After last week's defeat in the Lords, the last thing Charles Clarke wants is to come across as a soft touch on national security. So his article in today's Times is full of tough talk on the need for compulsory identity cards, which the Commons will debate later today.
Clarke barely mentions the argument that ID cards will help to prevent terrorism, stressing their practical uses in fighting benefit fraud and helping Britons open a bank account. And - a very Blunkettian touch, this - he accuses some of the scheme's opponents of "liberal woolly thinking".
ID cards, he concludes, are a "profoundly civil libertarian measure" because they promote the "right to live free from crime and fear".
And, while the new home secretary doesn't rule out the possibility that the national database will eventually be used by a number of government departments, he does say that it won't contain medical details or information about an individual's religious or political beliefs - though quite how the latter could ever be collected and verified, perhaps only MI5 knows.
Over in today's Telegraph, the Conservative leader lends his support to the bill. But unlike Mr Clarke, Michael Howard regards the cards as key in the 'war on terror': "I have listened to the police and security service chiefs. They have told me that ID cards can and will help their efforts to protect the lives of British citizens against terrorist acts. How can I disregard that?"
So Clarke and Howard are both convinced of the need for compulsory ID - but for rather different reasons. That, coupled with the Lib Dems' fervent opposition to the plan and the likelihood of a backbench revolt among both Tory and Labour MPs, should make for a fascinating debate this afternoon.
