Would you believe it!
They rattle on about integrity and have a go at Howard over his backing for ID cards but at least he has been consistently for them. Seems the only reason they changed their minds was because it was not their idea. We need some honesty in politics and you cannot always go around chasing votes and be serious at the same time.
7 comments:
Are you being serious here, Kevin?
What is your position exactly? It is hard to tell. Are you for or against ID cards.
I'd rather hear the answer to that than some cheap party political jibe. If you get elected can we expect this level of debate from our representative? or will you grow up and talk about the issues, instead of talking about the Lib Dems. I'm not interested in them - why are you?
It must be frustrating trying to win votes in an election for a seat where the governmental party doesn't really have a chance, and the current incumbent party has no chance of forming a government. But you won't deserve to win until you rise above all that, and talk like someone the people of Kingston would like to see representing them, making laws, and perhaps governing the country.
Leave the jibber-jabber to lesser beasts, please?
Well, Mr Howard may have always been in favour, but the party hasn't, and in fact still isn't.
From the Times:
TONY BLAIR and Michael Howard suffered backbench revolts over plans for identity cards last night as dozens of their MPs stayed away from the Commons rather than vote for the policy.
The Conservatives seemed to have sustained the biggest rebellion as scores of MPs refused to follow the decision of Mr Howard and the Shadow Cabinet to back the Government’s plans.
Although Tory MPs were placed on a two-line whip, allowing them to be absent if they found a credible excuse, their desertion was a blow to Mr Howard’s authority at a critical time. The Tory leader is closely associated with the tactical decision to support the Government on identity cards, having tried to introduce ID cards when he was Home Secretary.
In a sign of open defiance John Redwood, the Shadow Secretary of State for Deregulation, who was reappointed to the Shadow Cabinet by Mr Howard earlier this year, told a press conference that he would not be voting for the Identity Cards Bill.
Mr Redwood said: “We need more information on the benefits and we need to be satisfied that this very expensive scheme can deliver the advantages of tackling crime and terrorism that the Government says.”
The Bill was given a second reading by 385 votes to 93, a majority of 292. With 407 Labour and 163 Conservatives MPs supposedly under orders to support it, there were clearly massive abstentions on both sides. A total of 10 Tories voted against the Bill and 70 Tories abstained. A total of 19 Labour MPs voted against.
An earlier motion opposing the Bill by six Tory MPs, led by Douglas Hogg, the former Cabinet minister, plus Bob Marshall-Andrews, the maverick Labour backbencher, was defeated by a still smaller margin with 93 in favour and 306 against.
During the debate, several senior Tory MPs attacked the proposals. Peter Lilley, another former Cabinet minister who voted against the Bill, told MPs: “Compulsory ID cards have never been introduced in peace time in any country other than a fascist, communist, or totalitarian state.”
What a united party!
I think the point is that none of the parties is united. The two main parties had dissenters and the Lib Dems have changed their minds.
For me I would be against them unless they were clearly proven as a method of stopping terrorism or they are definately used as a means of approving or denying access to public services. I certainly feel that the citizen should not pay for them! That would end up like a poll tax riot with a significant 'can't pay won't pay' element!
In fact my position is consistent with Conservative policy because as your quote from John Redwood says he is not ruling out the possibility he might vote for it were the criteria he quotes met.
Sorry Tory Boy - that's just not good enough - every Lib Dem MP voted against ID cards. Your opponent has been consistent - he has always voted against them.
Poll Tax/Council Tax Michael Howard let 50% of his Parliamentary party go home rather than face a split.
But no doubt if you were elected - he wouldn't need to send you home you would vote in both lobbies.
Simple question - ID cards for or against?
Clearly the obnoxious Lib Dem above can't read. Kevin said "against" unless proved they would be effective. Sounds the correct line to take, unlike the Lib Dems who have changed their minds because it might win them votes. Why was the Lib Dem home affairs bloke for them last year?
Quote - 'Kevin said "against" unless proved they would be effective'
So personal freedom isn't an issue then?
Is 'Kevin' so naieve to think a government can run a centralised, bureaucratic computer system to allow an ID card system to work?
Bearing in mind the Child Support Agency computer system - set up by the Tories - has never worked or the NHS computer - started by Labour - is costing something like 20 times its original estimate - not forgetting Anne Widdicome's passport fiasco - do you really think ID cards are going to work.
Do you not think the £5.5 billion pound cost would be better spent fighting crime and illegal immegration by providing more officers?
Or maybe even re-instating local community facilities - like post offices that 'Tory boy' couldn't be bothered to oppose - even though they were in his own ward?
Lib Dem lies again I see. I happened to sign the peition, that Kevin raised, in a local shop. I know it was presented to the council because I received a letter from them. I have also seen a letter on Kevin's website that he wrote to the Post Office.
Unlike, of course, Davey's petition where he neglected to submit 700 of his signatures. I know that too because I checked with the Post Office and they received a petition of 1069 signatures by the deadline; this depite Davey claiming he had 1700 in the local press. Maybe the MP should clarify why he misled either us or the Post Office?
In any case I agree with you about querying whether Government can run a computerised system. Bit of a shambles really.
As for personal freedom it all seems a bit ridiculous really. How exactly is personal freedom going to be taken away, any more than it is already through stop and search? And you still do not answer the principle point that if the Lib Dem home affairs spoeksman did not think supporting them was an infringement of personal freedom before then why does he now?
Post a Comment