Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm

The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
Database).

James

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:57:32 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, James
Hammerton, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:

> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
> 
> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
> Database).
> 
> James

......untill he gets into power!

Kevin wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:57:32 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, James
> Hammerton, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:
> 
>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>
>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
>> Database).
>>
>> James
> 
> ......untill he gets into power!

Cameron has pledged to scrap the scheme and has done so in a clear and 
unambiguous manner. If we assume that once elected he'll go back on this 
pledge, one has to wonder why he'd make the pledge in such an 
unambiguous manner. The consequence of doing so is that he will be 
attacked for making a U-turn, for breaking a pledge he has reiterated 
several times. It will undermine trust in him because it'll make him 
look dishonest. Why would he deliberately set himself up like that?

Also, why did you set followups to uk.local.essx in your article?

James

Kevin wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:57:32 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, James
> Hammerton, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:
> 
>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>
>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
>> Database).
>>
>> James
> 
> ......untill he gets into power!

Cameron has pledged to scrap the scheme and has done so in a clear and 
unambiguous manner. If we assume that once elected he'll go back on this 
pledge, one has to wonder why he'd make the pledge in such an 
unambiguous manner. The consequence of doing so is that he will be 
attacked for making a U-turn, for breaking a pledge he has reiterated 
several times. It will undermine trust in him because it'll make him 
look dishonest. Why would he deliberately set himself up like that?

James

James Hammerton wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:57:32 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, James
>> Hammerton, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:
>>
>>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>>
>>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the 
>>> Children's Database).
>>>
>>> James
>>
>> ......untill he gets into power!
> 
> Cameron has pledged to scrap the scheme and has done so in a clear and 
> unambiguous manner. If we assume that once elected he'll go back on this 
> pledge, one has to wonder why he'd make the pledge in such an 
> unambiguous manner. The consequence of doing so is that he will be 
> attacked for making a U-turn, for breaking a pledge he has reiterated 
> several times. It will undermine trust in him because it'll make him 
> look dishonest. Why would he deliberately set himself up like that?

Because he is a politician.

I do wonder about Cameron and ID cards.  He did not openly and 
aggressively back Davis when he resigned and fought a by-election on 
this subject.  That could be because he was afraid Davis would become 
too powerful but could also be because he secretly agrees with ID cards 
and will not scrap them.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

"James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
news:6kpb2cF91rgnU1@mid.individual.net...
> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>
> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
> Database).
>
> James


Politicians very rarely make a pledge and then ignore them when in office, 
without damn good (to them) reasons. I believe this is a sincere pledge, 
while many in the Conservative party would jump up for joy with an id card, 
they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.

Gaz

"Gaz"  wrote in message 
news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...

> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.

Name one...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>
> Name one...

David Davies.

"William Black"  wrote in message 
news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>
> Name one...

David Davis.

Gaz

>
> -- 
> William Black
>
>
> I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
> Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
> I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
> All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
> Time for tea.
>
>
>

"DVH"  wrote in message 
news:48e7c374$0$519$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
>
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>
>> Name one...
>
> David Davies.

Its Davis, David Davies is another tory mp (the welsh one), iirc he comes 
from the hanging and flogging wing of the party.

Gaz

"DVH"  wrote in message 
news:48e7c374$0$519$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
>
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>
>> Name one...
>
> David Davies.

That's a trick that'll only work once though,  and he's played it...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"Gaz"  wrote in message 
news:6kpuq0F92ot3U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>
>> Name one...
>
> David Davis.
>

That's a trick that'll only work once though,  and he's played it...

-- 
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

Old Codger wrote:
> James Hammerton wrote:
>> Kevin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:57:32 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, James
>>> Hammerton, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:
>>>
>>>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>>>
>>>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the 
>>>> Children's Database).
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>
>>> ......untill he gets into power!
>>
>> Cameron has pledged to scrap the scheme and has done so in a clear and 
>> unambiguous manner. If we assume that once elected he'll go back on 
>> this pledge, one has to wonder why he'd make the pledge in such an 
>> unambiguous manner. The consequence of doing so is that he will be 
>> attacked for making a U-turn, for breaking a pledge he has reiterated 
>> several times. It will undermine trust in him because it'll make him 
>> look dishonest. Why would he deliberately set himself up like that?
> 
> Because he is a politician.

But why would any politician deliberately set themselves up for such flak?

> I do wonder about Cameron and ID cards.  He did not openly and 
> aggressively back Davis when he resigned and fought a by-election on 
> this subject.

He actively campaigned in Davis's constituency to help him get 
reelected! He also appointed a new Shadow Home Secretary who has since 
reiterated this commitment and who had worked closely with Davis in the 
first place.

NB: I've set followups to uk.politics.misc and uk.politics.id-cards 
where this thread originated. I failed to notice "Kevin" setting 
followups to this group (and only this group), because I wasn't 
expecting it and he didn't flag it up in his earlier reply to me.

James

DVH wrote:
> "William Black"  wrote in message 
> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>> Name one...
> 
> David Davies. 
> 
> 
I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden rather 
than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are Tories...

James

Gaz wrote:
> "James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
> news:6kpb2cF91rgnU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>
>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
>> Database).
>>
>> James
> 
> 
> Politicians very rarely make a pledge and then ignore them when in office, 
> without damn good (to them) reasons. I believe this is a sincere pledge, 
> while many in the Conservative party would jump up for joy with an id card, 
> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.

The question is why would a politician make a pledge in such an 
unambiguous manner if he intends to break the pledge on gaining power. 
The breaking of the pledge will immediately attract flak, and will most 
probably damage that politician's reputation and credibility. So why 
would a politican deliberately do it?

It's obvious why he'll make the pledge in the first place. He's trying 
to get elected and he believes making the pledge will help him do so.

However he could have built in escape clauses to the pledge whilst still 
seeming sceptical of, or even hostile to the scheme in order to try and 
gain support, so why make it in the unambiguous manner he has done? The 
obvious answer is that he probably realises people will be sceptical of 
him if he leaves wriggle room or escape clauses lying around and really 
wants the relevant votes in the bag.

So we can conclude that Cameron values the votes of those who oppose the 
ID scheme enough to court them with a clear pledge to scrap it.

If we continue to assume that he's planning to break this pledge, then 
we must posit some gain for him that outweighs pissing these people off 
once he's in office. Not only that, but this future gain must be 
something he's aware of now and can be pretty sure will materialise once 
in office.

The thing is, the actual impact of breaking the pledge cannot accurately 
be judged until he's in office, unless you posit that some of those 
currently backing him are urging him secretly to break the pledge on 
pain of losing their support if he doesn't, and that he values them more 
than the anti ID cards vote. But this is all speculation. The only thing 
we have to go on until he gains power is what he says and what he does 
with the Tory party in the meantime.

ISTM there's only one way to find out if he means what he says, and 
that's to vote Tory at the next general election.

Of course you may prefer the Lib Dems' pledge to repeal the legislation, 
but then you have the same question about whether you can trust Clegg to 
honour that, and a similar way of finding out.

On this issue, there is one thing we can be certain of. Labour are 
pledging to continue the scheme and will most probably keep that pledge, 
their track record in government points in that direction. They 
definitely cannot be trusted to scrap the scheme.

So your choice is between those who are committed to the scheme vs those 
who promise to scrap it. If you want it scrapped, don't vote for those 
who are committed to keeping it!

And of the parties pledged to scrapping the scheme, it is the Tories who 
are the most likely party to actually win power.

James

On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:53:49 +0100,
uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.id-cards was polluted by, James
Hammerton, with this sort of nonsense:

> DVH wrote:
>> "William Black"  wrote in message 
>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>> Name one...
>> 
>> David Davies. 
>> 
>> 
> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden rather 
> than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are Tories...
> 
> James

.....are they both political wankers as well?

"Edwardo"  wrote in message 
news:1c2kupt4x6rnh$.dlg@gov.survailance.net...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:53:49 +0100,
> uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.id-cards was polluted by, James
> Hammerton, with this sort of nonsense:
>
>> DVH wrote:
>>> "William Black"  wrote in message
>>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message
>>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>>> Name one...
>>>
>>> David Davies.
>>>
>>>
>> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden rather
>> than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are Tories...
>>
>> James
>
> .....are they both political wankers as well?

You think David Davis is a political wanker??????

Gaz

"Edwardo"  wrote in message 
news:1c2kupt4x6rnh$.dlg@gov.survailance.net...
> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:53:49 +0100,
> uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.id-cards was polluted by, James
> Hammerton, with this sort of nonsense:
>
>> DVH wrote:
>>> "William Black"  wrote in message
>>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message
>>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>>> Name one...
>>>
>>> David Davies.
>>>
>>>
>> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden rather
>> than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are Tories...
>>
>> James
>
> .....are they both political wankers as well?

Haven't you heard of Davis? Can't you make your own judgement?

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:14:12 +0000 (UTC),
uk.politics.misc,uk.local.essx was polluted by, Beatrice, with this
sort of nonsense:

> Edwardo  wrote in
> news:1c2kupt4x6rnh$.dlg@gov.survailance.net: 
> 
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:53:49 +0100,
>> uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.id-cards was polluted by, James
>> Hammerton, with this sort of nonsense:
>> 
>>> DVH wrote:
>>>> "William Black"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>>>> Name one...
>>>> 
>>>> David Davies. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden
>>> rather than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are
>>> Tories... 
>>> 
>>> James
>> 
>> .....are they both political wankers as well?
>> 
> 
> Not as much of a wanker as you are.

Would you?

Edwardo  wrote in
news:1c2kupt4x6rnh$.dlg@gov.survailance.net: 

> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:53:49 +0100,
> uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.id-cards was polluted by, James
> Hammerton, with this sort of nonsense:
> 
>> DVH wrote:
>>> "William Black"  wrote in message 
>>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>>> Name one...
>>> 
>>> David Davies. 
>>> 
>>> 
>> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden
>> rather than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are
>> Tories... 
>> 
>> James
> 
> .....are they both political wankers as well?
> 

Not as much of a wanker as you are.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:14:12 +0000 (UTC), a plonker purporting to be
Beatrice wrote:

> Edwardo  wrote in
> news:1c2kupt4x6rnh$.dlg@gov.survailance.net: 
> 
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:53:49 +0100,
>> uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.id-cards was polluted by, James
>> Hammerton, with this sort of nonsense:
>> 
>>> DVH wrote:
>>>> "William Black"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>>>> Name one...
>>>> 
>>>> David Davies. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden
>>> rather than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are
>>> Tories... 
>>> 
>>> James
>> 
>> .....are they both political wankers as well?
>> 
> 
> Not as much of a wanker as you are.

would you like to take over?

James Hammerton wrote:
> Old Codger wrote:
>> James Hammerton wrote:
>>> Kevin wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:57:32 +0100, in the Year of Our Lord, James
>>>> Hammerton, Beloved Prophet of the Lord said:
>>>>
>>>>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>>>>
>>>>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the 
>>>>> Children's Database).
>>>>>
>>>>> James
>>>>
>>>> ......untill he gets into power!
>>>
>>> Cameron has pledged to scrap the scheme and has done so in a clear 
>>> and unambiguous manner. If we assume that once elected he'll go back 
>>> on this pledge, one has to wonder why he'd make the pledge in such an 
>>> unambiguous manner. The consequence of doing so is that he will be 
>>> attacked for making a U-turn, for breaking a pledge he has reiterated 
>>> several times. It will undermine trust in him because it'll make him 
>>> look dishonest. Why would he deliberately set himself up like that?
>>
>> Because he is a politician.
> 
> But why would any politician deliberately set themselves up for such flak?

Don't know, never have understood politicians

>> I do wonder about Cameron and ID cards.  He did not openly and 
>> aggressively back Davis when he resigned and fought a by-election on 
>> this subject.
> 
> He actively campaigned in Davis's constituency to help him get 
> reelected!

Really?  That didn't get any publicity, I wonder why.

Had Cameron wished he could have kept this matter in the headlines for 
at least the duration of that by-election and really placed the 
Government on the spot.  If he is really against ID cards, and not just 
a spin merchant like the man he claims to be the heir of, why did he not 
do this?  Publicly he has been very quiet on this matter.

> He also appointed a new Shadow Home Secretary who has since reiterated this commitment and who had worked closely with Davis in the 
> first place.

Helps to keep up the façade.

> NB: I've set followups to uk.politics.misc and uk.politics.id-cards 
> where this thread originated. I failed to notice "Kevin" setting 
> followups to this group (and only this group), because I wasn't 
> expecting it and he didn't flag it up in his earlier reply to me.

NB:  I am reading and posting from uk.local.essex so will probably not 
see any responses.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:14:12 +0000 (UTC), Beatrice  wrote:

>Edwardo  wrote in
>news:1c2kupt4x6rnh$.dlg@gov.survailance.net: 
>
>> On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:53:49 +0100,
>> uk.politics.misc,uk.politics.id-cards was polluted by, James
>> Hammerton, with this sort of nonsense:
>> 
>>> DVH wrote:
>>>> "William Black"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>>>> Name one...
>>>> 
>>>> David Davies. 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden
>>> rather than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are
>>> Tories... 
>>> 
>>> James
>> 
>> .....are they both political wankers as well?
>> 
>
>Not as much of a wanker as you are.

Beat me Beatrice....beat me! Put ME in your barrel!! Please my sweet one!

Dave Davies from the kinks is a torie too ;)

James Hammerton wrote:
> DVH wrote:
>> "William Black"  wrote in message 
>> news:gc8f4u$50b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> "Gaz"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6kpstnF8pa40U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>> Name one...
>>
>> David Davies.
>>
> I suspect you mean David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden rather 
> than David Davies, the MP for Monmouth. Confusingly, both are Tories...
> 
And neither have won an Olympic gold for swimming (AFAIK)

In article ,
James Hammerton   wrote:
>Gaz wrote:
>> "James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
>> news:6kpb2cF91rgnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>>
>>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
>>> Database).
>>>
>>> James
>> 
>> 
>> Politicians very rarely make a pledge and then ignore them when in office, 
>> without damn good (to them) reasons. I believe this is a sincere pledge, 
>> while many in the Conservative party would jump up for joy with an id card, 
>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>
>The question is why would a politician make a pledge in such an 
>unambiguous manner if he intends to break the pledge on gaining power. 
>The breaking of the pledge will immediately attract flak, and will most 
>probably damage that politician's reputation and credibility. So why 
>would a politican deliberately do it?

No matter how much noise and fuss they made when in opposition, I can't
remember a single instance of a politician ever repealing legislation once
they got into office themselves.  All the posturing and hot air is just a
further part of the charade^Wprocess which starts as parliamentary debate,
i.e. to try and wrong-foot your opponents rather than to persuade people
to actually vote for you.

Only if one of these freely tossed-about "commitments" actually makes
it into an election manifesto can you actually begin to think that it
might be a genuine intention, but even in that case manifesto promises
are not binding commitments by incoming governments, merely as statements
of intent which may be delayed until parliamentary time permits (read:
quietly forgotten) if it suits them.

>So we can conclude that Cameron values the votes of those who oppose the 
>ID scheme enough to court them with a clear pledge to scrap it.

I would say, rather, that we can conclude nothing at this stage more
than that Cameron wishes to use the support of those who oppose the ID
scheme to embarrass his opponents.

As I mentioned, only if he fights an election on a major plank of repeling
the Identity Act, would I actually believe it was a genuine commitment.
But I fear that's not likely, because he will fight the next election on
the same ground as both parties have fought every other recent election:
health, crime and education.

>If we continue to assume that he's planning to break this pledge, then 
>we must posit some gain for him that outweighs pissing these people off 
>once he's in office. Not only that, but this future gain must be 
>something he's aware of now and can be pretty sure will materialise once 
>in office.

The gain of course would be that he would be in office.  The downside
would be zero, since voters would not get a say for anothe five years
(by which time it would be long forgotten as "just another battle of the
previous election"), whilst during those five years Labour would scarcely
use his failure to repeal their own legislation against him ...

>The thing is, the actual impact of breaking the pledge cannot accurately 
>be judged until he's in office, unless you posit that some of those 
>currently backing him are urging him secretly to break the pledge on 
>pain of losing their support if he doesn't, and that he values them more 
>than the anti ID cards vote. But this is all speculation. The only thing 
>we have to go on until he gains power is what he says and what he does 
>with the Tory party in the meantime.
>
>ISTM there's only one way to find out if he means what he says, and 
>that's to vote Tory at the next general election.

I respect your view, but I very much doubt your trust in a politician
will prove to be justified.  As I say, I cannot remember one single
instance of a party who had gained office actually repealing legislation
they had promised that they would repeal.

Nick
-- 
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 19th September 2008)
        "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
                -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 12:55:28 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
 wrote:

>  I respect your view, but I very much doubt your trust in a politician
>  will prove to be justified.  As I say, I cannot remember one single
>  instance of a party who had gained office actually repealing legislation
>  they had promised that they would repeal.

Once the current financial problems have gone off the boil, one would
wonder if there would be any money left to fund something like the 
ID Card/NIR

-- 
John - http://www.no2id.net/
.If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, 
I will find something in them which will hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu 
(1585-1642)

"Nick Leverton"  wrote in message 
news:gciak0$ra2$1@leverton.org...
> In article ,
> James Hammerton   wrote:
>>Gaz wrote:
>>> "James Hammerton"  wrote in message
>>> news:6kpb2cF91rgnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>>>
>>>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's
>>>> Database).
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>
>>>
>>> Politicians very rarely make a pledge and then ignore them when in 
>>> office,
>>> without damn good (to them) reasons. I believe this is a sincere pledge,
>>> while many in the Conservative party would jump up for joy with an id 
>>> card,
>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>>
>>The question is why would a politician make a pledge in such an
>>unambiguous manner if he intends to break the pledge on gaining power.
>>The breaking of the pledge will immediately attract flak, and will most
>>probably damage that politician's reputation and credibility. So why
>>would a politican deliberately do it?
>
> No matter how much noise and fuss they made when in opposition, I can't
> remember a single instance of a politician ever repealing legislation once
> they got into office themselves.

Rubbish, it happens all the time.

Gaz

In article , Gaz  wrote:
>
>"Nick Leverton"  wrote in message 
>news:gciak0$ra2$1@leverton.org...
>
>> No matter how much noise and fuss they made when in opposition, I can't
>> remember a single instance of a politician ever repealing legislation once
>> they got into office themselves.
>
>Rubbish, it happens all the time.

Can you tell me any examples please ?  Genuine request: cross-posting to
uk.p.m I expect there will be people who know more than I do, but I quite
genuinely do not recall any.

Nick
-- 
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 19th September 2008)
        "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
                -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Nick Leverton  posted
>In article , Gaz  wrote:
>>
>>"Nick Leverton"  wrote in message
>>news:gciak0$ra2$1@leverton.org...
>>
>>> No matter how much noise and fuss they made when in opposition, I can't
>>> remember a single instance of a politician ever repealing legislation once
>>> they got into office themselves.
>>
>>Rubbish, it happens all the time.
>
>Can you tell me any examples please ?  Genuine request: cross-posting to
>uk.p.m I expect there will be people who know more than I do, but I quite
>genuinely do not recall any.

Didn't Labour repeal that Clause 49 or whatever it was that said local 
authorities must not promote homosexualism?

-- 
Les
"See, he admits he doesn't know the law, and yet he claims he's innocent! You
can't reason with a man like that."

"Nick Leverton"  wrote in message 
news:gcjd8p$t8h$1@leverton.org...
> In article , Gaz  
> wrote:
>>
>>"Nick Leverton"  wrote in message
>>news:gciak0$ra2$1@leverton.org...
>>
>>> No matter how much noise and fuss they made when in opposition, I can't
>>> remember a single instance of a politician ever repealing legislation 
>>> once
>>> they got into office themselves.
>>
>>Rubbish, it happens all the time.
>
> Can you tell me any examples please ?  Genuine request: cross-posting to
> uk.p.m I expect there will be people who know more than I do, but I quite
> genuinely do not recall any.

Section 28 immediatly springs to mind, another top of my head, the abolition 
of grant maintained status, the other was the internal market and gp fund 
holders.

Gaz

> Nick
> -- 
> Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 19th September 
> 2008)
>        "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
>                -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

Nick Leverton wrote:
> In article ,
> James Hammerton   wrote:
>> Gaz wrote:
>>> "James Hammerton"  wrote in message 
>>> news:6kpb2cF91rgnU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Listen here, about 13 minutes 20 seconds in:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7643000/7643557.stm
>>>>
>>>> The Tories have also pledged to scrap ContactPoint (aka the Children's 
>>>> Database).
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>
>>> Politicians very rarely make a pledge and then ignore them when in office, 
>>> without damn good (to them) reasons. I believe this is a sincere pledge, 
>>> while many in the Conservative party would jump up for joy with an id card, 
>>> they are an awful lot who would rather resign then vote for one.
>> The question is why would a politician make a pledge in such an 
>> unambiguous manner if he intends to break the pledge on gaining power. 
>> The breaking of the pledge will immediately attract flak, and will most 
>> probably damage that politician's reputation and credibility. So why 
>> would a politican deliberately do it?
> 
> No matter how much noise and fuss they made when in opposition, I can't
> remember a single instance of a politician ever repealing legislation once
> they got into office themselves.

Dealt with elsewhere by other posters.

   All the posturing and hot air is just a
> further part of the charade^Wprocess which starts as parliamentary debate,
> i.e. to try and wrong-foot your opponents rather than to persuade people
> to actually vote for you.

Cameron and his party have repeated this commitment in clear and 
unambiguous terms, so one must presume they either mean it or are lying 
now.

If they're lying now, they must either not care about the impact that 
breaking the commitment will have on their future government or must 
anticipate *now* a bigger gain to be made by breaking it than the loss 
caused by breaking it, and one they believe to be more important than 
any gain for the future government of keeping it. I doubt anyone can 
foretell the circumstances of the putative Cameron government that would 
make such calculations anything but speculative.

As for not caring about the impact it would have on the future 
government, that would be a foolish stance to take. Breaking pledges 
undermines trust, and will undermine the chances of reelection.

> Only if one of these freely tossed-about "commitments" actually makes
> it into an election manifesto can you actually begin to think that it
> might be a genuine intention,

If it doesn't make it into the manifesto, they can be accused of a 
U-turn/lying at that point. Not a good thing to take flak over as a 
general election starts, having made so much fuss about it.

  but even in that case manifesto promises
> are not binding commitments by incoming governments, merely as statements
> of intent which may be delayed until parliamentary time permits (read:
> quietly forgotten) if it suits them.

I agree that manifesto commitments are often forgotten/delayed or 
broken. But equally they also often acted upon, especially those that 
were a running theme in the process of getting elected. The Tories' 
pledge to scrap ID cards is becoming such a theme, ISTM.

>> So we can conclude that Cameron values the votes of those who oppose the 
>> ID scheme enough to court them with a clear pledge to scrap it.
> 
> I would say, rather, that we can conclude nothing at this stage more
> than that Cameron wishes to use the support of those who oppose the ID
> scheme to embarrass his opponents.

If so, he would have given himself a get-out clause that makes 
accusations of a u-turn or lying less credible. He hasn't.

> As I mentioned, only if he fights an election on a major plank of repeling
> the Identity Act, would I actually believe it was a genuine commitment.

What if he fights the election on a clear pledge to scrap the National 
Identity Scheme including the National Identity Register? (His current 
pledge...)

> But I fear that's not likely, because he will fight the next election on
> the same ground as both parties have fought every other recent election:
> health, crime and education.
> 
>> If we continue to assume that he's planning to break this pledge, then 
>> we must posit some gain for him that outweighs pissing these people off 
>> once he's in office. Not only that, but this future gain must be 
>> something he's aware of now and can be pretty sure will materialise once 
>> in office.
> 
> The gain of course would be that he would be in office.

No, that's the gain of *making* the pledge now, not *breaking* the 
pledge once in office.

>  The downside
> would be zero,

No it wouldn't. He would have broken people's trust, he will have given 
his opponents a stick to beat him with, he will have undermined his own 
government. Of course as only one part of what he does in government, it 
may not matter much against everything else he does. But the downside is 
definitely not zero.

> since voters would not get a say for anothe five years

And the opposition will have five years in which to constantly remind 
the voters of the broken promise (alongside any others).

> (by which time it would be long forgotten as "just another battle of the
> previous election"), whilst during those five years Labour would scarcely
> use his failure to repeal their own legislation against him ...

1. Labour aren't the only opposition party.
2. There may be internal critics.
3. NO2ID, Liberty et al will keep the pressure up.
4. Labour won't mind pointing out broken promises, even when those 
promises involve keeping their legislation. They could e.g. say "we're 
glad the government has broken it's election pledge and kept our 
legislation". I.e. they need not campaign against the legislation to 
cause embarassment for the government by highlighting the broken pledge.

>> The thing is, the actual impact of breaking the pledge cannot accurately 
>> be judged until he's in office, unless you posit that some of those 
>> currently backing him are urging him secretly to break the pledge on 
>> pain of losing their support if he doesn't, and that he values them more 
>> than the anti ID cards vote. But this is all speculation. The only thing 
>> we have to go on until he gains power is what he says and what he does 
>> with the Tory party in the meantime.
>>
>> ISTM there's only one way to find out if he means what he says, and 
>> that's to vote Tory at the next general election.
> 
> I respect your view, but I very much doubt your trust in a politician
> will prove to be justified.

Now you are reading too much into what I'm saying.

I don't have to trust Cameron to make the argument I'm making here, 
which is this: Cameron has made a clear/unambiguous pledge to repeal the 
national identity scheme, including the NIR.

If in doing so, he fully intends to break the pledge once in government, 
as some posters are claiming, then you must posit that he intends to 
take the resulting flak. That means he either doesn't care of the impact 
this will have on his future government, or that he thinks the loss 
bearable compared to whatever gain he makes by breaking the pledge.

I find it interesting he has made the pledge in unambiguous terms. He 
clearly thinks it will help him win power.

I suspect he will leave off deciding whether he keeps it or not to the 
point where he's in power. I.e. *at this point in time* he may be quite 
willing to keep the pledge. Once in power, he may decide otherwise. This 
would be a U-turn. OTOH, if he currently intends to break the pledge, 
then he is actually lying.

IMHO the best way to ensure this scheme is scrapped is to maintain 
pressure on the politicians until they do in fact scrap it. That Cameron 
feels the need to make this pledge suggest that pressure is already 
bearing fruit.

James