BRITAIN: An assault on liberty and ancient freedoms? Or a vital weapon in the war against terror, crime, fraud and illegal immigration?
The British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, unveiled his long-awaited proposals yesterday with a call for a great national debate. He may be sure of it. Indeed, at this writing it is tempting to say he has already lost round one and is on his way to losing the second.
With classic New Labourite instinct for the presentation of a populist line, Mr Blunkett wasn't going to be caught proposing anything as familiar (or unpopular) as an identity card. Oh no. As part of his ongoing debate about citizenship and identity, the Home Secretary is advocating what former Tory minister Peter Lilley calls an "all singing, all dancing" smart new "entitlement card" establishing the worthy citizen's legitimate access to vital public services such as education, healthcare and social security.
Unfortunately for Mr Blunkett, even as they awaited the detail of his consultation paper yesterday, experienced British commentators were recalling the last great national debate on this issue - launched in May 1995 by the former Conservative home secretary Mr Michael "something of the night about him" Howard.
And as the debate gathered pace last night, the British press and public were showing every inclination to reject Mr Blunkett's chosen terms of reference, by calling the proposed identity card . . . well, an identity card.
A second early reversal for Mr Blunkett could come over the government's suggestion (at least at this stage) that the card might be voluntary rather than compulsory. It fell to a senior Labour backbencher, David Winnick , to warn that all Britons might eventually be compelled to carry one.
Mr Winnick, a member of the influential Home Affairs Select Committee, shot holes in both aspects of the government's strategy, telling the BBC: "It is rather interesting that the euphemism is used - entitlement card. The very idea of having an identity card is so discredited that, understandably, some other wording has been put forward."
He continued: "What will happen, unfortunately, is it will escalate. My fear is that it will escalate into a compulsory card."
Even allowing Mr Blunkett the benefit of the doubt, the Liberal Democrat spokesman Simon Hughes said that, while the card might remain optional for the affluent, it would inevitably become "a compulsory part of everyday life for the poor, who regularly come into contact with officialdom".
Poor or otherwise, there is also acute concern that members of Britain's ethnic minorities coming into contact with the police might find suspicion levels immediately increased by failure to produce the requested form of identification.
Incrementally, critics say, failure to carry the ID card would effectively become an offence in itself. Indeed, Mr Lilley argues that failure to make it compulsory would render the whole scheme pointless.
Protestations to the contrary from Mr Blunkett may prove unconvincing because, as one Home Office watcher puts it, "this Home Secretary has form as long as your arm".
This is the same Home Secretary who, on back of the events of September 11th, restored the power of internment to the statute book just two years after New Labour had abolished it.
Mr Blunkett is currently accused of wanting to "nationalise" the police, and of encroaching on traditional operational independence by seeking powers to direct a chief constable to improve failing forces and to sack failing officers.
He was reportedly seen-off by the Lord Chancellor when he tried to expand the Home Office empire to take responsibility for the courts.
And, just weeks ago, he was forced into a spectacular retreat over plans to massively extend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to give all local councils and seven Whitehall departments access to e-mail, Internet and telephone records.
Recalling such Home Office initiatives, Karen Bartlett, of Charter 88, reflects a now-widespread belief that "a worrying trend" has emerged under New Labour.
Nor has Mr Blunkett proved convincing on the detailed arguments for the ID card. People following the rules are already issued with asylum registration cards, while there is no evidence that not having ID will deter illegal entrants. Mr Lilley recalls earlier police advice that their difficulty was seldom with the identification of suspects but rather with catching and convicting them.
The perpetrators of the terror assaults on Washington and New York were hardly concerned with concealing their identities. And it would be interesting to see how many dedicated doctors and nurses in Britain would actually refuse patients in need of treatment because their ID or entitlement card was not to hand.
It seems Mr Blair will let Mr Blunkett take the lead in this debate, and perhaps wisely. One senior Whitehall official advises: "You should never trust a Home Secretary who wants to be Prime Minister."
And if it all proves distinctly non-populist, Mr Blair might always count on Mr Blunkett's rival for the crown, Chancellor Brown, to block it - if only on the grounds of its spectacular cost.