Starmer's vision quest

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Pblakeney

Über Member
They don't address the problem that Starmer's using as the reason for introducing them, so yet again he's got the politics back to front. Had he introduced them as a utility to simplify people's online and IT-connected lives (NHS, HMRC, driving licences, etc) rather than as a knee-jerk reaction for a problem they won't solve, it would have been an easier sell.

That's my position too. The government already have all this info so why not interconnect it all and streamline it?
Key for me is the NHS. I heard on a podcast that your records are not centralised so a hospital has no clue about your GP's records. True?
 

CXRAndy

Squire
 

First Aspect

Über Member
I have to admit I've changed my mind on ID cards (as long as it's not compulsory to carry them at all times), but here's yet another example of terrible Labour politics: why not just call it the UK ID Card? Oh yes, they have to pander to the Reform loons.

View attachment 10161
What does it solve that a NIN doesn't also fail to solve?

The whole premise is flawed, sadly.

That's not to say that a universally recognised ID wouldn't have other benefits, such as to allow hackers to steal identities more easily, but stopping immigration is not one of them.
 

spen666

Über Member
I think you are putting your own interpretation on the results of the survey. The report (which I'm not meant to have) does not put such interpretation. They are a very highly educated staff and the survey was not about "moral" but about how the organisation was being managed.

From the few reports from press that got hold of the survey


And it then transpired that in response to the survey Starmer/management rather than trying to improve things sent staff for "retraining". From one of the few reports about the survey

I have personal insight into this. I was not working for CPS, but was heavily involved at the time and spent most of the 5 years Starmer was in charge working with the CPS and in CPS offices across the country.

The results of survey's can easily be interpretated to make them say what they like.
 

Psamathe

Veteran
That's my position too. The government already have all this info so why not interconnect it all and streamline it?
Key for me is the NHS. I heard on a podcast that your records are not centralised so a hospital has no clue about your GP's records. True?
It raises a number of significant concerns and little benefit.

Re: Centralisation: difficult to trust the Government with your data eg too many health secretaries regard confidential NHS data as having £££ value and want to sell it to 3rd parties without permission. Government IT systems have a long established track record of not working whilst costing far more than budgeted. eg NHS app is going backwards at the moment. Couple of years ago I could look on the app and see what appointments I have booked or happened in past. These days that no longer works.

Re: NHS Data Centralisation: Been tried and didn't work, Westminster then sees the data as a £££ sold to the highest bidders. That NHS data is not centralised and that is not a problem if the patient takes some responsibility for their health. On the few occasions I've been to consultants I make sure I have all relevant health records with me. I keep local copies of test results, etc. When I've had scans that might be relevant I notify the consultant's admin before the appointment so they get hold of relevant stuff. It's down to personal responsibility not centralised records. Giving consultant records or advanced notification of scans has always worked as it's admin not consultant doing the work.

I've even saved the NHS money where I've had (and paid for) a CT scan privately and later advance notified NHS consultant that the scan is relevant and available from specified private hospital and when I attend NHS consultant they've then already seen the scan and said doesn't need redoing as it gives them everything they need.
 
What does it solve that a NIN doesn't also fail to solve?

The whole premise is flawed, sadly.

That's not to say that a universally recognised ID wouldn't have other benefits, such as to allow hackers to steal identities more easily, but stopping immigration is not one of them.

If done properly (haha, yes, I know), with biometrics as in Google Wallet, it's more secure and could have differentiated information made available to different bodies (NHS, police, etc).

I had resisted using GW as a payment method until someone pointed out that a payment card with contactless payment is way less secure than GW, as anyone with a contactless card can use it.

I would be of a different opinion if the proposal was that it is compulsory to carry it at all times. But I don't think that's the case. Utility rather than compulsion.
 

Pblakeney

Über Member
It raises a number of significant concerns and little benefit.

Re: Centralisation: difficult to trust the Government with your data eg too many health secretaries regard confidential NHS data as having £££ value and want to sell it to 3rd parties without permission. Government IT systems have a long established track record of not working whilst costing far more than budgeted. eg NHS app is going backwards at the moment. Couple of years ago I could look on the app and see what appointments I have booked or happened in past. These days that no longer works.

Re: NHS Data Centralisation: Been tried and didn't work, Westminster then sees the data as a £££ sold to the highest bidders. That NHS data is not centralised and that is not a problem if the patient takes some responsibility for their health. On the few occasions I've been to consultants I make sure I have all relevant health records with me. I keep local copies of test results, etc. When I've had scans that might be relevant I notify the consultant's admin before the appointment so they get hold of relevant stuff. It's down to personal responsibility not centralised records. Giving consultant records or advanced notification of scans has always worked as it's admin not consultant doing the work.

I've even saved the NHS money where I've had (and paid for) a CT scan privately and later advance notified NHS consultant that the scan is relevant and available from specified private hospital and when I attend NHS consultant they've then already seen the scan and said doesn't need redoing as it gives them everything they need.

I see your concerns but they can be abused today and there is potential to tighten security in a new system.
Yes I know, security, system and government is not promising.
 

Pross

Well-Known Member

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
That's my position too. The government already have all this info so why not interconnect it all and streamline it?
Key for me is the NHS. I heard on a podcast that your records are not centralised so a hospital has no clue about your GP's records. True?

I don't know the exact extent of the lack on connectivity, but, a little example. Two years ago, my wife fell and broke her wrist, whilst walking the Thames Path, near Chertsey. We got an Uber to the nearest NHS Hospital, where they did x-rays, set her wrist, applied a caste etc, so far, so good. They advised that further treatment may be necessary, and, advised that we return home and visit our local hospital. This we did, and, again, it all worked, Chertsey had forwarded details electronically, including x-rays etc. I was impressed. Then, it all went wrong, after a few weeks on a follow up appointment, the Sunderland Hospital advised checking for Osteoporosis. We were able to tell them that wife had not long before had necessary tests at a nearby hospital (Durham, about 15 miles away). Sunderland were unable to access the results of these test, and, they had to be repeated, wasting resources, and, our time.
 
"But something something 'red lines' and foreigners!!"

But I guess we must be in the 'too late to do anything about it' stage, so foreigners it is.

1758914871014.png
 
  • Sad
Reactions: C R

midlandsgrimpeur

Active Member
My suspicion is that this amplified McSweeney/Glasman tactic is going to cripple Starmer: his MPs are going to be wondering WTF they are for if all Starmer is going to do is to agree with Reform, and they'll be looking for ways to turn this around. If Starmer won't change the tune, they'll plot against him. He's only a tiny step away from citing 'legitimate concerns'. Maybe he thinks he can balance on the fence between the two camps, but he's going to end up with a fence post up his arse.

View attachment 10166

The Sun piece followed The Telegraph suggests his handlers seem to now think they can play both sides. I am starting to accept he is clueless when it comes to engaging the public, too many missteps now. I am almost at the point where a Labour coup led by Andy Burnham seems like it might be a good idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R
Top Bottom