"ID Cards don't work - even Tony says so"
Philip Johnston: Daily Telegraph
4/12/06
Article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TBKTVFEE5YP3TQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/12/04/do0402.xml
Accompanying YouGov Poll:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/12/04/nyougov04big.gif
In the first three paragraphs, the author makes great deal of Tony Blair being opposed to ID Cards in 1996. To what extent does this strengthen the author’s argument?
It could be argued that the author has shown Tony Blair to be inconsistent. Being inconsistent doesn’t make him wrong, it just means that he can’t be right in both cases.
Tony Blair has clearly changed his mind on this issue. This means that either Blair now acknowledges that he was wrong in 1996 or that circumstances have changed. Blair’s views are not clearly represented in this article but a major clue, in the third paragraph, is that the ID card bill was proposed in the aftermath of September 11th.
In Blair’s “Vision” of 1996, he said: “When we make a promise, we must be sure we can keep it. That is page one, line one of a new contract between the government and the citizen.” To what extent has the author shown that Blair is in breach of this contract?
Blair did not actually say that he would never introduce ID cards. He presented a false dilemma between “wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on compulsory ID cards” and providing “thousands of more police officers on the beat in our local community.” In order to show that Blair has broken his 1996 promise, the author would have to show that the Labour government have not provided the “thousands” more police officers “on the beat”.
If Labour did provide the extra police officers before pushing for ID cards, Blair could reasonably argue that he has not broken his 1996 pledge.
Furthermore, Labour could argue that the 1996 document was a “vision” rather than a manifesto. As the author acknowledges, a government has an electoral mandate if its policies have been clearly expressed in a manifesto on which they are elected. The 2005 manifesto did say that an ID card bill would be introduced and the author addresses this in the 4th and 5th paragraphs.
How strong is the author’s claim that Labour has no electoral mandate to introduce the ID card scheme because the 2005 manifesto “gave the impression that it would not be compulsory”?
The manifesto stated that the new system would be “rolling out initially on a voluntary basis as people renew their passports.” The author says this is misleading because many people cannot do without a passport. If they want a passport, they have to be entered on the database.
The manifesto pledge was ambiguous because some people obviously gained the mistaken impression that "voluntary" meant that they might be able to renew their passports without also being issued with an ID card. The government, however, could argue that they have not broken their manifesto promise because renewing a passport is a voluntary activity and they made it clear that the ID card scheme would be rolled out "as people renewed their passports" and this is what is now happening.
What analogy does the author use to argue that the Conservatives will probably not abolish the ID card scheme, if elected?
The author is comparing two powerful tools that the holder does not want to throw away. If elected, the Conservatives would not want to dispense with ID Cards because it would be a very powerful tool. Similarly, Frodo did not want to throw away the “One Ring” because it was a very powerful tool.
Assess the strength of the analogy.
A strength would be that the “One Ring” was a powerful tool that, in the right hands, could be used to fight the forces of evil. A further strength would be that there was great concern that the tool could fall into the wrong hands, just as there are concerns that a totalitarian regime might misuse the power of a national ID database.
A weakness would be that the author is comparing a real scheme with a fictional object.
A further weakness would be that the forces of evil in the Lord of the Rings are (arguably) very different in nature to the threats addressed by the ID card scheme (e.g. immigrants, terrorists and benefit fraudsters).
Identify the inconsistency, in the author’s argument, between his comparing ID cards to the “One Ring” and his dismissal of the alleged benefits of ID cards.
In making the analogy, the author is apparently conceding that ID cards are a powerful tool that even the Conservatives, who are currently opposed to the scheme, would not want to dispense with, if they were to come to power. However, later on in the article, the author argues that the scheme would not be as effective as Blair claims because there would be “glitches” and because crooks would find a way of “attacking the system”.
What examples of the Ad Hominem flaw can be found in this argument?
The author describes the Labour MPs who supported the ID Cards bill as “bovine” and “too wedded to their party’s spooky authoritarianism.” He claims that these MPs were “fed and swallowed, a good deal of guff” by Blair. In doing so, he is attacking the character of the MPs but ignoring their arguments.
Identify the counter argument in paragraph 11.
Blair says that ID cards “are the answer” to illegal immigration, terrorism, crime and benefit fraud.
ID cards will provide us with “a secure identity”.
The bulk of the cost would have been spent anyway in developing biometric passports.
Assess the author’s response to this counter argument. What further information might we require to evaluate the strength of this response?
The author makes two responses:
(i) There will be glitches in the system resulting in false matches and false non-matches that will result in innocent people being inconvenienced and even criminalised.
(ii) Crooks will find a way of attacking the new system.
It would be useful to know how many glitches there are likely to be. Given all the biometric information, what exactly are the chances that an innocent person could be inconvenienced or criminalised? One in ten or one in a million?
If crooks will attack the new system, what are the chances that their attacks will be successful? If some successful attacks occur, will the problems caused by these attacks outweigh the positive impact on illegal immigration, crime, terrorism, etc?
Identify the counter argument in paragraph 13 and assess the author’s response to this argument.
The counter argument is that banks and stores already keep personal details about our financial transactions.
The author’s response is that the individual’s relationship with the state is qualitatively different to his relationship with Tesco and Nat West.
The author does not say how this relationship is different. One difference is that there is an element of choice about which details we allow Tesco and Nat West to hold. We can choose a bank or a supermarket but we do not choose the government in the same way.
Assess the author’s claim that a YouGov poll shows that “the country is split in half on the ID database, and even many of those who support it do so reluctantly.” Does this mean that the government no longer has public opinion on its side?
The YouGov poll shows that a majority are either very or fairly unhappy about having their details recorded on the database but the public are not asked if they support the database. Being “fairly unhappy” about having one’s details recorded in a database is not the same thing as being opposed to the database.
When asked if they support a system of ID cards, 50% are in favour and 39% opposed (11% don’t know). The government can still claim that it has public opinion on its side.
If people are in favour of the ID card scheme, even though they are unhappy about their own details being on the database, it may be true that some of the support is “reluctant”.
Should the YouGov poll be accepted as a reliable picture of public opinion?
With any opinion poll, it is important to know the number polled and whether the sample polled was representative. All polls have a margin of error.
Were the questions asked in the order that they appear in the table of results? If so, it could be argued that early questions soften respondents up to taking a position against ID cards and the database. Early questions ask people to consider the possibility that personal data held on the database may be inaccurate and that confidentiality could be breached. YouGov then ask how “happy” people would be about their data being held on the database but not whether they actually support its introduction. Only after asking a series of questions about the database, are people asked if they support ID cards.
How strong is the evidence that there would be “hundreds of thousands of ID refuseniks” who will refuse to participate, even if it means paying a fine?
A minority of respondents (39%) said they were opposed to the ID card scheme. Of this 39%, a majority (54%) said that, if cards were introduced, they would reluctantly agree to have one and a further 15% don’t know. Those who say they would refuse to have a card are, therefore, a minority of a minority.
According to the figures, 21% would refuse to have a card, if the penalty was a small fine. However, 22% say they would refuse, even under threat of a large fine or imprisonment. A further 9% claim that they will destroy their card in public but it is not made clear what the penalty would be for doing this.
A further problem in making sense of these statistics is that the percentage figures do not add up to 100%. Were people allowed to give more than one response?
The respondents who are saying that they would refuse to have a card are a minority of a minority. However, given the total population of the UK, this probably does represent hundreds of thousands of people.
Nevertheless, the respondents to the poll are not risking any penalty by giving their responses to the questions in this survey. What people say they will do now may not be the same as what they actually do in the event.
In what way is the author’s assertion that there will be “hundreds of thousands of ID refuseniks” inconsistent with his argument in paragraphs 5 – 7?
It is not suggested that it will be a requirement for people to carry their card at all times, merely that it will (eventually) be compulsory to have one. In paragraphs 5-7, the author explains that, from 2008, everyone who applies for a new passport will be automatically registered on the ID database and that this could be extended to the renewal of other documents, such as driving licenses. As the author says, it is not a realistic opinion for most people to choose not to have a passport and even fewer people could do without a driving licence. In paragraphs 5-7, the author is saying that we will have little choice but to have our details on the database and this could be seen as inconsistent with his suggestion that hundreds of thousands of people would refuse to have a card. They could, however, destroy (or “lose”) the card as soon as they receive it but their details would remain on the database.
How useful are the two questions that are asked by the author in the penultimate paragraph?
The author’s first question is whether or not the government are really going to track down the hundreds of thousands of refuseniks. It is not clear why the government would have to do this. As the author says, the vast majority of people will be registered on the database automatically when they renew other documents such as passports.
The second question is what the benefit of the scheme will be if the refuseniks are not tracked down. There are a number of people who do not have passports, driving licences or any other official form of ID. Presumably, these people will not be “tracked down” unless they are arrested for another offence, at which point, their biometric details could be added to the database.