“Sir Keir Starmer is expected to announce plans for a compulsory UK-wide digital ID scheme in a speech on Friday”, reports the BBC.
The prime minister believes it would help crack down on illegal working and modernise the state, according to senior figures in government.
The practicalities of the scheme will be subject to a consultation, which will also look at how to make it work for those without a smartphone or passport.
The previous Labour government’s attempt to introduce ID cards was ultimately blocked by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.
But earlier this month, Sir Keir said he thought the debate had “moved on” since then, adding: “We all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did 20 years ago”.
“We all carry a lot more digital ID now than we did 20 years ago.” So we do, and that means we all have available a variety of independent digital means to prove our identity that are not subject to the danger of putting all our eggs in one government-made basket. Twenty years ago – well, 22 years ago to be precise – I made a post called “A law-abiding person has nothing to hide?” in which I listed some situations in which a law-abiding person could indeed be harmed by having their identity known by local or national government, or by whoever hacks into the government database, or by whoever gets their mate in the police to do a search for them. Has the passage of two decades made any of those scenarios, or the other scenarios suggested in the comments to the post, cease to apply?
Does this mean that ownership of a smartphone will now be compulsory? They have managed to make something much, much worse than a mere ID card.
Luckily, Spanner and his shower of shit will be long gone before this idea will get anywhere. And looking on the bright side, Mr Sir Tony can’t live forever.
I used my passport in a bank only today – as visual I.D. to prove my identity.
And I.D. is also required to vote – as we are now in a low-trust “multi cultural” society (by the way – this casts serous doubts over postal voting – what the Americans call mail-in-ballots).
Will I.D. cards prevent mass immigration? No they will not – as the British establishment do not want to preserve this nation, they wish to destroy this nation. So anyone who claims that I.D. cards will deal with the migrants does not recognize the true nature of the powers that control modern Britain.
As for the long term agenda – it is a lot more radical than I.D. cards.
Very much more radical than I.D. cards.
JohnK
Yesterday I had a telephone call from my internet provider – about updating telephone, television and computer service.
They were astonished that not only do I not own a “smart phone” – I do not own a mobile telephone at all. Which is why they could only telephone me at-home.
“crack down on illegal working”
As “legal working” is not really workable for many low income people, due to “National Insurance” taxes and regulations, “crack down on illegal working” really means “crack down on working”.
We are to be totally dependent on benefits – that is the plan.
What will they do to people who refuse to have one? Fines? Jail?
This doesn’t strike me as the kind of government outrage that should be fought through quiet individual noncompliance.
They’ll just pick you off one by one.
bobby b 9-25-25 6:01 pm
Perhaps “Glávnoye upravléniye ispravítel’no-trudovýkh lageréy” and an Archipelago attached to it. Are they talking about scannable-from-a-distance subcutaneous implants in the future? Or perhaps a set of symbols to be worn on your outer clothing to denote your political status?
Subotai Bahadur