Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Tamas]

A petition against ID has attracted 1.5 million signatures.

Now up to 2.2mil

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194

That includes 1,066 from the USA.

Still far less than the one asking for a redo of the Brexit referendum. That one sent shockwaves in British politics. Not.

[garbon]

I saw Starmer on Kuenssberg this morning. He seemed...not great. He avoided answering question on how digital ID would actually change anything, especially given people paid under the table. He then looked awkwardly defensive when asked about the money he spent to buy his parents extra land for donkeys. Flubbed when he said it was just 20k not some sort of palatial estate and Laura pointed out 20k is a lot to many people in the country.

[garbon]

Panelist (on the left of party who had failed to get enough support for deputy leadership) Bell Ribeiro-Addy said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bell-ribeiroaddy-keir-starmer-government-prime-minister-ids-b2835213.html

She told the BBC: "People don't want to see this, and also they don't understand it. What is the purpose of it? Now, I know there are many other countries that have these ID cards, but that hasn't stopped the type of working that we're talking about."

She noted that UK citizens and migrants already have a means to prove their right to work and expressed concerns about data privacy.

"Migrants already have these biometric ID cards, and actually, what's going to happen? We're going to have this card. We don't know which private company we're going to hand it over to and how much profit they're going to make from this.

"All these issues of people's data and their civil liberties. And actually, for what? The types of working we're trying to stop are not going to stop – the cash-in-hand type working.

"Those types of people that create that irregular type of work, they're not going to be asking people for their digital ID card."

Note, despite what I've posted to-date, I do agree there is an argument that can be made to support a national ID. Solving immigration issues though does not seem to be the winning one.

[Razgovory]

A couple of weeks ago, Corbyn held a "tribunal" on Britain's crimes against Palestinians. He will never win an election, ever.

When the UK falls to Farage, you can blame the Gaza left.  

[Tamas]

Panelist (on the left of party who had failed to get enough support for deputy leadership) Bell Ribeiro-Addy said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bell-ribeiroaddy-keir-starmer-government-prime-minister-ids-b2835213.html

She told the BBC: "People don't want to see this, and also they don't understand it. What is the purpose of it? Now, I know there are many other countries that have these ID cards, but that hasn't stopped the type of working that we're talking about."

She noted that UK citizens and migrants already have a means to prove their right to work and expressed concerns about data privacy.

"Migrants already have these biometric ID cards, and actually, what's going to happen? We're going to have this card. We don't know which private company we're going to hand it over to and how much profit they're going to make from this.

"All these issues of people's data and their civil liberties. And actually, for what? The types of working we're trying to stop are not going to stop – the cash-in-hand type working.

"Those types of people that create that irregular type of work, they're not going to be asking people for their digital ID card."

Note, despite what I've posted to-date, I do agree there is an argument that can be made to support a national ID. Solving immigration issues though does not seem to be the winning one.

The disingenuous part of it (by the government) is saying that linking employment to National ID will help reduce illegal immigration. The application of National ID that would help with that would be the requirement to have (obviously a "paper" copy) on you with the police having the right to ask for it. Which ain't gonna' happen, not in one go.

[garbon]

Because (and I didn't include from that link) the government said they won't make it something people need to have on them and show.

[Josquius]

One interesting issue I am seeing with the card is the name.
A funny comment I heard somewhere is that starmer has succeeded in uniting all the Northern Ireland parties.
The issue is the Britcard name.
It's a stupid name no doubt. But it's more than stupid in NI to here a large chunk or the population are explicitly not British and those who are have concerns on a border in the sea.

uote author=gar

Note, despite what I've posted to-date, I do agree there is an argument that can be made to support a national ID. Solving immigration issues though does not seem to be the winning one.

[/quot

The disingenuous part of it (by the government) is saying that linking employment to National ID will help reduce illegal immigration. The application of National ID that would help with that would be the requirement to have (obviously a "paper" copy) on you with the police having the right to ask for it. Which ain't gonna' happen, not in one go.

I can see how it works even with a purely digital system.
Examples like this are not too uncommon
https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1moxnub/i_need_urgent_help_my_wife_has_rented_out_her/

An African guy applies for a job and you check and it's a white womans NI number then clearly there's some problem.

Of course then you run into "but officer they all look alike" issues. But a physical ID wouldn't help with that.
The value in the physical is more for reassurance of the holder imo.  Don't see where having one on you would help much. Police can check databases.
Key there is more on holding companies employing people illegally liable.

[garbon]

Is there a rampant issue with NI fraud or is that perhaps not the issue people are raising about immigration?

[Josquius]

Is there a rampant issue with NI fraud or is that perhaps not the issue people are raising about immigration?

Apparently Britain is pretty middle of the park for size of its black economy, but theres certainly a perception out there that it's particularly bad here.
I've heard it mentioned the issue is a lot of our black economy is very public like those hand car washes, uber delivery people, etc.... Whilst in France it tends to be a bit more behind the scenes.

I do think theres something to  the idea that shutting down a lot of these highly visible employers of illegal workers will help give those who actually care and aren't just racists in general, the perception that the Government is doing something, progress is being made, etc...

It's of course not the issue that people bang on about. But then it's tackling the stuff they do care about (stop the boats etc...) in an actual smart holistic way rather than via direct harsher borders physically stop them landing nonsense.

Incidentally on root causes  and all that.....
I was thinking the other day. Isn't it weird Albania is seen as such a problem for illegal immigration. You'd think they were coming and overwhelming the UK in their millions from the perception.... Despite Albania only having 2.5 million people
Really strikes me as another place where money would be better spent indirectly in cracking down on organised crime, providing opportunities, etc... In Albania itself.

[HVC]

Does the government really care about NI fraud on the employment side? If an illegal uses someone else's info the government gets the money and never have to pay it out, right? Under the table stuff would be more of a concern

[garbon]

Does the government really care about NI fraud on the employment side? If an illegal uses someone else's info the government gets the money and never have to pay it out, right? Under the table stuff would be more of a concern

And still wouldn't be caught under this...

[HVC]

Does the government really care about NI fraud on the employment side? If an illegal uses someone else's info the government gets the money and never have to pay it out, right? Under the table stuff would be more of a concern

And still wouldn't be caught under this...

True, I should have quoted Josq to highlight that I was just talking about the black guy using white womans id scenario.

But either way, unless you going full ICE raids any ID won't stop illegals in any appreciable manner.

[Sheilbh]

On IDs - obviously the UK has national IDs already like driving licenses and passports (driving licenses were sufficient, as in Ireland, for the EU ID scheme).

There are things the UK doesn't have. There is no formal address registration, which is why you need to show two bills. It's not to prove who you are but where you live. In most of Europe you are meant to register with the local municipality or police when you move into an area (and in much of Europe those are the bodies that formally issue IDs. On CC's point there is an EU law mandating ID cards of some form so there's a common set of information even if it's implemented so I'm not fully sure that the type of state is a huge decider on this - Germany is Federal and I believe ID systems are implemented by the Lander, I think it's similar in Italy. So I think it goes more to how the ID system is implemented than whether it exists or not.

There are also disparate databases. I've flagged this during covid with the idea that in the 21st century we are in an age of "database states". The bits of the covid response that were most effective worked because there was an existing database that could be re-purposed or just used quickly for covid ends eg furlough payments using HMRC records, vaccine roll-out using existing NHS databases. The bits that really failed - like contact tracing or vaccine passports - were areas where there was no database so something new had to be built or very disparate systems not designed to talk, needed to work together. This is wider than just data on the population - it's been recently pointed out that there are over 200 different finance systems running in central government, NHS hospitals have been ground to a halt because their version of Windows XP stops working. This was an obsession of Dominic Cummings - and he was right. There are huge inefficiencies and problems because of the different systems, including lots of legacy systems, that were often bespoke or incredibly heavily changed over the years. The problem with this is that the only thing worse than government IT systems is government IT projects. Currently there are two separate slightly distinct IT schemes - they are five times over-budget. There is an update to the welfare systems that started in 2003 and is still not complete. It's not impossible that this could be implemented - but I think there's a very strong risk it becomes an expensive failure hanging around the government's neck. For it to work, I'd look at covid vaccine investments and vaccine purchasing both of which were set up to be run as a standalone unit outside normal civil service reporting lines. I'd note that following covid there were proposals to keep those established for strategic investments in vaccines to emerging diseases - those units were "dis-established" within six months, folded into normal Department of Health structures before being quietly euthanised - so hopefully there'll never be a pandemic again. I mention this because I think one of the challenges will be that the civil service would be happier with a project that failed within normal parameters, than one that succeeded outside them (and how much political capital has Starmer to really push them?).

The other thing that this would address is making people show ID in order to access services. At the minute there are areas where this is supposed to happen but doesn't but there are also areas of the state where this isn't necessary. I don't really buy the argument that it will help clamp down on grey market employment - we already have since Theresa May's "hostile environment" legal requirements on employers and landlords, for example, to confirm the immigration status of workers or tenants. So that it isn't necessarily happening is already a breach of law. I think the idea that an ID scheme would fix that seems based on the idea that the reason it's not happening is because it's administratively difficult rather than employers and landlords knowingly taking the risk because they know there's not enough enforcement. The only way I can really see this being meaningfully used against illegal immigration is if the police are empowered - as in France, say - to ask for people's papers because there is an expectation that they will have them.

If it works there are absolutely perks to this. Diagnosed with a disability - immediately onboarded onto disability benefit because the NHS and Department of Work and Pensions talk to each other, pension credits could also trigger automatically (HMRC to DWP), move house update all your details everywhere once. At the minute the system of different forms and different systems administering the state on often outdated IT systems - of course that also reduces the capacity for abuse (while, perhaps, increasing the likelihood of fuck-up). It will be expensive to get working, but it could have costs through efficiency for users and also automation (cutting the number of admin staff required across the state).

To just slightly follow on from this, I think there's a big political challenge. ID cards have had pretty broad but inch deep support. That's already split to roughly 50/50 - I think that is very simply because they are "Keir Starmer's ID card scheme". In terms of the political challenge, I'm seeing journalists report that Labour Conference attendees are saying they think the country would like him if they could just get to know the "real Keir", which is the party political equivalent of "having total confidence" in someone.

I'd add that unlike the People's Vote types, opponents to ID cards have a theory of politics here: the Tories are opposed, Reform are opposed, Corbyn is opposed, the Greens are opposed, the Lib Dems are historically opposed. The government have a big majority but there is a lot of scope to turn petitions and debate and outside into politics - and they have a clear line which is to oppose it. I'd add on the politics that someone in Downing Street should have pointed out that rolling out a national ID card, including to Northern Ireland, called "Britcard" may be challenging (that the PM's Chief of Staff is from Cork and didn't fix this is damning)

I would add that I think it's worth paying attention to Tony Blair on this. He has been an evangelist for ID cards for over 20 years - it is one of the big projects of the Tony Blair Institute. There are an astonishing number of ex-Blair staffers or people recommended by Blair working in Number 10 right now (I find this so weird - it's like if Cameron got loads of John Major bods to work for him, or Blair relied in Wilson retreads). I don't think Blair is corrupt on this - I think he's a true believer and his interests align, but it is worth noting that one of the major funders of the Tony Blair Institute is Larry Ellison of Oracle (to the tune of £300+ million). And, as Keir Starmer either can't or just won't actually make arguments for his policies, I think Blair trying to roll the pitch/"frame the argument" a bit earlier this year in a piece in the Daily Mail is relevant in terms of what the motivations and ambitions are for an ID scheme. As ever, Blair as prophet of the future and modernity, and I think, as ever, skilled in making the argument:

Tony Blair: Digital ID Is the Disruption the UK Desperately Needs
Commentary
11th January 2025

I make you this confident prediction: in the not too distant future, British people will all have their own unique digital identifier, and will make most transactions through their phone, as citizens with government and as customers with firms.

And we will wonder what all the fuss was about. It will make everything we do faster, cheaper and more reliable.

But first, the bigger political context in which these debates about the future are happening. We live in an era of disruption, including in politics. Britain, like every major developed nation, faces the same dilemma. Our taxes are high; our spending and levels of public debt are high; and our service outcomes are poor. So, we spend more on the NHS than ever before, with more staff than ever before – and the service is coming apart at the seams.

That is why politics is being disrupted. Any politician today who is promising management of the status quo and not fundamental change of it will lose. This is the true explanation of Donald Trump's victory in November's election. This is why governments across Europe are falling. It explains everything from the splintering of the vote here in the UK at the last election to the triumph of the maverick and experimental new president of Argentina.

It is why governing is so different today from the time – more than a quarter of a century ago now – when I became prime minister.

Then, between 1997 to 2007, we had strong growth, could afford investment in public services, and enjoyed rising productivity and real wages, with satisfaction rates for the NHS rising from 34 per cent in 1997 to 70 per cent (compared to 24 per cent today). And $2 to the pound.

The financial crisis, the energy crisis, changes in the global economy, Covid – and in Britain, post-Brexit, frequent changes in leadership – have all taken their toll. And today the challenges of governing are infinitely harder. However, there is one tool available today which wasn't available back in 2007. We're living through a 21st-century Technological Revolution every bit as dramatic in its effects, if not more so, as the 18th-century Industrial Revolution.

Already it is transforming the private sector. The biggest companies in the world today are the tech giants. In each case, they're valued at more than the entire economic output of most countries.

Think about how we live and interact with each other – how we use Amazon to shop; mobile phones for banking; Google Maps for directions; apps to watch TV, consume news, and book trains, flights, holidays and entertainment. And they all use our data to personalise their service.

Why is TikTok so successful? Because its algorithms establish your personal preferences so quickly and satisfy them with their content. How do they do that? By accumulating your data and using the services of a huge number of computer engineers to make those algorithms so effective.

Is this world also scary in many respects? Absolutely. Most technology, including artificial intelligence (AI), is general-purpose technology. It can be used for good or ill. But as I say when discussing the issue with the governments around the globe with whom my Institute works, there is no point in debating whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. It is a thing. Possibly the thing. And history teaches us that what is invented by human ingenuity is rarely disinvented by human anxiety.

So, we should reduce the risks as far as possible. But the risks should not blind us to the opportunities.

Imagine that all your health information was in one place: easy, with your permission, for anyone anywhere in the health service to see. That your passport, driving licence, anything you need to prove your identity, were in one simple digital wallet, unique to you. That you could purchase and pay for any goods or services using your digital ID.

Countries from Singapore to India to the UAE and Estonia are doing this now – with huge amounts of time and bureaucracy saved.

But now think of all the other problems of governing. One of the biggest challenges in immigration is the number of people here without permission, since there are multiple ways of entering Britain lawfully but then staying unlawfully.

According to the latest estimates from the University of Oxford, there are between 600,000 to 750,000 in this category – more than in any other European country.

But suppose that, before you accessed any part of the system of public services or welfare, you had to prove who you are and that you have the right to be in the country – and could do this swiftly and conveniently with a single app. It would allow us to track those without permission and incentivise people to not enter unlawfully or overstay, because they know they would be discovered.

It would cut benefit fraud; make online fraud far harder; and it would yield for the government the reliable and accurate data needed to make informed policy decisions.

Around the world, governments are moving in this direction. Of the 45 governments we work with, I would estimate that three-quarters of them are embracing some form of digital ID. The president of the World Bank, Ajay Banga, has said it is a top priority for the bank's work with leaders. But this is only one part of the immense, seismic change which this technological revolution will bring.

It is transforming drug discovery, with a whole raft of new treatments which will give us the chance to shift our healthcare system radically to prevention of disease rather than cure. If we used the potential of facial recognition, data and DNA, we would cut crime rates by not small but game-changing margins. There are interactive education apps now available which could provide personal tutoring for pupils.

But we need the right digital infrastructure to access all of this. And a digital ID is an essential part of it.

Inevitably there will be concerns over privacy and security. But there are a host of safeguards and oversight measures available. And a digital ID, properly done, gives the individual more control over their data – as they can see who can access it and why.

Britain has the capability to be leaders in this new technological revolution. We have world-class universities from which many of the new technology solutions originate. After America and China, we arguably rank number three globally in AI. Scroll through the great minds which have produced much of the revolution and British scientists and inventors feature prominently.

There are capable people in politics today who understand this challenge – including those in the new Labour government.

But whatever the politics of the government, this should be the mission: to master and harness this technological revolution to change Britain and, above all, change the way government itself functions.

Lower taxes, reduced spending and improved outcomes have often seemed like the Holy Grail of governing: desirable but impossible. Modern technology puts it within reach.

Our present system isn't working. This is a time for shaking up. For once-in-a-generation disruption. Digital ID is a good place to start.

This article was originally published in the Daily Mail on 11 January 2025.

[Sheilbh]

When the UK falls to Farage, you can blame the Gaza left. 

I don't see how.

Farage was already polling at 30%+ (although it's four years away and we shouldn't be thinking about elections, a lot can happen, I think there'll be a lot of tactical voting etc).

At this point though, the government won a landslide majority and pissed it away. Support for and belief in both of the main parties is crashing at the same time which has not happened before (and Gaza is part of that - not the Gaza left).

[Razgovory]

When the UK falls to Farage, you can blame the Gaza left. 

I don't see how.

Farage was already polling at 30%+ (although it's four years away and we shouldn't be thinking about elections, a lot can happen, I think there'll be a lot of tactical voting etc).

At this point though, the government won a landslide majority and pissed it away. Support for and belief in both of the main parties is crashing at the same time which has not happened before (and Gaza is part of that - not the Gaza left).

Gaza is important because Pro-Pals won't shut up about it.  If they didn't it would have the same impact as Yemen, I.E. none.  I've already seen these people decide that Trump was better than Genocide Joe, the same will probably happen to you.