"...it is proposed that from 2028; in order to apply for a new job, one must have a Digital ID." The post Digital IDs: a Valid Mandate? appeared first on Technical Politics.
The Digital ID system is expected to be rolled out by the end of the current parliament. Sir Kier Starmer has assured the public that fears associated with ‘mass surveillance and digital control’ in a ‘state controlled ID system’ (petition.parliment.uk) are unfounded; the government would never abuse the ID system. This assurance however has done little to convince the almost 3,000,000 signatories of Petition #730194: ‘Do not introduce Digital ID cards’.
Much public scrutiny has been placed on the potential consequences of the ID roll out. Concerns have arisen over cyber-security, inclusivity, and of course, over authoritarian abuse. However, very little scrutiny seems to have been placed on the mandate for the ID systems’ introduction.
The Government claims to be implementing the IDs for two main reasons.
Firstly, to ‘modernize the government’. The 2024 Labour manifesto was fiercely critical of the former Conservative Government’s dated political infrastructure: ‘Britain’s outdated employment laws are not for the modern economy’. The manifesto heavily emphasised the general concept of modernisation: ‘modernise international development’, modernise the House of Commons’. The Labour Government therefore has a strong electoral mandate to introduce the IDs as part of the modernisation process.
Secondly, the Government argues that the IDs will act as a solution to illegal immigration, fraud, abuse, and modern slavery. As phrased on gov.uk: ‘This is to send a clear message that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to work, deterring people from making dangerous journeys’. Illegal immigration, and migration as a whole, are particularly pressing contemporary issues. It comes as no surprise that Starmer is under pressure to find a solution, and is justified in doing so.
Contrary to the above, this article will argue that Labour lack the mandate to implement the IDs: they will neither contribute to modernisation, nor solve issues related to illegal immigration, and if anything will exacerbate the worst outcomes of each issue.
Modernisation?
Just because the new IDs will be digital, it doesn’t mean that they are modern. As many are aware, this is not the first instance of a UK government national ID roll out. Home Secretary David Blunkett formulated the original ID card concept in 2002. Blunkett considered the concept to ‘aid counter-terrorism, stop illegal working, cut benefit fraud and prevent identity theft’ (BBC News). Home Secretary Alan Johnson later apologised that the IDs had been sold as the ‘panacea of solving terrorism’: the IDs seemed to have gained traction through, and perhaps even owed their existence to the 9/11attacks.
It appears that the threat of terrorism in the early 2000shas now been replaced by the threat of illegal immigration, both of which seem to compromise state security to some degree. Blunkett’s idea that the 2000s IDs would lead to ‘more state security’, through compromising the freedom of individual citizens now seems archaic. Having rolled out in 2008, the IDs were repealed by the 2010 coalition government. Theresa May argued that the ID repeal guaranteed the privacy and freedom of ‘decent, law abiding people’; Nick Clegg deemed the repeal crucial in ‘dismantling the surveillance state’ (gov.uk).
A return to the ID concept does not feel modern, but reiterative and unimaginative, a step back to an idea which has long been repealed. The introduction of digital IDs to seems reflective of post 9/11 paranoia- a mood harnessed by Blair’s government to introduce authoritative means, a mood similar to the fear of illegal immigration which Starmer harnesses now.
Labour claims that ‘the fragmented approach and multiple systems across Government make it difficult for people to access vital services’ (petition.parliment.uk). While this might be true, was the great innovation of the internet not its capacity to decentralise power? Philosopher and social critic Slavoj Žižek argued that the internet ‘first appeared as an anarchist’s dream come true, the overcoming of the divide between private and public, between producers and user-consumers… with no central regulation, no big Other limiting our freedom’ (Zero Point). Now through the IDs, it appears that for the first time, the digital space is being publicly centralised, in a way that feels restrictive of the free market that the internet was first hypothesised to be.
Lastly, if ‘modern’ is to be taken as a synonym for ‘efficient’, how can the public trust that the government will be able to implement a system that promises such efficiency? ‘GOV.UK One Login’, the foundation upon which digital ID will be built, is highly insecure: ‘whistleblower allegations from July 2022 revealed over 500,000 system vulnerabilities, with thousands rated “critical” or “high” severity’ (bisi.org.uk). If the government can’t guarantee digital safety, a key emphasis of the ‘Digital ID Explainer’ (‘the digital ID system will be designed with security at its core’(gov.uk), then how can it promise digital efficiency?
Illegal Immigration
Illegal immigration has risen alarmingly in the last few years. Since January 2025, more than 34,000 people have entered the UK through small boat crossings, compared to 27,000 in the same period of 2023 (boatwatch.uk).
Starmer argues that the IDs will discourage illegal immigration. The ubiquitous system will make it impossible for illegal immigrants to ‘slip through the cracks’ in employment law to find employment in the ‘shadow economy’ (BBC News). While this may be true, this solution make create an entirely new issue. Although Starmer has stressed that the IDs will not be compulsory, it is proposed that from 2028; in order to apply for a new job, one must have a Digital ID. The IDs therefore are compulsory for all those who don’t plan on continuing to work the same job indefinitely; a far larger proportion of the population than for the IDs to be considered genuinely non-compulsory. Furthermore, jobs in the ‘shadow economy’, jobs that Starmer claims are currently held by illegal immigrants, are arguably the most impermanent and temporary forms of employment. Therefore, Starmer is correct, from 2028, large numbers of illegal immigrants will be flushed out of the ‘shadow economy’: means of employment legal or otherwise. Such immigrants will have two options: firstly, to leave the country, a financially and sentimentally costly option available to few. Secondly, to earn a living through the extra-legal economy: through crime. Will the Digital IDs really be the weapon that ‘smashes the gangs’ (politics.co.uk), or will it add to their ranks?
The Digital IDs may lead to the horrors of ‘mass surveillance and digital control’ in the future, but the arguments for their introduction already fall well short.
The post Digital IDs: a Valid Mandate? appeared first on Technical Politics.
