So how much of the problem does that solve? It seems to me that the database, as opposed to the cards themselves, was a significant privacy threat. I know they still won't be popular, but are they now much less toxic?
Hopefully, yes. I suppose it depends what the three existing databases are that are going to be used for this now, what is going to be held in them (particularly, what is going to be held in them that isn't already), and who is going to be granted access to them (again, particularly who isn't already).
However, we can't tell our government we think they are are wrong to try and do something if we accuse them of a U-turn in the next breath as soon as they change it.
Yes, yes we can. In a representative oligarchy, a government should execute exactly the planks in their manifesto, along with any policies that come along as a result of unforseen circumstances that are inline with their manifesto.
In this case, the policy meant to be implemented was significantly higher than the plank promised (to the extent that the Lords broke the Salisbury Convention for the first time ever), and the goverment was deceptive in terms of the aims, costs, and effects of the policy.
There is a mechanism for consultation for the electorate that stops short of a referendum, which is a green paper. If the government were unsure enough of the correctness of what they were doing that they wanted to be able to back out, they should have issued one; they should stick to any policy decisions that they make.
Anything else leads inevitably to populism and headline-chasing.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 01:17 pm (UTC)And here's another of that ilk:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1975035,00.html
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 01:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 01:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 02:10 pm (UTC)However, we can't tell our government we think they are are wrong to try and do something if we accuse them of a U-turn in the next breath as soon as they change it.
General whinge, not necessarily aimed at you.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 02:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 02:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 03:01 pm (UTC)In this case, the policy meant to be implemented was significantly higher than the plank promised (to the extent that the Lords broke the Salisbury Convention for the first time ever), and the goverment was deceptive in terms of the aims, costs, and effects of the policy.
There is a mechanism for consultation for the electorate that stops short of a referendum, which is a green paper. If the government were unsure enough of the correctness of what they were doing that they wanted to be able to back out, they should have issued one; they should stick to any policy decisions that they make.
Anything else leads inevitably to populism and headline-chasing.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-19 02:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-12-20 01:42 am (UTC)we almost win...