What will ID cards be for? Worryingly, despite the details published last month with the launch of the procurement process, there is still no simple answer.

Fraud, immigration and public services all come under the scheme’s panacean umbrella. As do terrorism, underage drinking and streamlined hiring procedures.

To a sceptic, such indecision looks suspicious ­ evidence that the government will use any means at its disposal to justify a scheme that is at best expensively pointless and at worst a premeditated policy of social control.

To some extent, the ID scheme is hoist with its own petard. Because there are so many potential uses, it can be made to look ill-considered, ill-intentioned, or both.

The danger is that the potential for the scheme to have genuine benefits will be lost in a flurry of shrill narrow-mindedness.

The Home Office may bang too hard on the security drum, overlooking the fact that the majority of benefits will be commercial ­ authentication for online banking, for example.

From the other side, the ludicrous ease with which paint-by-numbers Big Brother scare stories can be put together threatens to turn any sensible debate into hysteria before it even starts.

In fact, for the privacy debate to focus so strongly on the government is missing the point.

Google already targets adverts using people’s search profiles. And it envisions a future where it has enough information to answer questions such as: what job would suit me; or, with whom should I go to the cinema?

My point is by no means unqualified support for ID cards. But the scheme must be seen in the context of far larger developments that transcend the simple, rather infantile, government-bashing tradition.
It is unrealistic to try to hold back the electronic tide. But with that tide comes a data trail unlike anything previously imaginable.

There are, without doubt, serious questions to be asked: about how we want to interact with the state; about how we balance conflicting desires for security and anonymity; about how we live in an online world while retaining some semblance of control.

There are no easy answers. But let us at least be sure we are asking the right questions rather than just tilting at the easiest target we can find.

The government’s response to Lord Leitch’s skills review was expected last week, but has been put back pending the inauguration of the new prime minister.

However, the announcement made by the Department for Education and Skills on Thursday gives a flavour of what many expect from the main implementation plan when it finally arrives in early July.

Education secretary Alan Johnson unveiled the first 150 employers to sign up to a Skills Pledge to support their staff’s development of basic skills.

All well and good.

The Leitch-inspired goals adopted in November’s pre-Budget report include basic literacy and numeracy skills for 95 per cent of UK adults by 2020, and more than 90 per cent of adults with the equivalent of five GCSEs.

It is undoubtedly important to improve low-level skills, if depressing that it should be necessary despite the best efforts of the state system.

But the tendency to focus on lower-end skills is only half the picture. The sentiment is noble – borne of the notion that it is the government’s responsibility to pick up failures in the public education sector. But the associated view is that high-end skills are the responsibility solely of employers.

To an extent, it is a fair comment. But only to an extent.

The more advanced skills have a disproportionate effect on the productivity and competitiveness that underpins thriving growth, particularly if the UK is to make it as a so-called knowledge economy. And it is that economic success upon which concepts of social justice also rely.

Part of the issue is that IT and the IT sector are still viewed somewhat askance by the mainstream, especially in politics.

Another part is that the contribution to the economy is only just starting to be understood.

It is not a question of straight-up funding but, rather, one of influence. Government is often most effective as an advocate rather than a manager.

Alongside the Skills Pledge, Johnson announced the appointment of KPMG chairman Sir Michael Rake as head of the new Commission for Employment and Skills.

Ostensibly the commission’s role is to work with employers. If Rake can use his reporting line to the new prime minister to ensure government strategies take as much account for high-level skills as literacy and numeracy, he will be doing a good job. After all, it’s the economy, stupid.

So the projected costs of the ID scheme have shot up by around £850m in the last six months. Clearly this is not a sum to be sniffed at, even in government terms. But, apart from the numbers, the most striking thing about the six-monthly cost report from the ID and Passport Service is that all the extra money seems to be going to go on staffing.

Not only has the number of people needed to do the enrollment and checking in the scheme's early years been increased, but there are now also plans to keep hold of existing staff 'until the improved systems made available by the National Identity Scheme are fully implemented'.

It sounds pretty sensible to me.

There are two choices. Either do it properly. Or do not do it all.

Though the technology itself undoubtedly plays a part, ensuring that there are enough people to manage the eye-watering logistics will be crucial. And if the IPS can curb the government's tendency to try to cut staff numbers before new technology and ways of working are established, the project stands considerably more chance of success.

Meanwhile, as the costs rise and an already-sceptical public becomes ever more wary, it is up to the government to explain, in words of one syllable, why an ID scheme is worth the money. So far that case has not been made.

The Public Accounts Committee report published today is highly critical of the £12bn programme and casts doubt on its success.

The Department of Health response is that it is a skewed view based on out of date evidence and the testimony of those with an axe to grind.

As usual there is almost no way of forming a coherent picture of the programme's progress. Some things are going well (ish), some are going badly, some are not going at all. But the reality is that there is no choice but to pursue a modernisation programme, and, now we are so far along this particular path, a few years' delay cannot be enough to put the whole  in jeopardy.

All these fireworks are just a sideshow.

It looks like bad news from Government Connects but actually it's not. The story could be that, once again, a public sector IT programme has ended up half-cancelled halfway through.

But the fact that Government Connects has halted its development of a secure authentication system for citizens, and will be using the existing Government Gateway instead, is no such story.

Why spend time, money and effort building a new system when one already exists? No reason at all. So the decision to go with Gateway should be applauded.

The only slight cloud is this otherwise sunny sky is: why has the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) only just discovered that Gateway exists?

DCLG says its development was always an interim measure to cover the gap between the Connects timetable and the speed Gateway could be made compatible with its needs. That timetable has now shifted, says the department, so interim measures are no longer needed.

It sounds plausible enough. Except it seems that the interim period was only ever going to be from March to July - and five months is hardly long enough to justify an entirely separate development.

Still, let's not be too harsh on DCLG. Better late than never.

It will be interesting to see whether the new, upgraded PSX(e) ministerial committee will avoid such overlaps in the future.

So shared services between departments is actually starting, and DWP and HMRC will be the first departmental suppliers of HR and finance to their smaller Whitehall peers.

Rumour has it that some of the IT industry is miffed, disappointed to see the many billions of pounds forecast by then-head of shared services David Myers disappear at a stroke from the cabinet secretary. But for the taxpayer the development is undoubtedly a good one - in theory, at least.

How it will go in practice is anybody's guess.

The Cabinet Office is to be the first to go, and expects its HR/finance to be run by DWP by the end of the year. In the process the truly thorny issues - such as how the Cabinet Office pays, and what happens if DWP screws up - will have to be addressed.

The bigger question buried here is about the role of DWP. It is already one of Whitehall's biggest departments, both in terms of staff numbers and citizen transactions. As such, it is well-placed to lead on joined-up issues - such as the use of its Citizen Information System as the basis for the Home Office's ID card scheme, or its takeover of the DirectGov citizen portal from Cabinet Office.

And there is also a whisper that the Government Gateway authentication service may be looking for a new home. Out of the three contenders - DWP, HMRC and the ID and Passport Service - apparently DWP is the current favourite.

Notwithstanding the fact that the wind may blow a different way tomorrow, there could be benefits to DWP taking over the world. It certainly makes sense for cross-government stuff to be run from the same place, not least because it makes it easier to spin out into a separate organisation once the services are mature.

But, and it is a big but, what looks logical may still prove unworkable.

First, DWP has its core business to consider. Getting side-tracked from pensions, benefits and helping people back to work may not be the best choice.

Second, DWP has some of the most swingeing efficiency targets. In the context of maintaining its enormous workload with less resources - and the major process change that will involve - taking on extra bits and pieces may not be the smartest move.

Third, what does all this mean for EDS, the department's main IT supplier?

It is early days, and no decisions have yet been made, but these are certainly interesting times.

The prime minister’s e-petitions scheme is a good idea. But it needs work.

The plan could be cast as IT enhancing the democratic process, bringing the spirit of one person, one vote into the technological age and helping overcome the ennui and inertia sweeping modern politics.

Notwithstanding the fact that more than 5,000 people signed a petition to replace the national anthem with Gold by Spandau Ballet, or that 4,000-plus agreed that the PM should stand on his head and juggle ice cream, the British public clearly also has strong views on major policy issues.

E-petitions protesting against road pricing and ID cards garnered 1,808,086 and 28,023 signatures respectively, provoking a ‘personal’ email from Blair to every signatory.

But because policy has not been changed, e-petitions have faced charges of being merely window dressing.

Such expectations and disappointment is missing the point. The internet may seem to be the answer to democracy’s prayers, but the reality is different. Referenda are simply too blunt an instrument for the subtleties of the modern world.

For a start, the answer depends too much on the question. Reducing the complexity of, say, long-term energy security, to a simple yes or no, and making policy on the basis of the answer, is to enter a truly terrifying world of Fisher Price government.

Second, referenda tend to poll the overall popularity of the government – which may be useful in testing support, but not for setting policy.

Third, the rationale behind representative democracy is that the complexities of the modern state require full-time attention. This is not to say that the person in the street does not or cannot understand the world, or that our opinions are not valid. But 21st century governments face knotty compromises rarely covered by a simple with-us-or-against-us slogan.

E-petitions should not argue for immediate changes in policy. But nor is a single email sufficient response.

Nearly two million signatories should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end. The PM has replied on road charges, now Downing Street needs to follow it up.

Have people, enlightened by the government’s reasoning, come round to the plan? Or are there different compromises that citizens are more willing to make?

The government’s rhetoric is about dialogue. So let’s talk.

The future of the police Cross-Regional Information Sharing Project (Crisp) appears to be hanging in the balance as straitened public sector budgets, and particularly the financial problems at the Home Office, really begin to bite.

Police sources say they are disappointed, but not surprised. It has been known for some months that the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), which will come into being on 1 April, will not enough money to do everything. So it was always a matter of when, rather than if.

Taking the Home Office's word for it, any changes to Impact - such as abandoning  Crisp - will improve the programme's design without reducing its function or making it late. And the millions of pounds worth of collective work done by individual forces to get their information Crisp-ready will not be wasted either, because it will go towards the longer-term Police National Database plan.

A masterful argument, leaving only one question crying for an answer. If it is possible to do the same thing, only cheaper and more simply, why on earth was it ever being pursued another way?

Economic success is all about research and development (R&D). Or is it?

Figures from the OECD caused a stir this week with the news that China has overtaken Japan to become the second biggest R&D investor in the world, after the US.

And last week the European Parliament signed off a £36bn Framework Programme (FP7) - including a £6bn tranche for technology research - aimed at helping Europe meet its i2010 target to become the world's most competitive knowledge economy.

Such lavish commitments are welcome in that they show a Commission willing to put its money where its mouth is. And, more positive still, the decisions on which projects qualify for investment are to be made by experts rather than politicians or bureaucrats.

But massive central funding is not enough - either to encourage pioneering research or to ensure its wider economic impact. And in some ways, massive investment can be a smokescreen for governments hoping to avoid more complex policy decisions.

How far R&D actually translates into economic growth is, in itself, in question. A recent survey of the world's 1000 largest R&D spenders, by Booz Allen Hamilton, concluded there is no statistical relationship between R&D investment levels and improved profits. As for an individual corporation, most likely for a national economy.

And even if such a relationship could be proved, R&D is only one link in a long chain including policy nightmares as diverse as regulatory and tax environments, skills issues, even apparently oblique topics such as environmental and transport strategies.

Clearly £36bn for research is not a bad thing. But there are more complex questions still to tackle in the name of Europe's knowledge economy, and just throwing money at the problem should fool no one.