement.

As you can see, I am neither a knee-jerk reactionary nor anywhere near convinced that ID cards represent anything other than a massive loss opportunity in both fiscal and political terms. The redefinition of the relationship between citizen and state that would occur (i.e. that the state would gain the right to define the citizen) is, to me, unacceptable and contrary to the prevailing political and constitutional spirit which goes toward defining what it means to be British.