Janet Daly manages to get quite a long way off message today.

Those who denounce the position that Michael Howard has had to coerce
some on his front bench into accepting want the party to maintain the
strict libertarianism that is one (but only one) strand of the
Conservative tradition. Their interpretation of civil liberties is
based on the absolute right of the individual to do as he pleases
provided that he causes no serious harm.

No, the construction is no serious harm to the freedoms and liberties of others.

In fact, they tend to judge them on a case-by-case basis, reacting
furiously to the idea that they cannot judge best how to raise their
offspring, but generally approving of the idea that nobody should be
allowed to smoke in a restaurant. They do not see these proposals as
ipso facto undesirable simply because they are usurping individual
rights.

I and many others do indeed object to these things precisely because they infringe on individual rights. For example, I have no problem with the owner of private property banning smoking on his premises, just as I have none with his allowing or encouraging it. My objection is based on the State telling said owner what he may or may not do with his own property.

There has been a very considerable change in our political culture
since the war, which politicians of the Right must at least
acknowledge, even if they do not wish to accept it. Most voters now
believe that the government can (and should) embody what decent,
right-thinking people believe to be beneficent social attitudes. There
is confusion perhaps about what it is appropriate for governments to
do, as opposed to what individuals or communities should take
responsibility for. But the fact remains that the country now assumes
that, if it is right to think, say, that children should get more
exercise, then the government should think that, too, and, furthermore,
that it should act on it.

You are correct that many think this. That is the problem after all, that many do so. Someone needs to stand up and tell them they are wrong.

This definition of liberty is thought to be enshrined
in the British unwritten constitution, and is generally assumed to
underpin common law: the presumption that the citizen of a free society
is innocent until proved guilty of any offence entails that he is at
liberty to go about his business in anonymous privacy unless there are
good grounds for pursuing him under the law.
In
other words, under normal circumstances, he owes an explanation to no
one of who he is and what he is doing. In fact, that conclusion
stretches the principle of innocent until proved guilty rather far, but
it has become a point of historical pride that our police, unlike those
in European countries whose democratic traditions are less secure,
cannot demand vos papiers without good reason.

A reasonable encapsulation of one objection to the cards. Others would be that they won’t work, will be massively expensive (David Gillies commenting here has stated, that as a database expert, he doesn’t see how they can do it for less than 20 billion). Take the reason of your choice although I’m with the first one.

Most voters now believe that they will add more than they will detract
from public welfare. And, in a democracy, the people’s voice rules.

And therein lies the real problem. We have a representative democracy, not a direct one. The representatives are there to filter the nonsense that gets into the heads of the populace, to stop whatever fad is sweeping the nation from altering the fundamental relationships between subject (or citizen, if you prefer) and the State. Doesn’t always work, as the Dangerous Dogs Act, Hunting Bill and handguns show, but on an issue of such importance as whether we are to lay the ground work for a totalitarian police state (link ID cards with the Civil Contingencies Act and there seems to be little the Govt cannot do as and when it wishes) one would at least hope for a touch of spine from someone. Apparently not though.