A Tyranny They Can't Afford
The Digital ID policy shows us how Keir Starmer views the world — but the Prime Minister's sums aren't adding up
For reasons no one else can understand or explain, the British government is very keen to spend a lot of money on what could be a very bad idea.
Like many of Keir Starmer’s freshest flagship policies, the universal and mandatory Digital ID idea was never actually endorsed by the electorate.
But regardless of the wishes of the pesky UK public, Number 10 is looking to plough ahead with the unpopular policy after its promotion by the increasingly influential Tony Blair Institute (link):
“Digital-ID systems improve governance, facilitate greater inclusion, fuel economic growth and help governments achieve their core goals. Far from enabling greater surveillance, digital IDs can actually make information more secure.
Beyond their public-sector benefits, they also allow citizens to interact more safely and smoothly with private-sector institutions. They are a critical component of a reimagined state fit for the 21st century.”
For his part, Blair has remerged in recent years as a Big Technology advocate, arguing that new software can fundamentally reshape how states deliver their services.
The former Prime Minister, like Starmer, is a globalist, who sees the Singaporean system, whereby collectivist discipline is promoted by a powerful centralised government in a highly multicultural society, as an ideal template to shape Western policies around (link).
It’s a technocratic expansion of New Labour’s supranationalism, one which in 1998 fully extended the remit of the European Court of Human Rights into British law.
A year after the introduction of the Human Rights Act and as a rising star in London’s legal world, Starmer published a 900-word book on European law. He has since gone on to promote an idealised international order (link), even as we move into a multi-polar world.
At his political core then the Prime Minister shares the same consequentialist views as Blair, including the belief that the state has a great amount of competence to deliver complex projects and a prima facie moral justification to limit individuals’ personal liberty in the right circumstances.
That’s a charitable view of the philosophy behind the Digital ID proposal anyway. A contrary view would come from advocates of the natural rights and resistance theories which shaped Anglo-American thought (Locke, Jefferson and Nozick et al).
They would reject such a stance, arguing that a government would considerably overreach its limited remit by interfering with a person’s individual liberty in such a heavy-handed manner.
On more practical matters, meanwhile, it appears that Starmer’s administration, with its high levels of debt and public spending, can’t actually afford it.
The UK government has subsequently entered into a gloriously bureaucratic row with The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the financial watchdog Labour championed heading into the last election.
For its part, the OBR has said (link) the Digital ID bill could surpass £1.8bn of ‘unfunded costs’ – that’s Whitehall-ise for fudging the books, an accusation the government hasn’t taken too kindly to.
In a reply to a ministerial question tabled in the House of Commons, the government responded by saying that it didn’t recognise the OBR’s figures and that the scheme would be put to a public consultation (link).
Crucially, however, we’re still none the wiser as to how much Starmer thinks this policy will cost taxpayers or how exactly the system will stop people illegally entering the country.
Here’s what Starmer said in September:
“Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.
And it will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly – rather than hunting around for an old utility bill.”
The proof to back up these big claims is still pending and may never come. But if the Digital ID plan is forced through the Commons, thanks to Labour’s massive majority, it will only build on Starmer’s short but impressive anti-democratic résumé.
That currently includes limiting jury trials, cancelling elections and, amongst other things, instructing government lawyers to oppose the wishes of directly elected local authorities (link).
Alas, consequentialists always frame themselves as preserving the greater good.
10 Questions For Digital ID Advocates (link)
Is the government happy to build new and centralised databases with a significant amount of personal data and, if so, at what cost?
Given past hacks and cyber-attacks (link), would the government admit that the project would immediately go on the National Risk Register?
How would enrolment and registration work?
Would the whole project impact trust in the government (especially amongst minority groups)?
Digital ID advocates claim, like a magical policy wand, it will help solve all manner of issues, including immigration. But why not make the existing systems work? As just one example, the past independent chief inspector of borders and immigration pointed out several flaws until the last government fired him (link).
We already have ID cards (passports, driving licences and so on) so why create another level of government infrastructure and a stealth tax on citizens?
Rural broadband (and the lack of it) is still an issue (link). Other adults don’t have smartphones. Will these people be excluded from society?
How would digital ID enforcement work and who would carry it out, the police?
What budget would a government give the NHS to help cope with the transition to digital ID?
How, practically, would you unify the DVLA, Passport Office and National Insurance databases?
How would the collected data be shared? How many functions/apps would the Digital ID have?
Overall, how would a Digital ID project not become a large IT infrastructure that runs over time, runs over budget and undermines public trust?
Solid breakdown of why the broadband gap makes this even more absurd than it already is. If you cant get reliable internet in rural Wales or Scotland, mandating digital ID basically creates a two-tier citizenship. I worked on a project that required digital verification and we kept hiting walls with folks in areas where connectivity was spotty at best. The consequentialist logic only works if everyone has equal acces to the infrastructure, which they clearly dont.