Digital ID: yes or no?

[briantrumpet]

Hard to argue with this, at least in the way it's been trumpeted. Political ineptitude, whichever side of the fence you sit on. Serves them right for thinking they could win over Reform supporters with it.

 

[Psamathe]

‘Reverse Midas touch’: Starmer plan prompts collapse in support for ID cards
Net public backing for scheme has fallen to -14% after prime minister’s announcement, according to polling
...
In June, 53% of voters surveyed said they were in favour of digital ID cards for all Britons, while 19% were opposed.
...
Just 31% of people surveyed after Starmer’s announcement over the weekend said they were supportive of the scheme, with 45% saying they were opposed. Of those, 32% said they were strongly opposed.

The article seems to focus on the collapse of support being due to Starmer's unpopularity

More in Common’s polling suggests public dissatisfaction with the government is behind the collapse in support. It found that 58% of those who thought Starmer was doing a bad job as prime minister opposed digital IDs, while only 20% supported them. On the other hand, of those who thought Starmer was doing a good job, 71% were supportive of digital IDs and 14% were opposed.

But a correlation is not a causal relationship and maybe that Starmer's Government is widely seen as failing means more are prepared to accept that it will be ineffective at addressing its stated intent ie where a popular PM might be readily believed, an unpopular PM has their assertions questioned more.

 

[Psamathe]

Government have responded to one of the largest (most signed) No 10 online petitions. Basically their response (as expected) is just to restate what they announced but with increased scope and covering more aspects of our lives. Basically fingers in ears "la, la, la, I can't hear you". Yet more indications how authoritarian Starmer Party has become (I don't regard them as Labour as they seem to have migrated away from most Labour principles),

Full response at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194?s=35

 

[briantrumpet]

Government have responded to one of the largest (most signed) No 10 online petitions. Basically their response (as expected) is just to restate what they announced but with increased scope and covering more aspects of our lives. Basically fingers in ears "la, la, la, I can't hear you". Yet more indications how authoritarian Starmer Party has become (I don't regard them as Labour as they seem to have migrated away from most Labour principles),

Full response at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194?s=35

I can't see that their response there is envisaging more reach than before, but giving a slightly better balanced and more fleshed-out rationale, with some limits clearly stated (e.g. For clarity, it will not be a criminal offence to not hold a digital ID and police will not be able to demand to see a digital ID as part of a “stop and search.”).

I realise that you (as someone who avoids a digital footprint in many ways) are going to be fundamentally opposed, but I think if this had not been presented as a solution to illegal migration (which it might have little impact on) but as a utility (like Google Wallet), it wouldn't have had such a negative reception.

FWIW, I also think it shows their political wrong-headedness in using it to chase the Reform vote, both in intent and the way it was (mis)sold, and is an indicator of their general wrong-headedness.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

For clarity, it will not be a criminal offence to not hold a digital ID and police will not be able to demand to see a digital ID as part of a “stop and search.”).

I wouldn’t for one second trust it to remain so.

 

[Psamathe]

I can't see that their response there is envisaging more reach than before

Initially to prevent illegakl working and to be used only for employment and renting property. The Petition rational not includes eg

Currently, when UK citizens and residents use public services, start a new job, or, for example, buy alcohol, they often need to present an assortment of physical documents to prove who they are or things about themselves. This is both bureaucratic for the individual and creates space for abuse and fraud. This includes known issues with illegal working and modern slavery, while the fragmented approach and multiple systems across Government make it difficult for people to access vital services. Further, there are too many people who are excluded, like the 1 in 10 UK adults who don’t have a physical photo ID, so can struggle to prove who they are and access the products and services they are entitled to.

To tackle these interlinked issues, we will introduce a new national digital ID.
...
Over time, this system will allow people to access government services – such as benefits or tax records

ie added eg buying alcohol, using public services, access to vital services, proving who you are, access benefits, tax records

So already planned to go far beyond the stopping illegal working and right to rent (as per original stated intent - which most appreciated it wouldn't have achieved).

 

[briantrumpet]

Initially to prevent illegakl working and to be used only for employment and renting property. The Petition rational not includes eg

ie added eg buying alcohol, using public services, access to vital services, proving who you are, access benefits, tax records

So already planned to go far beyond the stopping illegal working and right to rent (as per original stated intent - which most appreciated it wouldn't have achieved).

I know it's vague, and he focused (unwisely) on the illegal working, but, here's what he said initially:

...so the response to the petition is fleshing out the 'countless benefits' bit.

 

[First Aspect]

I know it's vague, and he focused (unwisely) on the illegal working, but, here's what he said initially:

View attachment 10365

...so the response to the petition is fleshing out the 'countless benefits' bit.

It will be so convenient that in practice you will be locked out of the state, of employment, of banking and of most commercial utilities unless you have one.

But it won't be compulsory.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Anyone who has used an evisa will laugh at the idea that it allows you to easily demonstrate your status. You need to login to your government account, generate a share code and then give it to the recipient who is then able to independently use the share code to see the evisa.

 

[CXRAndy]

I know it's vague, and he focused (unwisely) on the illegal working, but, here's what he said initially:

View attachment 10365

...so the response to the petition is fleshing out the 'countless benefits' bit.

Hunting around for an old utility bill- really.

That's about as convincing argument, being able to report potholes, because you're a verified DID holder.

 

[Psamathe]

I know it's vague, and he focused (unwisely) on the illegal working, but, here's what he said initially:

View attachment 10365

...so the response to the petition is fleshing out the 'countless benefits' bit.

"fleshing out" = increased scope. ie it's a full ID card system to be used for all sorts of stuff. And how much of our money did Labour waste last time they tried this (not that many years ago)? And how many will suffer desperately needed benefit reductions to pay for this scheme? We can't afford to address increasing child poverty but without any budgeting suddenly we have the funds needed for this scheme (estimate I saw was £4bn wasted last Labour attempt).

And without cross-party support whoever replaced Labour will scrap it to make it another "Rwanda scheme".

 

[CXRAndy]

It will be so convenient that in practice you will be locked out of the state, of employment, of banking and of most commercial utilities unless you have one.

But it won't be compulsory.

Soon as Labour admit its not compulsory, the whole premise of DID collapses.

 

[briantrumpet]

"fleshing out" = increased scope. ie it's a full ID card system to be used for all sorts of stuff. And how much of our money did Labour waste last time they tried this (not that many years ago)? And how many will suffer desperately needed benefit reductions to pay for this scheme? We can't afford to address increasing child poverty but without any budgeting suddenly we have the funds needed for this scheme (estimate I saw was £4bn wasted last Labour attempt).

And without cross-party support whoever replaced Labour will scrap it to make it another "Rwanda scheme".

Where did he originally say it would be *only* for RTW & renting?

I'm not denying it was stupidly handled politically, but I can't remember anywhere it being presented as the narrow scheme you're suggesting.

 

[Psamathe]

Where did he originally say it would be *only* for RTW & renting?

I'm not denying it was stupidly handled politically, but I can't remember anywhere it being presented as the narrow scheme you're suggesting.

I don't have sources, going from TV reports, Ministers being interviewed. They were making it clear it was only to prevent illegal working and right to rent.

 

[briantrumpet]

I don't have sources, going from TV reports, Ministers being interviewed. They were making it clear it was only to prevent illegal working and right to rent.

Well, that's not what Starmer said, and that I've quoted.