leyton.org

A week ago, I received a weighty letter from my MP on the matter of ID cards, responding to my letter on the matter. Since receiving his response, I’ve been considering the implications of the letter and what it really means.

Firstly, it’s clear that Ian Davidson (MP for Glasgow South West) voted with the government to back a second reading. When push came to shove, he followed the party line. However there are items in his letter to me that make me think that he is having serious doubts.

In my letter (see original here), I raised a number of points that I feel are very serious matters within the legislation. His response did not address each of the points particularly well, relying rather on the enclosure of weighty publications from within the home office, and the House of Commons library, as well as the imposing Hansard debate report. I appreciate that MP’s and their office workers are busy, and receive a lot of letters each day, but overwhelming constituents with large publications and documents (”the answer to your question is in here somewhere“) feels like an attempt to overwhelm rather than inform and debate.

He makes the comment “you will see that many of the points of concern that you have were fully considered“. I disagree. It’s a sad fact of our electoral system that “fully considered” is actually short-hand for “mentioned by people in a debate”, but does not mean that the Government - with it’s majority - properly takes valid concerns on board in a way that means “fully considered” in a way most people understand. As these documents are available online (see my tagged transcript of his letter to me), I had already read them and they say little or nothing new to me, certainly to alleviate my concerns. Even when studying what the Home Secretary himself has to say when asked direct questions, I find the arguments lacking in the extreme. “Fully considered” they most certainly are not.

Most telling of all, Ian Davidson points out that he is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and goes on to point out additional examples of the Government’s ability to manage large IT projects, then this: “It’s certainly clear that IT projects are likely to run well over budget, substantially over cost and at a performance below that in the specification“. Aside from the unnecessary repetition (what’s the difference between “over cost” and “over budget”??), my MP is essentially stating that he has little or no confidence, based on his experience on the Public Accounts committee of all things, that the proposal will be either within budget, or actually perform well at all. So how can he back it?

The answer is that he goes on to argue that he felt “it inappropriate to vote against an item which was clearly in Labour’s Manifesto during the recent General Election“.

I find this statement particularly frustrating, because I think it demonstrates so well that we cannot vote for people anymore, we are voting for parties. But our electoral system is designed for a vote based on person, not party. Further, we get everything in the manifesto, no matter how ill-considered (such as the ID card). Who actually draws up and agrees the manifesto, and what does it say about individual MP’s ability to think for themselves? Once again we have a lottery: If you have a party sycophant for an MP, you get everything regardless of principle. If you have an independent thinker, you get a more principled MP. Whilst the latter may not work out in every situation, it’s extraordinarily frustrating to find that there is nothing that the people that the MP claims to represent can actually do to change their mind.

Most regrettably of all he places the parties manifesto as a more important than his clear misgivings about the Governments ability to effectively manage large IT projects - of which the ID card scheme will be the most complex and sensitive ever undertaken.

The last paragraph on the matter gives some cause for hope, as well as - I think - clearly giving away Ian Davidson’s misgivings. “I am sure that with further discussion and debate, as well as further exploration of the realities of this proposal, there will be scope for substantial amendment and/or rethinking“. It’s that last section that’s telling - he’s sure there will be substantial amendment and/or rethinking - It reads to me as coded language for “I have no choice in the matter”.

So what does this say about the support for the proposals within the party? It’s already been shown there are a large number of rebels. I too hope that as the debate goes on, and that the public become more familiar with the shocking inclusions in the proposal, that more MP’s - such as Ian Davidson - will actually put their principles and concerns on this most important of matters above that of misplaced party loyalty.

Finally, I just hope that other residents of Glasgow South West will either write to Ian Davidson to impress on him how bad a proposal, both in principle and in practice, this is. Residents of elsewhere could add their voice to the debate by writing to their MP. Also a new pledge has also been setup for those who disagree with the proposal (the original - and successful - pledge is still active if you’re more seriously to opposing it).

This entry was posted on Monday, July 25th, 2005 at 8:14 pm and is filed under Glasgow, Id Cards, Politics, Scotland, UK. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.