History Repeating Itself (Labour and ID cards edition)

[andrewducker]

I see we're back at the "Labour attempt to introduce a mandatory ID card" stage of history*.

My feeling last time, was that the main problem that they always have is that they *start* with the cards being mandatory.

If you start with "Here is a thing that makes your life much easier, that you can carry about if you like." then that will get you 85% of the way there. And then, once you have a voluntary ID card that's not causing any problems for anyone, and that 85% of the population is using to make their life easier, *then* you move in and say "The only people who don't carry an ID card are weirdos and troublemakers, and they're causing friction in the system, we could make it all run more smoothly if only they *had* to carry one."

But no, they always try to go instantly from "Nobody has an ID card." to "Everyone must carry one at all times." - which forms a coalition of all sorts of people from across the political spectrum, and ends up being far more politically costly to them than if they'd just boiled their frog slowly.

(None of which should be taken as me taking a position on ID cards. I'm just constantly bemused by their inability to get things done by trying to rush them through in the most authoritarian manner possible.)

*Younger readers may not remember the fuss in 2006 (repealed in 2011)

Comments

[jack]

Ugh, I'm sorry, I partly meant just that a big majority of people have driving licences, and expect to carry them by default whenever they might need ID, and various things are a hassle if you don't, which is already quite like the step AD was suggesting they start with, but apparently not quite close enough to make it politically positive.

And I wasn't actually intending to say so, but I was thinking that if they did want ID cards, it might be practical to extend the existing infrastructure of photos and renewals etc but change "driver/provisional" to "driver/provisional/non-driver". (I wasn't imagining everyone would need to learn to drive. Although ironically it is also pretty common to assume people can drive. It would still seem ridiculously Kafkaesque to require people to learn to drive, but my baseline for "too Kafkaesque to be real" has all been screwed up for a while now...)

ETA: It's not directly related, but other non-driver friends have been inconvenienced when flying internally, voting, buying beer, etc, from not having a *convenient* ID. Either needing to bring a passport and risk losing it. Or bringing something less standard than a driving license. And some of those (especially voting) I think shouldn't require ID. But probably some things need some ID, and I don't know what should be the default. I guess an optional drivers-license-equivalent like proof of age card, but then that does come to a very similar place even if it's not legally mandatory.

[wildeabandon]

Well, today I have been reminded that provisional driving licenses exist, and learned that they function just as well as full ones from an ID perspective. I do just use my passport for basically everything, which does mean that there's an ADHD tax when I lose it, but somewhat surprisingly that's only happened to me once.