Today the Financial Times wades into the ID card debate. It is nothing new to those of us who have been following it since Big Blunkett first announced his intentions shortly after September 11th 2001. Yet, using the government’s own tactics of repeating the points often enough until they take root, here goes.
The FT repeats the exposure of the government’s lies about protection from terrorism by pointing out that both Blair and Blunkett have at various times been forced to admit that it won’t make us safer from terrorism:
“ID cards, as the prime minister and home secretary both say, are no guarantee of security. The terrorists who attacked the US on September 11 2001 travelled under their own identities. The Madrid bombers were not deterred by Spain’s ID cards.”
They also point out that even without cards, emergency cases will still be afforded access to NHS services as will people visiting – who may or may not be about to perpetrate a terrorist offence.
“As for welfare fraud, sick people are unlikely to be refused medical treatment because they cannot produce a card – and nor will the penniless be left to starve. And since false passports and false driving licences are readily available, ID cards will be no guarantee against forged identity.”
Significantly they give lie to Blunkett’s assertion that it will make us more safe from identity theft when the reality is that the opposite is the case.
“Indeed, identity theft could become easier if ID cards are accepted as sole proof of identity. And criminals will quickly get access to the national identity register – as they already do to other government databases.”
In summary they point out that the government could pay dearly at the polls. Like, perhaps, the Australia Card in the late eighties, where the threat of massive rejection and civil disobedience forced a humiliating climb-down and fall of the government. My only concern would be what replaces it. 
—–