How demanding ID undermines trust and community

The debate about ID cards is back and this time the advocates of us having such things have added new weapons to their armoury - alongside stopping illegal immigration and being really convenient (until you lose the damned thing) we can add preventing the rare and unusual act of voter fraud and providing a simple way to administer state systems. There won't even be a physical card, say some ID fans, you'll just be issued a number. At the back of my mind the opening credits of The Prisoner spring to mind - "I'm not a number, I am a free man".

At the heart of the need to produce identification is the idea that we cannot trust the person in front of us to behave honestly. Every transaction requires some sort of identification process because of the remote possibility that somebody is going to cheat us. Take, for example, a simple thing like collecting a parcel. For most of my adult life, all this has required is that you take the card popped through your door by the postman or delivery company to the place where the parcel has been taken and they hand you the parcel. Now - and this is used as the most common argument for demanding ID at the polling station - we have to produce some sort of photo ID and proof of address as well as the card the postie delivered. This is daft - the card was delivered to you and should be sufficient. Unless, that is, there are cunning thieves following delivery vans, breaking into houses, stealing those cards and going to collect them.

The government rather likes it that you don't - or aren't allowed to - trust your neighbour. The idea that, in a community, people know each other and trust each other doesn't fit with a state directed system. Take voting - the presiding officer for the past few years in Cullingworth lives in the village and has done for a long while. She knows a lot of people here and, along with local polling clerks, can be trusted to only question those folk who raise some sort of doubt. Most of the people lining up to vote arrive with a poll card (delivered to their house by the council) and ID fans seems to believe that there's another cunning set of miscreants going round nicking poll cards so they can impersonate voters. This might occasionally happen but I prepared to bet that it won't be happening in Cullingworth. We should be trusting our Presiding Officer, trusting the poll clerks and trusting the vast majority who are not about to cheat anyone.

In an environment of trust, especially trust established over a long period, there is less need for government protection. My exchanges and interactions with friends and neighbours don't require government oversight to make sure nobody is cheating. The sad thing is that this sphere of genuine community has shrunk and shrunk - we stopped trusting the local shopkeeper to know whether or not young James is over 18. Or, more to the point, trading standards officers shifted their focus away from product safety and towards the enforcement of arbitrary age limits on an ever growing range of products. And because of this enforcement, the shopkeeper stopped selling these products without a proof of identity (and age) - the days of sending the kid to the pub to get jug of ale for grandpa are well and truly over.

Government - and by this is mean the Kafka-esque structures of bureaucracy and control not the politicians we elect who pretend to direct these structures - likes the fact that mistrust makes its controls and enforcement necessary. It suits bureaucracy for us to be issued with numbers and for those numbers to be demanded in order to access simple services like collecting a prescription from the chemist or signing up to a GP. And the bureaucrats will point to examples of abuse (carefully gathered for this purpose) to show how absolutely essential it is that the sub-postmaster, pharmacist and GP don't trust us. There'll be mistakes, example of abuse and the old canard of illegal immigration all paraded before us to explain why you will need to produce a photo ID to enter a pub in Bingley.

As a conservative, I believe that trust sits at the heart of our idea of community. We cannot have a true community - it's merely a space shared by unconnected individuals - unless the people in it have trust in their neighbour. There's a lot of evidence - mostly from the USA - that people are beginning to look again for that idea of community. Partly it's a sort of wistful remembrance of times when "ID please" wasn't such a common sound but it's also a recognition that successful places are founded in large part on a shared idea of what the place should be and much of the sharing here relies on trust. Without trust of neighbour - on a scale wide enough to make a difference - loving where you live becomes a solitary pastime rather than a shared mission.

It may be that we can't get those days back, a time when filling in a form and handing over some money was sufficient to open a bank account, when a boy could buy fags for his mum because the shopkeeper knew who he was and knew his mum, and where the publican could keep an eye on three 15-year-olds knowing they're better and safer in his pub than they'd be at the back of the park with some cans. It may be that automation leads to a need for a single universal number but we should, at least think seriously about how we restore the idea of trust and community in a world where systems assume that everybody, all of the time, is up to no good. And maybe we should ask the government - and those subject to government enforcement - to start trusting us again?

....

ID checks are officious, mostly unnecessary, mistrustful and damage community.

When I was a young teenager, my Mum would give me the money to go and buy her some cigarettes - twenty Sovereign. It made sense because the newsagent and tobacconist was a mile away in Elmers End and I was going there on my bike to do a paper round. I'm sure I'm not the only person from my generation who bought cigarettes for their Mum or Dad.

These days, of course, this wouldn't happen. We live in an age of mistrust brought about by the decline of community, by the shopkeeper not knowing who is who in the little local community and, worse, frightened that if he doesn't ID every second customer some official is going to step in, throwing the book. Until a year ago I'd never been asked for any ID except for such things as getting a driving licence or passport (or overseas where they're a lot keener on ID stuff) - certainly not for any purchase, never in a shop or a pub or a bank.

The first demand for ID was in a London hotel. We'd booked, pre-paid and were staying one night - the receptionist requested a photo ID. I didn't have any on me and, after a brief (and smiling) exchange no ID was proffered and none required. It was, however, an indication of our society's mistrust - I could be someone other than the person who'd rung up, booked a hotel, paid for a room on a specified night. Unlikely but you never know...

We've become ID mad - supermarket checkout operators wear little badges telling me that if I look under 25 they'll ask for some proof of age if I try to buy a bewildering range of goods - fags, booze, fireworks, glue, knives, scissors, marches, cigarette lighters, drain cleaner and (so I've been told) large bottles of sugar rich fizzy pop. Operators demand ID to go in a bar, to attend a concert, to conduct a bank transaction - a million-and-one ordinary everyday actions that back when we trusted people were done without this officious rigmarole.

This ever expanding requirement to prove who you are so as to go about an ordinary life isn't a good thing. We're not safer, healthier or happier as a result of having to show some form of ID to a checkout operator or a doorman. Indeed, I've a feeling that this is a transfer of trust from the wisdom and judgement of people to a dumb pice of paper or plastic with a bad photo on it. And that in doing this we undermine community, the idea that nearly everyone, nearly all of the time behaves sensibly and doesn't require some self-appointed agent of the state (usually operating out of fear that not checking people's identity will bring down the wrath of that state) to second guess this truth.

As a conservative, the idea of community and the trust that comes from within that community is central to what we feel about the world. The moment we step away from this and say "don't trust anyone buying a bottle of wine or a packet of twenty fags, they might be lying" we lose a little more of that community. Places should be able to police themselves - they did so from time immemorial until we decided that managing drinking, smoking and such wasn't something we could entrust to a small community but needed national - even international - agencies to insist that the rules are enforced (for the children, naturally).

Today that ultimate measure of a community - going down to the local church hall to cast a vote in an election - is the latest ordinary action that is to be subject to ID checks. We're told this is to combat rising electoral fraud (despite the Electoral Commission repeatedly saying voter fraud is rare) - as they concluded "...there is no evidence to suggest that there have been widespread, systematic attempts to undermine or interfere with recent elections through electoral fraud." And remember that the only fraud ID checks might prevent is personation at the polling station, it doesn't prevent false registration, doesn't stop postal voting abuse, and doesn't halt voter intimidation (all of which are more serious problems).

To get this in context, there were over 50 million ballots issued in 2015 and just 34 cases of personation. There were only 481 allegtions of electoral fraud, two-thirds of which were deemed not to be offences. And we want to get Mrs Jones to produce a photo ID when she goes to the village hall in Lower Puddlebury because 0.0009% of ballots led to an allegation (0.0003% an investigation and less than 0.0001% a conviction) of electoral fraud. Worse, because Mrs Jones doesn't drive and hasn't got a passport, she'll have to go and get a special ID card to vote - all to prevent an almost imaginary problem.

We do too many ID checks. They are officious and mostly unnecessary. As conservatives we should remind those who govern us that trust is central to a good society. And that this constant checking up on people is mistrustful, undermines community and is bad for society.

....

So is Bradford part of Leeds? On rebranding our Combined Authority

Tomorrow I'll be toddling across to Leeds where, among other momentous matters, the West Yorkshire Combined Authority with consider whether to change its name to Leeds City Region Combined Authority. This has caused a ripple of disgruntlement in my city as people ask quite why this decision is being taken now and whether it marks the end of Bradford's separate and individual identity.

I don't like the proposal. Mostly this is because it is totally unnecessary. We're told by officers that the current brand (essentially 'West Yorkshire') is confusing because there's another brand - 'Leeds City Region Local Enterprise Partnership' - within the purview of the combined authority and having two brands might be confusing for high-powered, multi-million pound wielding international business folk wanting to invest. That and all the others are named after cities (well Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool at least but not Birmingham and Bristol).

The report tells us that the basis for the change results from 'comprehensive research':

"...benchmarking the WYCA against other combined authorities nationally or internationally, an audit of existing communications activity by the organisation, and substantial engagement with audiences including elected members, local authority chief executives, private sector business leaders, central government officials, partner organisations and WYCA employees."

Sounds good - just the sort of paragraph I'd have put into a client presentation about research when I didn't have any budget. What we have here is a series of chats with existing connections such as members of the LEP, political leaders (but not opposition leaders) in the West Yorkshire councils and senior officials who we work with. There's no script, no presentation of findings, no suggestion that we've done anything other than ask the opinion of a few people who we already know.

In the grand scale of things all this probably doesn't matter much. Except that, for us in Bradford at least, we'll begin to recognise that plenty of decisions previously made by councillors here in Bradford are now made somewhere else (Leeds) by a different organisation. This - as councillors on Bradford's area committees have discovered - includes mundane and very local stuff like whether or not to put speed bumps on a street in Cullingworth.

What annoys me most about this stuff is that we are gradually replacing accountable political decision-making with technocratic, officer-led decisions. So us councillors, for example, get pressure to put in speed cameras but have precisely zero say in whether and where such cameras are actually installed. Somewhere in the documentation of the soon-to-be Leeds City Region Combined Authority there'll be a line of budget referring to the West Yorkshire Casulaty Reduction Partnership. That is what 'member decision-making' means most of the time these days.

So to return to the name change. I'll be opposed because it's unnecessary nd divisive. But when it goes through (I love that they're planning an extensive 'member engagement' after they've made the decision) it will at least be a reminder that most of the big investment decisions out there are being made on the basis of Heseltine's 'functional economic geography' rather than using the democratically-elected local councils we all know and love. OK, not love- that's going too far - but you know what I mean.

.....

Why we need to understand cheese (not to mention beer, bread and football)

***


How can anyone govern a nation that has two hundred and forty-six different kinds of cheese? Charles de Gaulle

…or for that matter twenty different names for a teacake, hundreds of different beers and around 200 professional football teams. De Gaulle’s point was about governing but it seems to me that much of this relates to identity – my cheese is different from your cheese and (probably) better. Even if – as is the case often with football – your team is better than my team that makes no difference as I still like my team more.

Much self-important guff and piffle is talked about sovereignty, national identity and allegiance. Someone from Carlisle probably has more in common with his near neighbours in Dumfries than with his fellow Englishmen in Basingstoke. But that Carlisle resident will fly the English flag; proclaim allegiance to England while in the same breath castigating soft southern nancies for being inadequate wimps. A view doubtless shared by the lowland Scots.

It seems to me that these allegiances to food, to sport, to drinks and to clothing are more significant to us than adherence to some political identity, supposed national personality or supra-national polity. In truth political leaders and governments simply make use of identity – local or “national” – in securing and sustaining power. Such leaders and governments do not create that identity and will belittle it or cast it aside if it stands in the way of “progress” (also known as extending the power of government).

My cultural identity is shaped by the things I like (or dislike), by those I live with and around. That identity cannot be changed by fiat, through the passing of laws or the imposition of controls. And that identity extends beyond the political to a much broader set of values, views and interests. I hope these next few things will help illustrate:

1. In Denmark, voting patterns show a surprising correlation with the distribution of a glottal stop used differently in different Danish dialects. Strange Maps who report this finding have shown similar distributions with Socialist votes in France, political allegiance in the Ukraine and election results in Poland.

2. Bradford Council uses self-identification to place individuals in communities with remarkable effectiveness – ask a set of people where they live and map like responses and you’ll get a good definition of the local boundaries (and you’ll hear just how resentful Keighley people are at being ‘lumped in' with Bradford)

3. Most associations with “home” fade pretty fast in immigrant communities – but check out support for football clubs and you’ll see it passed down the generations especially where clubs have a wider cultural association (Celtic, Rangers, Barcelona, Lazio)

The idea of sovereignty makes little sense at this local level – these cultural associations and personal identities are not manifestations of sovereign power. Yet we talk of sovereignty as if it is simply shaped by a “national identity” rather than imposed by those in power upon the people they govern.

Finally – and before people get too excited about this description – none of this justifies supra-national government. Indeed, I see supra-national government as a backward step, as the reinvention of the bonarpartist myth not as progress towards better government. After all, in a peaceful world we should need no national government just local governance in whatever form local people choose to order that government.

And that’s why cheese, the names we call bread, batter pudding and the way we drink our beer are far more important than the pomposities of administration or the ordering of political power.

...