^ that would at least have the benefit of motivating people to register on the electoral roll!
And how do you quantify it?
one party – you pay less tax
another party – more funding for NHS
Merge them? "Would you prefer [1] a better-funded NHS or [2] to pay less tax?"
If nothing else, it might make people think about consequences. It is course a fatally flawed question; the poor can't afford more taxation and the rich are tax dodgers with private healthcare. 😁
Mogrim
Unless you make it an unbendable A4 sheet, that’ll never happen. If it’s card sized it’s just too handy. Young looking and want to buy a beer? Use you voter ID card, it’s a guarantee you’re over 18. Want to open a bank account or get a new phone number? Use your ID card. Etc. Anything where ID is required will automatically default to the new card as everyone has one.
True ... though it's the expectation of "carrying ID" concerns me most. I've done it for work for years but sometihng isn't right about needing it to walk down the street?
I've got my driving license photocard in my wallet and admittedly it's useful to pop to the PO/collection place but I don't often carry my wallet riding.
Anything where ID is required will automatically default to the new card as everyone has one.
Yup see the misuse of NI, SSN etc. Even though they are crap as identifiers due to the large number of edge cases.
True … though it’s the expectation of “carrying ID” concerns me most. I’ve done it for work for years but sometihng isn’t right about needing it to walk down the street?
I live in Spain and we have ID cards. We don't have to carry it on us, but if you do have it and a policeman asks you to identify yourself you have to produce it. And if you don't have it you'll have to produce it at the station. TBH the ID card doesn't bother me, what I dislike is the fact the police can demand you identify yourself just because they feel like it. (And it doesn't really affect me, but if you're black or arabic...)
Sure you can at least that one (on averages and percentiles at least)
Average GP visits / hospital etc. etc. vs cost to go private.
Ultimately it’s what private medical insurance companies do everyday just like accounts will tell you the change in net income.
it is possible to do, I mean if (based on a suggestion upthread) polling cards listed headline manifesto promises rather than party names, how does the average person make a descision on what is better.
here is a brief summary of 2019 Tory promises:
-No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises
-Leave the EU
-Deliver 50,000 more nurses by 2024
-Pensions to rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
-Reach net zero by 2050
-Launch a democracy commission
That mainly sounds quite good, really.
The idea that instead of naming the parties, the polling card will read:
Hughbert Poshbottom - "kick out the brown people, privatise all industry and stop benefits"
David Workington - "25 quid minimum wage, free utilities for all and world peace"
Scott MacEdinburgh - "Scottish independance and we literally have no further ideas"
And people pick from that seems a bit far fetched.
it is possible to do, I mean if (based on a suggestion upthread) polling cards listed headline manifesto promises rather than party names, how does the average person make a descision on what is better.
here is a brief summary of 2019 Tory promises:
-No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises
-Leave the EU
-Deliver 50,000 more nurses by 2024
-Pensions to rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
-Reach net zero by 2050
-Launch a democracy commissionThat mainly sounds quite good, really.
That's the problem, though. You can make a lovely list of promises, but they're all going to be nice things, with unicorns prancing around green fields under a perfect rainbow. It's not grown-up politics, it's an Amazon wish-list. Where's the costing for all this? Where are the downsides discussed?
It’s not grown-up politics, it’s an Amazon wish-list. Where’s the costing for all this? Where are the downsides discussed?
exactly. manifesto statements should come with a proviso that if any promise is not met, a general election is held.
the greens will still be able to say what they want of course.
-No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises
-Leave the EU
-Deliver 50,000 more nurses by 2024
-Pensions to rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
-Reach net zero by 2050
-Launch a democracy commission
That’s the problem, though. You can make a lovely list of promises, but they’re all going to be nice things, with
unicorns prancing around green fields under a perfect rainbow. It’s not grown-up politics, it’s an Amazon wish-list. Where’s the costing for all this? Where are the downsides discussed?
Most of those are going to fail a fact check though....
If they had to be SMART then the meaningless stuff is weeded out as well.
They aren't even close to being acceptable on someone's annual appraisal, let alone governing a country.
(I'm guessing these are your bullets but that's fine for discussion)
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
Meaningless drivel ...could mean anything or nothing, how many, how is the improvement measured ... how is this going to be funded ????
Once they have to justify each "promise" the other parties get to pick it apart and it can't be used in election material until the independent fact checker has passed it. [AS I mentioned like the OBR does with a non-mini-not really a budget budget]
And once again we're down a rabbit hole of theoretical nonsense rather than addressing the actual issue.
Who gives a **** what your ideas are, ID is the reality.
If you want to vote, why would you object to showing ID? Baffling. You obviously give your consent, and in doing so give legitimacy to the system. So why hide yourself? You already give consent for all the CCTV around, by voting.
It's bread and circuses anyway. Eventually they will bring out an in vivo chip / neural lace through which all your data and transactions can be monitored. The dumb-masses will clamour for it as it will be highly incentivised (or at least seem to be).
If you want to vote, why would you object to showing ID?
FFS it's choosing ID that not everyone has that's the fundamentally issue!
If the Govt, any Govt, demand that we have a particular ID to perform a basic civic duty then they should issue them for free. End.
Just to be clear, this impacts me not one iota, I can afford whatever it is they demand and I ALWAYS vote, but, I'm not supporting any law (or Party) that takes away the right of any citizen to not have the vote (irrelevant whether they use it or not).
If you want to vote, why would you object to showing ID?
Edit - I answered a rather different question
To the actual question- its because there is no issue with voter fraud and its a cynical political ploy to suppress the votes of those more likely to vote labour.
ID cards
Because it reverses the whole relationship between citizens and the state.
At the moment the basic legal principle is that you do not have to identify yourself. The burden of proof remains with the state. ID cards only work if this is reversed so the state has the right to ask who you are and its up to you to prove it.
Thats on a philosophical point. On a practical one what will happen is that there will be significant sections of society going "off radar" and thus losing rights without realising it. Not just dodgy folk but all sorts will fall thru the cracks. also how do you prove your entitlement to an ID card?
I can see huge advantages but those two things make me uneasy. Its back to the " If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" Baloney
they will bring out an in vivo chip / neural lace through which all your data and transactions can be monitored
NHS No. = DVLA No. = Passport No. = NI No. = FAC No. = Travel Pass No. = Library Card No.
That's how it is in e.g. Denmark and it works as long as the government is honest. But suppose your library card flags up that you have been reading 1984/Communist Manifesto/etc etc and this is tied to your passport application? Essentially you're creating the potential for a huge Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scenario.
Gave up on the gif. Not sure those direct img links are permanent Cougar.
That’s how it is in e.g. Denmark and it works as long as the government is honest. But suppose your library card flags up that you have been reading 1984/Communist Manifesto/etc etc and this is tied to your passport application? Essentially you’re creating the potential for a huge Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scenario.
I have to say that not long ago I'd have said yes the government SHOULD have a way of linking Driving Licence, Passport, NHS no, NI no, Tax no (URI?), Address, Council tax, perhaps even qualifications and criminal records etc. The "system" for a lot of these things could be much improved if they were all joined up. Indeed it feels like logging into some govt systems probably does provide some of this but in a totally arse about tit way (e.g. to login and do a self assessment I think i used my passport, to renew my passport I used my driving license photo, my tax records obviously have my NI number etc - someone who had access could probably join the dots with enough effort. But imagine if I could just log in one place change my address and everyone knew. Imagine if within an NHS system a doctor could login and see I have a driving license and take that into account when prescribing or immediately advising DVLA that I am not currently fit to drive, imagine how hard it could become to be employed "off the books" if all these things were linked. I'd support all the benefits that could bring. I'd even support it being used to limit access to services to those who qualify (no need for me to carry ID - go to the doc, provide my info and it could pop up my passport picture) etc. You could "unlock" bits of your ID record to organisations or individuals - e.g. you might show an employer some bits of your ID, tax, quals etc but probably not your medical records; you might want to fly a plane - so would share at least part of your medical records but they don't need your tax etc.
Then things like Facebook and CA came along. Now they were doing sneaky, nasty shit with data specifically to manipulate people to do things. Were politicians aghast? Were they looking to toughen the powers of the ICO and criminalise using people's data to manipulate them? No - really the opposite, political parties (and their funding influencers) were part of the bloody problem. Political leaders want to track more (like which internet sites we visit) and regulate less. Suddenly I'm not so sure I want to trust governments with this sort of data.
Lol. You can post tin foil hat GIFs all you want, the march towards technofacsist totalitarian nightmare is continuing apace to anyone with half a functioning brain cell. Even Guardian readers.
The stuff I mention above is already in existence and being considered by 'governments'.
PARKLIFE!
The stuff I mention above is already in existence and being considered by ‘governments’.
Links please.
Actually, don't bother. You're a stone bonker and this is just thread derailment.
Voting should be done via a simple game, with buttons and smiling/sad face icons. The faces represent poor people, middle class, bankers, the NHS, asylum seekers etc and you can adjust the sliders to make them happy or sad. You can also adjust the tax slider. Each person gets to set up the sliders how them want then submit their preferences.
As we are in 2022 voting should all be online linked to NI number (people without computer/internet can set it up in dedicated place).
That would also allow people to vote in more of a referendum style than every 5 years by voting on key policy proposals, vote their MP out each year if they think they are doing a shit job etc,.
Could even gamify it somehow to get those youngsters interested.
Sounds a bit too much like actual democracy though I suppose...
No, it sounds like direct democracy like Switzerland as opposed to representative democracy as we have here.
The downside to that is that legislation gets bogged down in referenda and stuff that is good for people might not get voted through because its not popular. Sound familiar?
One of the Baltic countries (Estonia?) has the right idea with ID. The citizens have the right to see who has queried their details on the database. It would keep the politicians and law-enforcement (all of it not just the Police Service whose primary duty is to uphold the law) honest. Trawling the database for no good reason would be a gross misconduct sackable offence in a "here's a black bag, these two security officers will accompany you to your desk to empty it and then vacate the premises" style
Cougar
Links please.
They are only claiming they exist or can ... not in widespread use.
Actually, don’t bother. You’re a stone bonker and this is just thread derailment.
By the above you totally failed to see the very relevant part .. assume it can/will exist
The dumb-masses will clamour for it as it will be highly incentivised (or at least seem to be).
We aren't far off even in general use. For many it seems phones are inseparable yet we happily carry these around and are trackable. Immigrants were REQUIRED to have a smartphone for identification when applying for citizenship...
Poly
Then things like Facebook and CA came along. Now they were doing sneaky, nasty shit with data specifically to manipulate people to do things. Were politicians aghast? Were they looking to toughen the powers of the ICO and criminalise using people’s data to manipulate them? No – really the opposite, political parties (and their funding influencers) were part of the bloody problem. Political leaders want to track more (like which internet sites we visit) and regulate less. Suddenly I’m not so sure I want to trust governments with this sort of data.
Not only do they want to track your footprint but they then want to send you misleading information using that and create bubbles.
They are only claiming they exist or can … not in widespread use.
So it's unsubstantiated nonsense then. Good good.
Who is "they" in this context?
By the above you totally failed to see the very relevant part .. assume it can/will exist
Why? Should I equally assume that an alien invasion or the zombie apocalypse is imminent? It's OK, I'll easily be able to escape using my rocket pants. They're not in widespread use but they claim they exist or can.
Cougar
So it’s unsubstantiated nonsense then. Good good.
Should I equally assume that an alien invasion or the zombie apocalypse is imminent?
I can't see how you can even connect the two.
We have all the technology required to make much more complex in-vitro devices and do.
The first implantable pacemaker was fitted in 1958 modern ones are inserted via a leg catheter.
We routinely tag pets with implantable devices.
Our phones routinely record the information required...
Non of this is science fiction.
My mum has a blood sugar monitor (not necessarily that one)
https://www.nxp.com/applications/industrial/secure-healthcare-solutions/diabetes-care:BLOOD-GLUCOSE-MANAGEMENT
Who is “they” in this context?
They would be the person you quoted (Vegan Rider)
Zombie apocalypse?
Depends how you describe people wandering about with mobile phones. It sure seems that way sometimes.
The important point veganrider was making is many people will by enthusistic about having in-vitro devices.
My concern is that then becomes like people who are enthusiastic about having mobile phones or other forms of ID etc. until it forces those who aren't to also adopt.
Apologies, I thought it was veganrider responding, I didn't clock the different username.
I'll reply to the rest later, I'm off out.
I'm back home. I did a track day, it was good.
We have all the technology required
...
Non of this is science fiction.
And? We have the technology for a lot of things.
The important point veganrider was making is many people will by enthusistic about having in-vitro devices.
There's a lot to unpick here. Not least, "people will be enthusiastic about [something]" is wild speculation. Will they?
And, is that inherently bad?
My concern is that then becomes like people who are enthusiastic about having mobile phones or other forms of ID etc. until it forces those who aren’t to also adopt.
It's all a bit Revelations.
COUGAR
I’m back home. I did a track day, it was good.
Cool, you ever considered one of those eTrails days?
(Over Slaidburn way) looks a lot of fun.
There’s a lot to unpick here.
Erm, yep which is why dismissive "tin foil hat" responses aren't relevant and this IS relevant to voter ID.
So backwards quotes ....
And, is that inherently bad?
I think it depends on context hence why I chose medical devices to illustrate.
Lets take a pace maker (my Dad had one for 30+ years) ..
At one end we have a dumb pacemaker (not really common anymore) .. more sophisticated ones that respond to exercise
All sounds like tech we generally would say is benevolent... we could easily add lots to this functionality like recording data and adding monitoring of other health parameters...
You could argue in the UK these health parameters should be shared for further research as the NHS is paying for the implant and device but then would you support denying someone a device based on automatic monitoring?
I guess we already do this... we deny expensive treatments to people who make some lifestyle choices but not others
I'm not that OK with that, especially when the lifestyle choice isn't directly related to the treatment.
HOWEVER: Should these then be shared with insurers, employers ? I'm starting to get VERY NOT OK
So far I'm talking about adding functionality to existing life saving devices... that could potentially make them even more life saving/extending... so let me fork slightly....
Fork a) - New devices (say pacemaker) are restricted to people who agree to extended monitoring of their alcohol/nicotine/glucose/exercise/GPS location etc.
a1) - Data ONLY used for research and double blind anonymised
a2) - Data not anonymised and used to determine if the NHS are going to foot the bill to change battery or do another treatment
a3) - Data shared with advertisers/sponsors/insurance/employer (employer might be NHS) and further data (lets say sexual arousal to add some spice) also collected/calculatable alongside monitoring what your phone is seeing...
Fork b) - Optional device that is just a monitor ... (not medically active like a pacemaker)
b1) - Optional device that the user can 100% control sharing of info
b2) - Optional device that shares non anonymised data with your GP/NHS
b3) - Insurance companies/employees are allowed to insist of a device being implanted (like a car black box that some employers insist and some insurance insists)
You could extend these but the point really is I'm not happy personally with anything beyond A1/B1
Not least, “people will be enthusiastic about [something]” is wild speculation. Will they?
Well my mum loves her glucose monitor... my Dad certainly was happy to have a pacemaker and not die... the question really is would my mum (or yours) be happy with a2/a3 ? (for the sake of semi decency referring to our mums lets change the sexual arousal to shopping habits)
I'm not personally happy having to use a smartphone outside of work, I worked in tech my whole life and I'd like not to have to use tech for my personal life.
I find the assumption I have one quite restrictive.. quite often turning one on is stressful for me (due to past employer) and as I said ownership of a late model Apple/Android was mandatory for any EU citizen applying for indefinite right to remain, Covid passports etc. etc.. As mentioned earlier by someone else... a smartphone is pretty much required by people to claim benefits..
You are quite happy (it seems) with your current usage/tracking etc. and that is fine by me until you want to tell me I should be as well. e.g. compulsory use a parking app that requires a newer model phone and AND specifically any public parking (council etc.) or planning viewing a privately operated car park that requires a phone to count towards mandatory spaces.
SO
Whilst you had a track day I was tuning some forks... forgot my wallet and don't have any payment set up on my phone.
I guess my "local" knows me well enough to not ask if I had ApplePay or something... and well enough to give me credit on a few beers through the day but there is no reason I couldn't have my bank card chip implanted.. It doesn't even need to be 1/10th of the size... and it might have been convenient in this case ? Obviously it would make the "please insert card/pin" a bit tricky but ...
There is now a difference, my location of a in-vitro chip now pretty much ties my physical body to being in the pub... probably not in itself a problem... but then what else gets tied up in the same way phones currently tie together lots of other stuff.
Do I want my GP or insurer to question my max HR? (I can firmly say no - I don't even want to know myself - I stopped using HR monitors because it was constantly telling me I was imminently going to die yet I haven't and if I do die, the last thing I want is my insurer invalidating my policy)
So ??
And, is that inherently bad?
I think it is when it becomes non optional to simply live.
It’s all a bit Revelations.
32mm or 35mm??
However I can only choose 35mm now but more relevant I can only buy BOOST...
For all the "you will still be able to buy" rhetoric in real terms my options for forks, shocks, hubs are all severally restricted even though we were all assured otherwise. I know I don't need new forks to live, I'm just trying to illustrate the "no-one will be forced" often turns out to be untrue in practice.
There’s a lot to unpick here. Not least, “people will be enthusiastic about [something]” is wild speculation. Will they?
And, is that inherently bad?
I'm reminded of the arguments surrounding parents (mostly in the US I think) having their kids carry tracking devices, even having RFID chips implanted. And the pro arguments being centered around 'safety'. But then there were counter arguments about stuff like consent, and the potential for abuse. We've already seen a few instances where AirTags or similar have been used for nefarious purposes. My feeling is that if there's even just potential for abuse, we should be treading very cautiously indeed. I think Poly sums it up here:
Then things like Facebook and CA came along. Now they were doing sneaky, nasty shit with data specifically to manipulate people to do things. Were politicians aghast? Were they looking to toughen the powers of the ICO and criminalise using people’s data to manipulate them? No – really the opposite, political parties (and their funding influencers) were part of the bloody problem. Political leaders want to track more (like which internet sites we visit) and regulate less. Suddenly I’m not so sure I want to trust governments with this sort of data.
We've already seen how undercover police agents were used by UK governments, to spy on and undermine groups and organisations that were deemed a 'threat' to the state in some way or another (basically made up shit), and how this has undermined our democracy and rights. Add in modern technology, and this becomes even more insidious. I don't trust the government one bit, and I trust the police even less. This is an abuse of power. I think Vegan rider raises a very good point re public willingness to accept such surveillance into their lives; we have less 'privacy' than we used to, via 'phones, computers etc. Alexa and Siri are always listening. So I don't think there's any need to dismiss such views as 'tinfoil hat nonsense' etc, that's just rude.
This is an abuse of power. I think Vegan rider raises a very good point re public willingness to accept such surveillance into their lives; we have less ‘privacy’ than we used to, via ‘phones, computers etc. Alexa and Siri are always listening. So I don’t think there’s any need to dismiss such views as ‘tinfoil hat nonsense’ etc, that’s just rude.
Some people are happy for Alexa/Siri to be always listening... which when they are alone is really up to them.
The main issue I see is others being forced to use/own some device/app** simply to be allowed to "exist" within society.
An example of Section 7.3 of the kids school "education app"
He has no choice but to use it .. and all his medical information, homework etc. etc. could be** shared freely with 3rd parties.
The Institution grants us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, licence to
copy, transmit, and use the Content, User Content, and any third party
curriculum content uploaded to the System
**I'm not entirely sure how this works... they have forced a 11yr old to accept a contract to sell their medical data with 3rd parties? Is that even legal?