They're not voting because...
- Tell me WHO to vote for to stop things...
Tell me who to vote for to stop things like this (see below) happening and I will vote
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/12/uk_passport_fingerprints/written 13th Apr 2005
Jeffrey replies: Liberal Democrats. They actually care about civil liberties.written 13th Apr 2005
Paul replies: Yeah right! Don't make me laugh.
LibDems have done nothing to stop or oppose the current ID legislation going through. It was only because of lack of time (due to the election) that the ID card bill was temprarily shelved. But it will be back next session.
LibDems would also hand the UK over to Euope lock, stock and barrrel given half the chance. How much civil liberty would we have then?
Also see the second paragraph of the article "passports are issued under royal prerogative, it doesn't need legislation to demand fingerprints from passport applicants."
It doesn't require legislation, so how are the LibDems going to stop it? Overthrow the Monarchy perhaps?
This finger print database will go through regardless, and so will other forms of biometric data in due course (DNA records etc) as well as RFID (which is already proposed in the states) allowing passports to be remotely tracked and the contents read without the owners knowledge.
If legislature can not stop this, what is the point of voting? Oh yeah, so that mind numbingly tedious issues like how much of a bottomless money pit the NHS is, can be repeated ad nauseum.written 13th Apr 2005
Chris replies: Labour are pro (ID cards are a manifesto commitment, though oddly they neglect to mention how much they'll cost). Michael Howard is in favour of ID cards "in principle" but the party is against the current scheme, though it voted on it in one division (the Tory front bench were mostly very unhappy about that). The Lib Dems are opposed, as are the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The minor parties -- UKIP, Veritas, Greens, BNP, etc. -- are all opposed so far as I know.
Conflating ID cards and biometric passports is something which the Home Office is desperate to do. Whether they would get away with this under a government which was opposed to a national biometric database in general, I don't know.written 13th Apr 2005
Paul replies: By the way, the link is about Passports, not ID cards.written 13th Apr 2005
Gavin replies: Fingerprinting's great. Much better security. Of course, it will encourage people to chop off your fingers (perhaps eventually just in case they'll be of use at a later date, not even just for immeadiate use).
I'm pretty sure that ID cards and passports cannot become a single item due to differences in the specification in order to conform to EU rules. It's certainly tricky, anyway. No doubt they'll figure out a way of doing it, then the finger chopping can take hold.written 13th Apr 2005
Alan replies: In response to the person who said the lib dems have done nothing to oppose ID cards. They have opposed the plans from the beginning. See the link below...
In response to the comments on handing over the UK to Europe, they would in fact put the Euro issue to the vote (although they support the idea).
Being part of the EU and Euro doesn't mean giving your country to the nasty Europeans - Christ knows I hate the French just as much as the next man (just kidding of course) - do you think the Germans want to be governed by us and the rest of Europe, clearly not but they're part of the EU and have adopted the Euro. It's not about giving up sovereignty.written 13th Apr 2005
Jeffrey replies: To add my comments to what was said above, the Lib Dems have acutally made scrapping the idiotic drive for ID cards an election pledge in order to pay for more policemen.
And as for pushing it through as a royal perogative, if enough noise was made about it I'm sure it would never go through. Although the man in the street might not care that the government and any private companies it wants might have unrestricted access to all your private data under the ID card system - he certainly isn't going to be told what to do by our gracious Queen!
Though I'd disagree with what is said above. Stronger ties with Europe almost automatically mean a loss of sovereignty as we won't be able to do entirely what we want - which is a good thing. The UK can not hope to compete with US or China and in this world where power is money, that means we have very little power. Much better to aggregate into a stronger Europe to gain a stronger voice.written 13th Apr 2005
azad replies: pls look here ....
http://www.vote4peace.org.uk/candidates.phpwritten 13th Apr 2005
Alan replies: I'll conseed the above point to an extent, but if you define the loss of sovereignty as the loss of some power to another country then we already lost sovereignty a long time ago. I personally don't define it that way.
If your against loosing any power to Europe, clearly Jeffrey (above) and myself aren't, then your perhaps thinking on the same lines as the Conservatives or even the BNP!
We need to be strong and selfish in Europe, I don't think we're currently strong enough.
The Lib Dems deserve their chance. Even if you don't agree with all of their policies you know that they'll stick by them. Personally when I go down the list below the Lib Dems win my vote on every issue and they have budgeted for their plans completely. These are the issues that people need to be judging parties on before they vote...
That was a bit of a rant! Apologies, I must indeed be "not apathetic".written 14th Apr 2005
Paul replies: "if enough noise was made about it I'm sure it would never go through."
What noise? Made how? Made by who?
As much as I would like to take your personal assurance that it would never go through, I hope you'll forgive me if I remain somewhat sceptical about your fortune telling skills.
I'm sure if you siad to people said in 1985 that within 15 years most of this country would be under CCTV surveillance they would have laughed you out of the room.
My point was that it doesn't matter who you vote for, there is nothing that voting can do about this particular issue.
I'm sure there are also many other examples of very important issues that simply can not be addressed or affected by voting.written 14th Apr 2005
Al replies: Your point was "LibDems have done nothing to stop or oppose the current ID legislation going through."
You couldn't have been more wrong. Your now changing the issue to justify the fact that you can't be arsed to go and vote.
People seem to be enjoying jumping on this apathetic band wagon because it requires less effort than taking the time to consider the issues and each party's line on those issues and then go and vote (ooooh controversial!!!).
The first past the post system does make voting unfair but you surely can't say none of the parties hold and of the same view as you on the major issues. Can you?? Maybe you can??written 14th Apr 2005
Bri replies: I have a feeling that a lot of people will not vote becasue they wont get their fat arse our their armchairs BUT will say they are not voting out of principal blah blah blah.written 14th Apr 2005
Paul replies: Seeing as I wrote the original post, I think I know what it was about (despite your arrogant assumption that you know the point I was trying to make better than I do).
Read my first post again. It's about changes that require no legislation and therfore can not be affected by voting.
I am concerned about such issues, but voting will not affect the outcome of the issue in question.written 14th Apr 2005
Al replies: Your right I didn't read your post carefully. Your much more paranoid than I first recognized.
What are you trying to hide?
You don't want people to know who you are, you don't want people to be able to trace your finger prints.
Dodgey bloke.written 14th Apr 2005
eashsae replies: While Al made me laugh, I agree with Paul that it is far too easy for the law to change without the general public's knowledge or approval.written 14th Apr 2005