Another great piece of journalism. I have one major concern about digital ID's ever becoming compulsory in the UK and that is the data being administered by a non-elected, extremely wealthy, USA conglomerate company which will use the data to further authoritarianism by the back door. When we already have COMPANIES claiming to be political parties (REFORM UK) and disinformation being visibly peddled from the USA government (Renee Good) in order to protect the thugs doing the bidding of the government is not the way I want to see the UK progressing in the 21st century.
If the digital ID scheme removes the need to buy a 5, 10 or 15 year paper passport then the public may have been behind it, IN PRINCIPAL, but since it was designed to circumvent public scrutiny of data held by the State and allow our bank accounts to be scrutinised by the government I remain opposed to this. If the government wants access to my bank accounts then they should publish their own so we can see which corporations are funding the highest levels of government and the corruption can be scrutinised at the highest level by everyone in the country.
I would be quite happy to have an ID card. I am not intending to renew my passport when it expires and I don't drive, so I have no driving licence. Those are the two items that are requested as proof of identity. Why should I have to pay for a passport I'm not going to use, just in order to prove my identity?
What I am certainly NOT in favour of is a DIGITAL ID, for all the reasons given here.
An excellent piece and very well written. I don't trust any politician to look after my data. So much of our data is being run by America and, if there's anyone else I don't trust, it is Trump.
With the amount of governmental data lost over the last 30 years or so, including leaving laptops in taxis, I would not trust any government to keep safe my personal information. While I find it would help in certain circumstances, I'm not sure I like my particulars on the NHS data base.
With the authoritarian attitude of the Labour Party (I believe the Tories wouldn't be much more lenient) and especially Farage's Reform UK Ltd, I am totally against my personal particulars being held by any government.
And that is from an RAF veteran who guarded his ID card (F1250) for 37 years with his life.
Good analysis, well made points. This government in particular has such a problem with communication. It's done some good things but they are not getting out there.
On this particular issue, I'm not sure what else the measure was likely to achieve. We already need to prove identity to work and be paid; HMRC reeled off a list of my bank accounts to me so the state already know those; we've seen child benefit being stopped through people leaving the country (erroneously in some cases) so that's entry/exit data being used across depertments; I'm not sure there's much left that's actually private data. Clearly to be able to function in this society you need to be in the grid somewhere already.
I'm not a Starmer fan but I think he deserves credit for recognising that this measure was not acceptable to most of the UK population. Plenty of people will seize upon anything they can find to attack the current government but I would contend that it's neither ethical nor remotely helpful to mock a U-turn when it's avoiding a damaging move in the wrong direction…
While there's a lot of negative commenting about ID cards I feel that the definite advantages are being conveniently ignored.
If everyone had an ID card that had to be produced to claim the rights and benefits of being a citizen or the slightly lesser benefits of having temporary or indefinite remain then those who are in the country without having some sort of status would be unable to access the benefits. I'm not talking solely of Social Security here. The right to access NHS treatment free of charge could also be included in the data held on the card in a secure system.
It would also mean that if requested by a person authorised to do so then proof of identity would be simple. Thus providing false information in order to conceal a true identity would be harder.
I have no problems with carrying an identity document. I have nothing to hide.
Today in the UK the argument against ID Cards is spurious. We have passports, driving licences, a plethora of store cards,credit and debit cards, membership cards for this and that. But for some reason that I cannot fathom, having an ID card is just not 'British'. What complete balderdash - use a British word.
Having had an ID card for 49 years (37RAF/12Westlands & Civil Service) I have no fear of them, but I will argue against them, for the general public, for 2 reasons. One is stated above in my opening post; the loss of data!
But the second is more sinister. Before I go on I have to say that I am a socialist through and through! With this Labour government becoming more authoritarian, and there is no reason to suspect that the Tories would be less so, I fear that the "State Police" will have more autonomy to wield excessive power (USofA). With Reform UK Ltd firmly embedded on the horizon, and wanting to leave the ECHR, they can then make "their" own Human Rights which would could then open the door for severe excesses to be used(Trump) . They could track you / restrict you.
We already have National Insurance Numbers and that should be sufficient for allowing you access to the NHS and other facilities.
When was the last time you were asked for your NHS number if you had to attend a hospital appointment. Other countries require it every appointment - even at the GP, and collecting from a pharmacy.
The Haematology department at my local hospital asks for my NHS number every time they contact me by phone. I guess it's their way of checking they're talking to the right person.
When I worked in a very large NHS Hospital and was asked by a surgeon to check that some patients actually had either NHS registration or Private Medical Insurance to cover their stay for emergency hospitalisation and surgery. I asked the Finance Department what their status was. I was told they 'don't show in the system as having either'. The surgeon asked how they were to be covering the considerable costs. The Finance Department said they had neither the time or resources to chase people for the money. They then said they'd probably have left the country before they could be presented with the bill.
My son had and accident in Slovenia requiring surgery a few years ago. Before he was discharged his GHIC was checked with the UK and he was told if it came back as not being valid he could not leave the hospital until the bill was settled. His GHIC was valid.
But, it goes to show that if the small country of Slovenia can be on top of this why can't the UK?
When I asked Slovene friends if they find ID cards and a Health card a problem they said, 'Of course not. It enables us to access services quickly and, for example, we can pick up our prescription at any pharmacy in the country upon presentation.'
Very enlightening article. I was certainly one of those veering towards a positive vote for ID cards until Starmer's framing of them as a control tool for immigration. The discussion since then has made me firmly opposed and distrustful of the government (more distrustful I should say!)
Another great piece of journalism. I have one major concern about digital ID's ever becoming compulsory in the UK and that is the data being administered by a non-elected, extremely wealthy, USA conglomerate company which will use the data to further authoritarianism by the back door. When we already have COMPANIES claiming to be political parties (REFORM UK) and disinformation being visibly peddled from the USA government (Renee Good) in order to protect the thugs doing the bidding of the government is not the way I want to see the UK progressing in the 21st century.
If the digital ID scheme removes the need to buy a 5, 10 or 15 year paper passport then the public may have been behind it, IN PRINCIPAL, but since it was designed to circumvent public scrutiny of data held by the State and allow our bank accounts to be scrutinised by the government I remain opposed to this. If the government wants access to my bank accounts then they should publish their own so we can see which corporations are funding the highest levels of government and the corruption can be scrutinised at the highest level by everyone in the country.
Excellent summary of what is wrong with government controlled digital IDs.
Trust - the one word sums it all up.
There is no way I trust any Government to not abuse a digital ID. End of.
I would be quite happy to have an ID card. I am not intending to renew my passport when it expires and I don't drive, so I have no driving licence. Those are the two items that are requested as proof of identity. Why should I have to pay for a passport I'm not going to use, just in order to prove my identity?
What I am certainly NOT in favour of is a DIGITAL ID, for all the reasons given here.
Liked, restacked & shared to Bluesky (as always).
An excellent piece and very well written. I don't trust any politician to look after my data. So much of our data is being run by America and, if there's anyone else I don't trust, it is Trump.
With the amount of governmental data lost over the last 30 years or so, including leaving laptops in taxis, I would not trust any government to keep safe my personal information. While I find it would help in certain circumstances, I'm not sure I like my particulars on the NHS data base.
With the authoritarian attitude of the Labour Party (I believe the Tories wouldn't be much more lenient) and especially Farage's Reform UK Ltd, I am totally against my personal particulars being held by any government.
And that is from an RAF veteran who guarded his ID card (F1250) for 37 years with his life.
Good analysis, well made points. This government in particular has such a problem with communication. It's done some good things but they are not getting out there.
On this particular issue, I'm not sure what else the measure was likely to achieve. We already need to prove identity to work and be paid; HMRC reeled off a list of my bank accounts to me so the state already know those; we've seen child benefit being stopped through people leaving the country (erroneously in some cases) so that's entry/exit data being used across depertments; I'm not sure there's much left that's actually private data. Clearly to be able to function in this society you need to be in the grid somewhere already.
I'm not a Starmer fan but I think he deserves credit for recognising that this measure was not acceptable to most of the UK population. Plenty of people will seize upon anything they can find to attack the current government but I would contend that it's neither ethical nor remotely helpful to mock a U-turn when it's avoiding a damaging move in the wrong direction…
While there's a lot of negative commenting about ID cards I feel that the definite advantages are being conveniently ignored.
If everyone had an ID card that had to be produced to claim the rights and benefits of being a citizen or the slightly lesser benefits of having temporary or indefinite remain then those who are in the country without having some sort of status would be unable to access the benefits. I'm not talking solely of Social Security here. The right to access NHS treatment free of charge could also be included in the data held on the card in a secure system.
It would also mean that if requested by a person authorised to do so then proof of identity would be simple. Thus providing false information in order to conceal a true identity would be harder.
I have no problems with carrying an identity document. I have nothing to hide.
Today in the UK the argument against ID Cards is spurious. We have passports, driving licences, a plethora of store cards,credit and debit cards, membership cards for this and that. But for some reason that I cannot fathom, having an ID card is just not 'British'. What complete balderdash - use a British word.
Having had an ID card for 49 years (37RAF/12Westlands & Civil Service) I have no fear of them, but I will argue against them, for the general public, for 2 reasons. One is stated above in my opening post; the loss of data!
But the second is more sinister. Before I go on I have to say that I am a socialist through and through! With this Labour government becoming more authoritarian, and there is no reason to suspect that the Tories would be less so, I fear that the "State Police" will have more autonomy to wield excessive power (USofA). With Reform UK Ltd firmly embedded on the horizon, and wanting to leave the ECHR, they can then make "their" own Human Rights which would could then open the door for severe excesses to be used(Trump) . They could track you / restrict you.
We already have National Insurance Numbers and that should be sufficient for allowing you access to the NHS and other facilities.
When was the last time you were asked for your NHS number if you had to attend a hospital appointment. Other countries require it every appointment - even at the GP, and collecting from a pharmacy.
The Haematology department at my local hospital asks for my NHS number every time they contact me by phone. I guess it's their way of checking they're talking to the right person.
That's reassuring.
When I worked in a very large NHS Hospital and was asked by a surgeon to check that some patients actually had either NHS registration or Private Medical Insurance to cover their stay for emergency hospitalisation and surgery. I asked the Finance Department what their status was. I was told they 'don't show in the system as having either'. The surgeon asked how they were to be covering the considerable costs. The Finance Department said they had neither the time or resources to chase people for the money. They then said they'd probably have left the country before they could be presented with the bill.
My son had and accident in Slovenia requiring surgery a few years ago. Before he was discharged his GHIC was checked with the UK and he was told if it came back as not being valid he could not leave the hospital until the bill was settled. His GHIC was valid.
But, it goes to show that if the small country of Slovenia can be on top of this why can't the UK?
When I asked Slovene friends if they find ID cards and a Health card a problem they said, 'Of course not. It enables us to access services quickly and, for example, we can pick up our prescription at any pharmacy in the country upon presentation.'
NHS Number is different from the National Insurance Number. But don't ask me why.
Different government departments, probably.
I rest my case. We have and don't use it. So why have an ID card?
Very enlightening article. I was certainly one of those veering towards a positive vote for ID cards until Starmer's framing of them as a control tool for immigration. The discussion since then has made me firmly opposed and distrustful of the government (more distrustful I should say!)
Digital ID has worked well in France for many years