![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavySeveral days ago, I went over to the Conservative party website and dropped them a line, just to let them know that, despite being a long-time Conservative supporter and voter, I wouldn't be voting for them again until they dropped their ill-advised support for identity cards.
This morning I got a reply:
Thank you very much for your recent email about ID cards; Michael Howard
has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.
He has asked me to say that he takes the points you make about ID cards,
but he has always supported the introduction of identity cards, both as
Home Secretary and subsequently as a backbencher. This is in complete
contrast to Tony Blair, who has been against and in favour by turn. In
1995 he said: "Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on
compulsory ID cards......let that money provide thousands more police
officers." Now he supports them.
Many people have concerns about liberty and freedom. Michael Howard,
too, attaches great importance to the freedom of the individual. But
our two great watchwords in the Conservative Party are freedom and
security. Unless we can provide the people of our country with
security, they may well be unable to exercise the freedom we wish them
to enjoy.
The police believe that identity cards can help in the fight against
terrorism, crime and illegal immigration. Michael Howard agrees with
them. He can envisage more than one scenario in which a scheme like
that put forward in the Government's Bill could help make the country
safer.
That is why we supported the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill
in December. This was a vote on the principle of the Bill. We are not
wedded to the component elements of the scheme which we shall, of
course, review in government. We shall also be taking a number of
measures to deal with crime and immigration in the short-term.
Mr Howard set out, in greater detail, his thinking in a recent article,
the link for which is below.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.show.article.page&obj_id=118214
Yours sincerely,
Ian Philps
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Naturally, I had to reply:
Dear Mr. Philps
Many thanks for your reply. It's more than one gets when writing to Tony Blair these days.
I have, however, to take issue with some of your points in order to reinforce not just my standpoint, but also that of those people with whom I've spoken and are abandoning your party (or would potentially vote for your party should you take opposition against ID cards) over this issue. Believe me, I would not consider myself to be a 'single issue' voter under normal circumstances, but I consider the erosion of Common Law and Civil Liberties to be a sufficiently important 'single issue' to take a stand over.
One reason (amongst many) I have been Conservative supporter and voter is that I have always believed the party stood for smaller, less intrusive government into the lives of the electorate. It concerns me greatly that this policy seeks to reverse that. I sympathise with your opinion that security is a necessary prerequeistite to freedom, but I would contrarily argue that freedom is a necessary prerequisite to security.
An introduction of compulsory identity cards (and to acheive the aims you outline above, they would have to be compulsory or otherwise the scheme is worthless) by your party would effectively criminalise every Subject of Her Majesty. You cannot realistically argue that this is not contrary to the basic principles of English Common Law.
I do not care what Tony Blair's opinions are; he is suffiently oily and mendacious that I have never entertained the idea of voting for him. The purpose of Her Majesty's opposition, as Michael Howard points out in the article you kindly point me towards, is not to make political capital. What he ignores is that the purpose of her Majesty's opposition is to oppose the government of the day when it seeks to impose unreasonable and outrageous demands upon the people of the country. In failing to oppose the introduction of ID cards, the Conservative party is not only failing in its duty as opposition but it is also failing the aspirations and the desires of the ordinary people of this country - and as such, I shall not be casting my vote for you.
Yrs,
etc.
If anyone has any additional editing they would suggest, or if they would like me to add their name to the bottom of this mail, I'll be happy to do so. Let me know - I'll probably send this later today or tomorrow.
This morning I got a reply:
Thank you very much for your recent email about ID cards; Michael Howard
has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.
He has asked me to say that he takes the points you make about ID cards,
but he has always supported the introduction of identity cards, both as
Home Secretary and subsequently as a backbencher. This is in complete
contrast to Tony Blair, who has been against and in favour by turn. In
1995 he said: "Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on
compulsory ID cards......let that money provide thousands more police
officers." Now he supports them.
Many people have concerns about liberty and freedom. Michael Howard,
too, attaches great importance to the freedom of the individual. But
our two great watchwords in the Conservative Party are freedom and
security. Unless we can provide the people of our country with
security, they may well be unable to exercise the freedom we wish them
to enjoy.
The police believe that identity cards can help in the fight against
terrorism, crime and illegal immigration. Michael Howard agrees with
them. He can envisage more than one scenario in which a scheme like
that put forward in the Government's Bill could help make the country
safer.
That is why we supported the Second Reading of the Identity Cards Bill
in December. This was a vote on the principle of the Bill. We are not
wedded to the component elements of the scheme which we shall, of
course, review in government. We shall also be taking a number of
measures to deal with crime and immigration in the short-term.
Mr Howard set out, in greater detail, his thinking in a recent article,
the link for which is below.
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.show.article.page&obj_id=118214
Yours sincerely,
Ian Philps
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
Naturally, I had to reply:
Dear Mr. Philps
Many thanks for your reply. It's more than one gets when writing to Tony Blair these days.
I have, however, to take issue with some of your points in order to reinforce not just my standpoint, but also that of those people with whom I've spoken and are abandoning your party (or would potentially vote for your party should you take opposition against ID cards) over this issue. Believe me, I would not consider myself to be a 'single issue' voter under normal circumstances, but I consider the erosion of Common Law and Civil Liberties to be a sufficiently important 'single issue' to take a stand over.
One reason (amongst many) I have been Conservative supporter and voter is that I have always believed the party stood for smaller, less intrusive government into the lives of the electorate. It concerns me greatly that this policy seeks to reverse that. I sympathise with your opinion that security is a necessary prerequeistite to freedom, but I would contrarily argue that freedom is a necessary prerequisite to security.
An introduction of compulsory identity cards (and to acheive the aims you outline above, they would have to be compulsory or otherwise the scheme is worthless) by your party would effectively criminalise every Subject of Her Majesty. You cannot realistically argue that this is not contrary to the basic principles of English Common Law.
I do not care what Tony Blair's opinions are; he is suffiently oily and mendacious that I have never entertained the idea of voting for him. The purpose of Her Majesty's opposition, as Michael Howard points out in the article you kindly point me towards, is not to make political capital. What he ignores is that the purpose of her Majesty's opposition is to oppose the government of the day when it seeks to impose unreasonable and outrageous demands upon the people of the country. In failing to oppose the introduction of ID cards, the Conservative party is not only failing in its duty as opposition but it is also failing the aspirations and the desires of the ordinary people of this country - and as such, I shall not be casting my vote for you.
Yrs,
etc.
If anyone has any additional editing they would suggest, or if they would like me to add their name to the bottom of this mail, I'll be happy to do so. Let me know - I'll probably send this later today or tomorrow.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:38 pm (UTC)does that matter?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:42 pm (UTC)Good luck changing policy, mate.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:43 pm (UTC)David Wade Salon
(919) 834-1101
612 Glenwood Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
(I drove by it, it's quite swank, well done.)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:53 pm (UTC)Which is why I would still never entertain the idea of voting Conservative, but would reasonably happily put my X next to Tony Blair's name in the next election. At least when Labour enact stupid policies it's still possible to believe they've actually got the people's interests more or less at heart. Five more years!
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 02:55 pm (UTC)What on earth have you been smoking? And, if you have any left, can I have some?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 03:32 pm (UTC)I would add the word "a" into this sentence. I'll leave it to you to decide where...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 03:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 03:48 pm (UTC)Basically, if you give away all your freedoms for security, what good is being secure in a prison with exceedingly strict rules and harsh punishment? You essentially paint yourself in a corner that's often no better than that you're trying to secure yourself from.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 03:51 pm (UTC)I firmly believe that the current 'security' issues are largely a popinjay.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 04:05 pm (UTC)Freedom requires the curtailing of freedom? Urm...
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 04:10 pm (UTC)Still; the more they tighten their grip, the more voters will slip through their fingers.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 04:16 pm (UTC)But I am still confused as why you need freedom for security, I would have thought the more free people were the less security you have! :/ My brain hurts now :)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 05:24 pm (UTC)Actually your reasons for voting conservative are scarily close to mine for never doing so :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 10:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 10:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-25 11:05 am (UTC)howardm@parliament.uk
I'd like to wish you luck with the person who is doubtlessly a party floozie...
Date: 2004-12-24 04:54 pm (UTC)i know im a bit late
Date: 2004-12-24 07:18 pm (UTC)Re: i know im a bit late
Date: 2004-12-25 11:04 am (UTC)For what?