Keir Starmer has reopened the debate on national identity cards. Supporters say they could make public services, voting, and security simpler. Critics warn of surveillance, discrimination, and exclusion. Are ID cards about freedom—or about state control? I unpack the history, the arguments, and what it means for our rights today.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Keir Starmer has said that it is time for the UK to debate whether we should all have identity cards again, and if you are my age, we've been here before.
Tony Blair proposed this around 2004-2005, and the debate went on and on, and eventually the idea was dropped due to the civil liberties concerns about the whole idea.
The fact is that what Keir Starmer is now raising is going to be a rerun of that debate from 20 years ago. So it's time to have a look at this and to look at why the government wants to have identity cards, why it thinks they might improve government services, security, and migration, and also to look at the flip side of this argument, and why human rights concerns remain central to this discussion.
Let's start, in fact, with those human rights concerns because they are critical to this debate. The European Convention on Human Rights, which was a British initiative after the Second World War, and to which we are still signed up, thankfully, put into place certain key rights that are designed to protect us from the government.
The right to privacy.
The right to equality.
The right to freedom of movement, which has been somewhat curtailed, but does still exist.
A presumption of innocence, and a great many other things.
The fact is that the issue of identity cards might directly affect these rights. For example, the government might quite simply know where you are if you have a government-issued ID card and have to use it for access to certain places. So there's a debate here about the balance of rights versus state control.
That said, there is a government argument for a state identity card. There can be no doubt that government systems are difficult for many people to access as they stand.
We have different logins and identities for many government services. Those of you who are used to HM Revenue and Customs online services will know that the login there is not necessarily the same as for other government services. You might be asked for different information if, for example, you want to renew your driving licence or get a passport. So it is annoying to have all these different ways of accessing data, and of course, the benefit system does, in its own way, run on different data as well.
And the fact that we have some clear national identifiers already, like National Insurance numbers, for example, but which have been open to serious abuse in the past, is not enough at present to ensure that the government can provide us with a single system that guarantees that we can access all its services in the same way.
And there would be an advantage if that happened. Let's be clear about it. One of the things that could happen is that people could vote more easily. If everybody had a single national identity, then the question of how we prove our entitlement to vote would simply go away. You would just present your national ID card, and the problem would be solved, presuming, of course, that you don't lose your national ID card quite often, which I know some people are prone to do with their bank cards, but let's assume you aren't quite so careless.
But you could also then access a whole range of other public services provided by councils, the benefit system, HM Revenue and Customs, your driving licence, maybe the NHS and who knows what else.
There could be a benefit as a consequence of reducing fraud. And although it seems to me that there should be a reduction in cost, everybody is, in fact, saying that this system will cost more than all the existing systems put together, which I find a little hard to understand.
But the point is that, as far as the government is concerned, issuing people with national ID cards should prevent exploitation, benefit fraud - although there isn't that much of it, despite everything that is said - and maybe will prevent human trafficking and the use of illicit labour in the UK economy, by requiring that employers have actually proved who their employees are, even though that condition is already in place at present and actually seems to be working fairly well overall, unless, of course, the employer is intent on never declaring their own existence to any authority for any reason whatsoever.
So, this being said, the existence of an ID card could reduce the burdens on us if it were applied universally. Those are the pluses. They basically make access to government services easier for many people, and they eliminate abuse for the benefit of the government. The pros look to be clear. The cons are serious.
Let's start with the human rights risks before we move on to some purely practical issues.
There are, of course, serious privacy concerns about having one of these cards. There is a simple and straightforward risk of mass surveillance through the existence of a single centralised database covering everything we do.
Everything we do will therefore be known by the government.
If this were linked to your bank account, and it would be because you would either be paying tax, claiming benefits or whatever else, then the government would basically be able to tell everything about you. Our trust in state institutions might be reduced and not enhanced by this.
And let's be clear, the potential abuse of personal data, either by the government, or by people within it spying on us, or just as likely by people who attack the system and manage to break it, is very high indeed.
Secondly, there is a problem within this whole system of the presumption of suspicion. In other words, citizens will be continually required to prove their legitimacy by being asked to give their identity.
The idea that we'll all have to walk around with this card and present it whenever we are challenged by anyone, be it the ticket inspector on the train, or a police officer, or somebody at the GP's who asks us to prove that we have an entitlement to the appointment we just made, or whatever else it might be; it's going to be going on and on and on. We will always wonder whether it is us, the person that matters, or the card that really counts.
And this creates another opportunity for abuse. The fact is that there are disproportionate demands made for ID from minorities already. We know that people from all forms of ethnic minorities, and people who do not have white skin colour, are subject to systemic abuse within our society.
They're much more likely to be stopped by the police. They're much more likely to be challenged with regard to not having an entitlement to some form of service. This whole issue of identity cards could, in fact, normalise that, and people who are already subject to discrimination could be subject to a great deal more suspicion and a higher order of proof being required, all the time, in a way that will make it apparent that there is active discrimination in our society. And that to me is a serious threat to the unity of our country, which is very worrying at a time when so many politicians appear to be trying to exploit that fact for their own advantage.
So there is that issue, and then there are other, more difficult ones.
For example, would it be possible for the government to restrict our freedom of movement? They might say, "You are only allowed to live within 10 miles of where you are", because there is what used to be called an antisocial behaviour order on you. Or there might be a requirement that a person is required to live within a restricted area of the UK, as once happened to people in Northern Ireland who had movement restrictions placed upon them.
All of this is possible, and of course, it's also possible that this restriction on the right to move could be applied to those who want to protest. So once you have taken part in a protest, the government says, we will monitor you and we will check where you are going to be. It would not be hard to link this ID card to your bank card, of course, and that would be sufficient to be able to find out where you were.
This in itself is deeply threatening to our right of freedom, our right of movement, our right to be able to say what we wish, and so on.
And links to employment checks could also harm labour rights because our whole history could be shown to our potential employer, and potentially put them off, if at some point we have made a criminal error, and many people have; many more than you would imagine, I suspect. I admit, I don't think I've got a criminal record, but lots of people have, and that could come out in ways that could be deeply harmful.
The fact is, anybody who's already for any reason marginalised in the UK could become very much more marginalised as a consequence of the whole issue of identity cards.
And then there is the right of access. How do we ensure that people get these cards? It's estimated that at least 1.7 million elderly people in the UK never use the internet in any way, including on a phone. They might not even have a mobile phone. In fact, the whole idea of the identity card effectively imposes a phone tax on people. They have to have access to the internet to make these things work, that's going to be the whole point of them. And in that case, that is deeply worrying, A) because of cost, and B) because some people just don't want to or can't have access to a phone.
How are we going to deal with those people?
How are we going to deal with the homeless?
How are we going to deal with the very poorest? Are we going to provide a phone as a universal basic service to ensure that they can get access?
We don't know the answers to these questions, and they worry me enormously. There is a risk of creating a two-tier society.
And then we also have the risk of function creep.
The idea that IDs might be absolutely tied to voting, policing, immigration, taxation, benefits, healthcare, and so much else means that, in practice, we would be totally tied up in bureaucracy all the time. Our human rights would effectively become a data right, and without that data, we will be a nobody.
Is that something we really want? I worry about this.
In theory, ID cards could help because of the way in which they could ease bureaucracy for the most able, let's be blunt. In practice, they pose a risk to privacy, to freedom and to equality.
The UK has traditionally been deeply sceptical of state control. Unlike many European countries, we have resisted this idea of having papers, or an ID card, or whatever it might be. So the core question now is how do we protect our rights without enabling even more surveillance of every part of our lives, and without enabling even more exclusion within our society?
I haven't got an answer.
The government is going to need to find one, and that is something that is the biggest challenge to them in this whole process, because I'm not sure they're any better prepared for this argument now than Tony Blair was in 2005.
What do you think?
Do you welcome the idea of an identity card because it might make your life easier?
Or are you worried about it because it might help the government to monitor you even more than it already does?
Are you worried about exclusion?
Are you worried about minorities?
Are you worried about how your parent, your grandparent, or whatever else might manage all of this?
There's a poll down below. Let us know. I'm keen to see what you think.
Poll
Loading ...Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Most European countries have ID cards with no issues, but my understanding is they are physical cards like our photo driving licences, not electronic cards. In theory it seems a sensible idea, but why digital cards, and I don’t trust this government’s motivation for introducing them. I think because of this opposition both from within and outside government will be high. It wasn’t in the manifesto and Starmer doesn’t have the support of his own party let alone others within parliament.
Agreed
Exactly. I have nothing against the ID cards in principle – physical ones with your photo, DOB and address. 90 per cent of adults already have either driving licence, passport or both. So – the law could state that you need some form or ID – be it driving licence, passport or ID card – i.e. you need just one, not both or all three of them.
But these digital ID cards which would be made compulsory for everyone – it does look like the plan is just for some private entity to collect data and make money out of the whole thing.
The fact that the ID card business is likely to be contracted out to the private sector is why I don’t one to be honest. I’d be much happier if it were 100% state ran and that they were putting it to good use in investing in state infrastructures and health care.
But for me, it will just be used for extractive purposes and that is not on.
Euan Blair is to be responsible for it issuing the app, or alternatively Palentir, both are already involved with Labour, so yet more jobs for the boys.
Another point is these digital IDs will likely give access to all the details the government knows and will know by tracking about you, so what if the system is hacked?
The list of benefits seemed OK.
The list of negatives included “function creep” (“Nah all these terrorist laws – just gonna be used against trrists”… quoting B.Liar the warmonger)
Cost. I am certain the ususal suspects (e.g. Crapita and B.Liars new best mate e.g Oracle & assorted US tech companies) are salivating.
So let’s say its a couple of billion (£5bn?) – but according Rachel from the Wooden Tops there is a great big black hole in the UK’s piggy bank.
One wonders who came up with the idea? McSwiney? How does this politically improve the LINO position?
One of the reasons Camoron “sort-of” won in 2010 was the ID card issue – Tories promised to cancel – & they did.
Some form of digital ID to access gov services is one thing – plods stopping you on the street and demanding ID (or else) is quite another (& that IS the LINO end point).
Here in La Belgique – the police can demand you produce ID – at any time for any reason – don’t have ID? You will be detained until you can.
That is the issue
Apologies for additional post:
https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/1972075513209672090
they want to know everything about you – so they can enforce “correct” behaviour (I guess defined by them).
Frankly: I’d be very happy to burn the Internet down to its foundations rather than let these two authoritarians get control. Ghastly people.
See what they’re planning for ILRs today and then imagine the rest
We are looking just now at the possible advantages of ID cards on efficiencies in our current society and although there are obvious disadvantages involving hacking to system, loss of freedoms etc there are also implications for future generations regarding the hereditary characteristics of a population affected by AI and what would undoubtedly become mind control.
We really need psychological and genetic opinion just now on the effects of uniformity and conformity on the epigenetic effects towards health (mind body connection) and possible future phenotypic changes (gene inheritance becoming dependent on societal conformity).
We are in a position where successive Governments have increased the requirement to provide ‘ID’ but not made it that straightforward for either the person providing it OR especially in the case of a small employer of landlord that easy to either provide the relevant documents or understand them when you get them.
Then of course there is the issue of what happened to the ‘Windrush’ generation and of course before that Spike Milligan who were suddenly told that they were ‘not British’ so I suggest that an ID card needs to be combined with a population register. I suggest as part of that process we should offer citizenship to all those who appear to be legally in the UK, free of charge and with the minimum of fuss.
Most European nations DONT have a requirement to carry ID and I see no need for it to be compulsory to carry an ID card in the UK, however I suggest that it should be compulsory to carry your licence when driving.
I might propose a card like a driving licence that allows the holder to access Government on line services, confirms nationality & if not a UK national eligibility for employment, NHS services & renting property, in short a basic minimum. I would also suggest that to simplify administration there should be a cut off date, I suggest 1.1.60 and anyone born before that date would not be required to have an ID card.
Finally you mention restricting where people are allowed to be. I would suggest that irrespective of an ID card system firstly its something that can already be done and has a particular role in protecting victims of domestic abuse.
My final point might be that the UK & Ireland hasn’t had an ID card system unlike Europe because we dont have land borders and have relied on Port Control. How effective that has been in the past is debateable but I suggest that in a world of mass travel its effectiveness is questionable.
Like a lot of these things, the devil is in the detail.
I am persuaded to refuse on two grounds – one is authoritarian government control (you’ve seen it rehearsed in Gaza, under Reform?) and the second is fragility of any system in the face of hacking/ransomware.
One of the many reasons I am against the introduction of ID cards is the likelihood that they will have a negative effect the llves and liberties of trans people. It is not clear whether the Brit Card would include birth sex or current gender or how easy it would be to have a change of gender reflected on your ID card. Could ID cards become a means for enforcing the dogma that biological sex is immutable? Trans people could be forced to carry around with them the means for outing them every day and even provide a means from excluding them from using public toilets in their changed gender. Even if the use of ID cards is limited now there is no guarantee that , once the infrastructure is in place, their use could not be extended by some malign future regime, which if we look at the current polls is all too likely.
Having lived in Germany for nearly 10 years the only times I have had to show my ID card (other than when returning to the Schengen area in order to avoid the 90/180 days issue) was to open a bank account, register with the local Frankfurt authorities and change my UK driver’s license to a German one. The Germans, obviously due to their history, are the most privacy conscious and anti authoritarian people I have come across in Europe. They have a built in aversion to being told what they can and cannot do. All of this, I suspect, is contrary to most Brits perceptions! So are ID cards socially, culturally and politically acceptable? Simply because
The German ID card is just a universal proof of identity and travel document, that was carefully designed to avoid becoming a tool of surveillance or employment control. No central national database – data is held locally by municipalities. Minimal data – only basic info (name, DOB, address, photo). Using the eID chip is optional and only transfers data with your PIN and to certified services. Most importantly it is a physical card that does not have to be carried around. Mine’s in the kitchen drawer!
I think ours will be very different.
First of all the word “card” as in “ID card” is a trap. It will not be a card, to carry around in your pocket, purse or handbag. The project is a centralised database linked to every aspect of life: residence, housing, jobs, banking, healthcare, education, travel, access to the internet (soon nearly all sites will need to “age check”, or “verify” users), access to officialdom. This not only massively raises the opportunity of surveillance but provides a single point of control should the government – or a government agency – or a suitably placed civil servant – or a hacker – wish to declare someone a “non-person”. Your life could quite simply be blocked. Yes, we’d all have an app to carry around on a smartphone (well, nearly all of us) to make life easier and to sweeten the bitter pill, but that’s almost a side effect. Government services being isolated from each other might be inconvenient but it’s also a safeguard. And AFAIK tough tests of eligibility already exist if you want to get a job or rent a place to live.
Given the track record on the UK’s large IT projects, this is inevitably going to be handed out to the private sector: Palantir, anyone? Likely a clear highway to data sharing with tech bros and the US Government.
Key question: suppose Starmer manages to put all this in place but then Farage becomes the next PM. Perhaps with Tommy Robinson as Home Secretary. To what purposes could such a “card” be put?
All agreed with.
Doing the rounds is a rumour (widely bruited but *not confirmed* by my quick Google search) is that a company called Multiverse will roll out this ID system. Possibly bankrolled by Palantir. CEO of Multiverse?
One Euan Blair.
You could not make it up.
“Government services being isolated from each other might be inconvenient but it’s also a safeguard.” This is a key safeguard, and exactly what civil liberties groups pointed out in 2002 (when Blunkett termed it the ‘entitlement card’) and also as it rumbled on to the act being enacted in 2006 (and subsequently the very first piece of legislation scrapped in the Cameron-Clegg coalition in 2010).
The key difference mentioned in the German ID card and British iterations both in 2006 and now, is that unlike the German ID card, the UK ID card will have a national identity database at front and centre – ‘big brother’ if you like – all very joined up for surveillance.
A solution to having to bring ID in voting, is to scrap voter ID requirements altogether (like we had until very recently), as all electoral reform groups advocate (as voter fraud was in the region of 0.0%, and was a cynical Johnson gerrymandering ploy that Labour haven’t – yet – scrapped). Will Labour have the courage to do this? I’m not hopeful now that they are in hock to big data tech (through this ID scheme).
I live in France and have an ID card. France also has a universal login (‘France Connect’) for government onllne services – separate from ID cards. I can’t recall ever having been asked for my card in the street – you are asked to carry ID in certain circumstances – eg. on trains – but again I’ve never been asked for It (though the fact that I’m white, etc, might be relevant here).
It’s probably also worth noting that the French state has much more power than the British in many other ways – eg. if you don’t pay your tax the state will eventually just take it out of your bank account. And the state in France is, in numbers, far bigger than the British – by any measure over half of the whole economy.
But I trust the French state far more than I ever did the British. It is less officious, more polite and helpful, less bureaucratic (French people are surprised when I say this – but that’s because they generally have little experience of other states). The famous founding principles – “liberté, égalité, fraternité” – the latter expressed now in the key concept of “solidarité sociale” – are in the state’s DNA. Although it has the power to take unpaid tax out of your bank account, if you fail to submit a return on time you don’t get an automated fine the next day – you get a polite reminder several months later.
Having experienced ID cards for years, some Continental states are carefully, cautiously, experimenting with digital – but I have to say the idea of a state like the British trying to go straight to digital fills me with dread – as does the fuzzy reasoning behind it (the UK already has digital systems for residents that are not British citizens, for example – including the very clunky system for post-brexit EU citizens – so the idea that a digital ID for everybody will impact immigration is simply illogical). Given its current ideology, I can see it trying to subcontract the whole exercise to Palantir or some other fascist-linked multinational.
My advice would be to first build helpful systems, such as a universal login system like France Connect – inside the state, developed and operated with state technology and technologists, within a profoundly public-service ethos.
Thanks
But how would Palantir profit maximise from what you are suggesting?
I am sure they are behind all this.
Palantir (Peter Thiel) has stated that he wants corporations to run the world and that democracy is antithetical to that, so he and his ilk are aiming to achieve this by mass surveillance and curtailment of citizens’ rights by gaining unfettered access to our data.
Geof, I’m also a French resident and agree with all that you say. I’d just add a gloss that a huge amount of “officialdom” is decentralised, with power delegated to Regions, Départements and the local Maire all of whom have – and exercise – some discretion about how rules are interpreted. Obviously this leads to a bloated public sector, and has the risk of discrimination based on the civil servant in front of you. But the French also have a much-valued habit – and right – to get out on the streets and complain vociferously about stuff they don’t like. This is sometimes a huge pain in the neck but it’s also the reason why France still has some strong social support. Don’t ask me how long this state of affairs might last.
I thought if it was Thursday there was a riot somewhere in France, like if it’s Tuesday there is a revolution in Bolivia 🙂
I’m so glad you raise this Richard, it’s an abhorrent ideology that my Grandfather fought in the Second World War to prevent. Thankfully people are switched on to the dangers and there seems to be a ground swell of rejection. The issue remains that Governments globally have proven themselves untrustworthy with data and mission creep.
In an ideal world it may be a good idea. But boiled down, I ask two questions.
Do I trust the government to keep my data safe from hackers and misuse?
Do I trust the government not to abuse the information they acquire, now and increasingly in the future?
Answer – Hell no!!
So far no steer’s proposal is digital ID for working people. When someone explains to no steer that the majority of the population are “not working” then comes a full roll out.
No steer seems to have forgotten that the law requires employers, landlords to check that the applicant does have the right to reside and can “legally” work etc in the UK.
Expect the government to gold plate the card, instead of buying a tried and tested system it will be a unique UK model, trying to do too much, too quickly.
Will the government spend the money on IT security for its departments, local authorities, NHS and such like? Probably not.
The UK will be setting itself up for concentrated hacking.
For example the Legal Aid system was hacked recently, the chaos it still unwinding.
I was originally in favour of an ID card, because it would enable people without passport, driving licence, etc to vote. I’ve been converted. The thought of a system being designed and run by Palantir or other such US company is appalling. Why can’t we just look at other countries in Europe, see how they work it, and copy? Maybe even buy from them?
Trust is gone. Our news and information is controlled and managed, our political parties and elected governments controlled by dark money vested interests, and penetrated by secret ‘security’ services, CIA. Global corporates extracting and looting public assets and above all our own personal information.
No way the Blair ‘s who are apparently in the frame to loot our information along with the Palantir’s etc should get any way near this.
Reject, resist.
Would that “our” P. M. would follow your example and provide differing and contrasting relevant I. D facets for consideration/discussion concerning structures, processes, security, equipment, control and uses etc. and discuss/consult with the citizenry.
Its clear, with this, that its Blair running the show with his think tank the TBI. I read he has shares in the company who will be running this, should it happen.
The warning signs for this have been there for a while.
Even back in the covid days, I recall all sorts of draconian laws being passed, preventing our right to protest and labout waived it all through… I did think to myself… They must be planning something extremely cruel,. Knowing people will resist.
Its now all in plain sight and am stunned when I encounter anyone who thinks this is a good idea.
There seems to be a lot of uninformed nonsense spouted on both sides of this debate, most of it purely emotional reaction.
The fact is, that many countries already have such a situation in place, including in Europe. These systems obviously comply with the very strict EU data requirements. I have also spent many years in Singapore, which has a very comprehensive such system, where the physical card is now supplemented by a mobile app. The convenience is mind-blowing, such that moving back to the UK leads to bafflement at the Kafkaesque assortment of different systems.
If the Government were serious about this issue, it would do its research, prepare a detailed proposal which addresses all of the very obvious concerns, and then we could have an informed debate on the subject. As it is, they are not doing this.
This might lead the more cynical amongst us to ask “Why?” Is this even a serious proposal at all? Or is this a smokescreen for something else that they will sneak out on a busy news day?
But you are comparing apples and oranges: a log in system with a full blown population control system, I think.
In fairness, there is no clear line between the two. If you control their login, you control their access to services and thereby a large chunk of their life.
However, my main point is that there is no clear, implementable plan on the table that can be debated. Until there is, this whole discussion is at best noise, at worst a distraction. Hanlon’s razor would tell us it’s the former, but with this government, it’s hard to be sure.
Starmer sold his ID card as something to be imposed on everyone to catch some migrants breaking the law, end of story. His supporters now turning round and trying to sell them as a useful thing is pointless, unless he’s going to turn around and say he got it totally wrong, and probably not even then.
If they’re intended as a useful thing that makes peoples lives easier, then they have to be sold as that to start with, and it actually has to be backed up by them doing something that people can see is beneficial to them and with the safeguards necessary to ensure it can’t be misused by government clearly stated. It could then be tagged on at the end that they would make life a bit more difficult for people working illegally.
That ship has sailed, he sold it to pander to Reform voters as an inconvenience imposed on everyone to catch naughty migrants, and actually most/many Reform voters hate it as much as everyone else. It aids Reform’s messaging on migrants, but simultaneously Reform can oppose the cards and claim to be freedom loving libertarians opposing red-tape, they’ll be laughing all the way to the polls.
It’s not even the best way to achieve Starmers objective, one of the claims initially made to justify Starmers ID card was the lack of integration of the NI number system with other government systems. The way to fix that would be improving the NI number scheme, already issued on a card, so it’s more integrated with other government systems. If they wanted, they could start making those already issued NI cards smart(er) and have a picture on them and possibly start rolling them out as digital cards, purely for proving one’s NI number when necessary, and it probably barely would have raised a murmur.
Lets just take a step back and look at our government’s record (incumbent and previous). Any large programme like this will go vastly over budget. If I were a betting person, it’ll go to tender and then be offered to the cheapest provider who may or may not have any previous experience in delivering something like this. During implementation, it’ll be met with numerous technological setbacks and then eventually the next party to come into power will pledge to scrap ID cards…so eventually it’ll get scrapped. However during the course of its short life you can guarantee that many consulting firms and the like will have made a pretty penny from all of this. I’m sorry if this sounds cynical, but I am merely going by past performance. IMO the UK government is simply too incompetent to deliver anything.
If you want to know how a fascist government treats people under an ID system – and the UK is well on the road to a fascist government – look no further than Israel, particularly to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
In the case of Gaza, of course, people are confined to an open air concentration camp – being bombed, shot and starved to death. The IDF are not in the least bit concerned about seeing their IDs before executing them.
Israel controls the population register. Palestinians’ IDs determine how free they are allowed to be.The IDs determine where people are allowed to live, where they can travel to, whether they can have bank accounts and which buses and roads they can travel on. They need Israeli permission to travel to another area for, e.g., medical treatment, often denied.
In 2023 there were 565 obstacles to movement in the West Bank – checkpoints, roadblocks, earth-mounds, road gates, earth walls, road barriers and trenches.
Israel can remove IDs from people at will and frequently does thus creating non-people; if you don’t exist you can’t have a bank account or own property so, conveniently, a non-person’s property can thus be simply passed to an Israeli citizen, or taken by force, without the trouble of legally processing a sale and purchase.
How long before a fascist UK government singles out troublesome people (who decides who’s troublesome?) – the Scots, Welsh or Cornish for example – for similar treatment.
Regarding the Britcards, isn’t it a strange coincidence* that the company chosen to issue BritCards is none other than the war criminal, Blair’s son. None of that putting out to tender business with all its rules and checks and balances; that’s not for the political class, that’s just for the little people.
*sarcasm alert
For me personally, it is interesting that all this national ID talk is happening right now. Recently, I received a letter – it is a financial matter – where I was sent a form that requires me to provide evidence to prove who I am. On the form, there is a list A, and list B. I believe that this is a standard form used by many financial institutions now.
The letter begins:
“Money laundering regulations require us to verify the identity…”
List A asks for evidence in the form of photo documentation — passport, driver’s licence or Govt ID.
There are other forms of ID in the list, but here’s the problem.
I have none of them.
The only ID card that I have is an old Work ID and my Student’s Union card from years ago, which I think to myself, what a handsome fellow I was back then!
I have no ID, other than a birth certificate, NI card, NHS card. None of these are acceptable now as proof that you exist.
My objection is that there is an assumption today that everyone has a passport, driver’s licence or ID card of some kind – with your picture on it. Or you already have a form of Govt documentation to prove who you are, like, resident permit issued by Home Office, or evidence that you are on benefits, etc.
There is discrimination against those of us who don’t have any of these “acceptable” forms of ID.
And of course, the new ID card idea assumes that everyone has a smartphone — although they do seem to be looking into alternatives.
And I had to laugh when I read that those of us who rent would be required to show the ID to landlords to prove that we can live and work in the country. Will the landlord need to prove their status to tenants? It would appear not. Showing again, that if you are a tenant, you are a second class citizen in the UK now.
So, while the debate about civil liberties has been going on around formal ID for a long time, for many things, especially financial matters, it is already needed and can be a problem if you don’t have it. The need for a form of photo ID has been creeping in via the back door for some time.
Landlords are meant to check this now.
And all noted.
I object to this proposal on the simple basis that the lying government claims it is intended to prevent people working who are not entitled to work.
We already have a perfectly valid system for dealing with this. There are a number of people apparently working ‘illegally’ and the primary reason for this is that employers don’t check properly, through laziness or intent. Changing the method of checking will have no effect on that.
Agreed
My problem with I.D. cards is twofold on one hand we already have many forms of I.D so why waste money on something we already have. Yes as Richard points out we have many different ways of accessing government services so why not make them all the same,so there’s no need for an I.D.card. My second problem is this the digital I.D. which Starmer is proposing smashes the British constitution which restricts the powers of the state,his announcement that without one you will not be able to work is similar to what the Nazis did. I am glad someone from Germany is pointing out they I.D. card is an actual card that restricts itself to one’s identity and is not linked to everything else. Lastly I can’t understand why Starmer wants to fight a battle he doesn’t need because all it’s doing is uniting the opposition and will end up bringing in Fascism by the backdoor.
I think it is worth pointing out that we do not have a written constitution, unlike most (all?) other countries with ID card requirements. I don’t quite buy the idea that our ‘constitution’ restricts the powers of government.
We may not have a written constitution but Magna Carta restricted the power of the king and later on the state so governments can’t takeaway your livelihood which Starmer wants to do. We should remember that the Nazis used the I.D. created by IBM to identify Jews enabling them to takeaway they jobs,wealth and eventually lives so be warned!!
Craig Murray writes:
‘ I have spoken with one of the women charged for protesting outside the Leonardo factory in Edinburgh. She has had her bank accounts cancelled – simply losing the money in them – and cannot open a new account. You may recall they tried to debank Nigel Farage. The campaign to defend Julian Assange suffered multiple banking cancellations.
The desire of the state to control people politically through their ability to carry out ordinary transactions is not in doubt. It is demonstrated. Once you have a compulsory digital ID linked to transactions – which will follow very swiftly, I am quite certain – they will be able to simply switch off your ability to pay for anything. Add this to a digital currency which tracks all of your expenditure – all the key elements of which are already installed – and total control will be in place. ‘
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/09/what-fresh-hell-is-this/
Noted
The ‘Sales pitch’ for this is an attempt to out-Reform Reform: that it will deter would-be immigrants and asylum seekers by closing off the possibility of their finding jobs with the ‘grey’ economy.
But it won’t make a scrap of difference.
If they actually wanted to do something about the ‘grey’ economy they’d:
* Restore and re-open all the local tax offices and employ the necessary staff.
* Do the same with trading standards offices and officers.
* Enact the sort of reforms to company law and accounting that Richard has advocated on this blog.
These are measures that would shrink the ‘grey’ economy, deter spivs, make life less precarious, favour well-run and responsible local businesses, and pay for themselves.
I fear that, on this LINO is driven by a desire to facilitate outsourcing yet more public services to AI lobbyists. And I don’t want anyone forcing me to buy a smart phone. My drivers licence is perfectly good enough for me, and I’d have no objection to government offering an alternative to anyone who doesn’t drive.
Yesterday I watched an interview with Sarah Wilkinson who is on one of the flotilla going to Gaza.
She was one of the first journalists in support of Palestine. Just over a year ago she had her house ransacked by police to the extent of throwing her mother’s ashes over the loft space in her house in Shropshire. She was absolutely terrified, banned from leaving the house even to go shopping, had all her social media shut down, her phone and laptop taken, etc.
If we had ID cards she would never have been allowed on that boat. She wouldn’t have been allowed out of the country.
How long would it be for this card to also contain DNA data I wonder?
Mike Parrs post very early on this thread with a link to a twitter video is frankly the beginning and the end of this conversation – it tells you everything you need to know about what the plan is.
I have had a discussion in the last few hours with a close family member who is on the fence but favours it. Their argument was that ‘well they have all the info on us anyway, I don’t do anything wrong.’ I explained what may happen if this goes through (I assume it will have to go through the Lords?) and the longer term implications. They didn’t say much other than it’s not a reality yet, so why worry…
Jamie Driscoll said that anyone who says they have nothing to hide on the ID card debate should have their curtains taken away from them!
🙂
keir Starmer seems to have an unerring instinct for picking unpopular policies. Digital IDs may turn out to be his Poll Tax. Is there no modern equivalent of Sir Humphrey to warn him of how “brave” he is being?
I take comfort from the fact that opposition to the Poll Tax from so many people prepared to go to court, etc, (as I was ,) will in fact make Digital ID ‘cards’ unviable and that the idea will die a quick death. Maybe, it is just another part of ‘their ‘ distraction’ plans to make us turn our gaze from more serious concerns?
I think this will happen.
There are many points raised here arising from the fear that government agencies will have all this information about us. But a lot of information about us is already owned by corporate entities, that we gladly give away every time we browse or shop online.
Why are we happy to give away our data to a corporate entity, yet fearful of possibility of a government having it?
Could we demand that our data can only be used with our consent, with financial payment if it is?
The government has also recently introduced digital residence permits for visa holders. Has there been a review of that process?
Oh come on, they can’t link it all together as yet: that is the fear
Hank, have you ever thought about NHS data?
3 times we have been told we can stop our NHS data from being used by or sold to anyone not connected with the NHS.
Each time the system has changed and we have been told to sign another bit of paper, take it to our GP, and put it on the NHS database.
No idea what has happened to it now as there seem to be lots of changes.
I do know the man who set up the company which runs the database for my health centre is the man who said that Diane Abbott made him hate all black women and someone should shoot her.
Do you want someone like that to be anywhere near your medical information?
I’ve just spent the day working on a nature reserve with two young French nationals who can’t understand what all the fuss is about and put it down to British pig headedness. They both carry their ID as a matter of routine even in Britain. On another point, the state can already collate all the information about you on government and financial systems through the use of HMRC’s Connect programme and has been able to do this since 2012. There are, of course, many checks and controls before the information can be used and I don’t see why digital ID cards should be any different.
HMRC data is not allowed to be used for that purpose.
That would be over-ruled.
And this, as manay have noted, is not a French style ID card.
My point is that ‘they’ (as in part of the Government) can already access huge amounts of data on a person, collate it and, these days, analyse it using AI, for the purpose of investigating that person’s financial affairs. The raw data will include mobile numbers, most frequent phone contacts, information on the PNC, information from banks on reportable transactions, all property purchases and so much more. The fear that digital ID cards might get hacked and the information used applies also to Connect, and yet it hasn’t happened, the fear that all this information could be used for purposes that it was not intended for has also not yet happened due to the checks and balances in the process. If that information held by one government department can be kept secure and not abused then it is more than possible that information on a digital ID will be able to be protected in the same way. The Civil Liberties argument against personal ID doesn’t really stand up when you know that it is already possible for all this information to become available to a Civil Servant.
I am sorry to say, but you are ignoring the fact that this ID card is clearly intended to over-rule all thsoe protections.
Most carefully elaborated and balanced introduction to the subject I’ve seen anywhere. Why did Government open such a Pandora’s Box without delimiting objectives strictly? Excites hopes and fears beyond recovery later. If Blair’s big tech friends are to get the data recovery they want this will dwarf the Poll Tax Storm. Yet Government have said here and there the objectives more limited and immediately deliverable.
Thanks, Tim.