Does David Davis know what an ID card does?
Politicians are very convincing people - it's their job. Never have an argument with a politician; they are professionals. Not only will they destroy your argument, they will make you like silly by getting everyone to laugh at you.
Moral positions that I have spent years presuming to be true have been destroyed in seconds by a well constructed political argument on BBC Question Time.
I've recently been thinking all this goes to show that moral force is dictated by the strength of your voice rather than any notion of right and wrong - but this is all undermined when you get your facts wrong.
All this was proved very forcefully to me when I realised after questioning him at a Microsoft event that shadow home secretary David Davis doesn't know his stuff when it comes to ID cards.
First, my position:
I'm not pro ID cards, but I think a lot of the arguments against them are based on fundamental misunderstandings as to their purpose.
Second, Davis' position:
He thinks it's dangerous to have so much information in one place, and thinks it "personally wrong" on a "philosophical level,"
What then is the difference ethically between a biometric passport and an ID card?
"It's the central holding of information. Carrying something which has a thumbprint or an iris scan is fine," said Davis.
Ah. Gosh. Can it be true that the shadow home secretary - the strongest voice in criticising government policy this country has after Tory leader David Cameron - doesn't know that those with biometric passports will have their details put onto the National Identity Register under current government plans - a key part of the scheme?
It seems so.
Lord Toby Harris, a peer on the House of Lords science and technology committee, was quick to pounce, saying there were not any essential ethical differences, for the reasons outlined above.
Davis kept on smiling.
Nobody seemed to notice.
How often are "philosophical" and "moral" arguments used to convey a weight of sincerity on issues that are being manipulated for political ends?
Do (successful) politicians actually believe in anything?