Mixed Reactions to UK Digital ID Cards
Alexander Peace, Ryan Sheppard, Cianan Sheekey, Peter McLean, Louis Tehrani, and Rhys Binet
12/10/25
Embedded Files
DOES THE PHONE CONCEAL OR ILLUMINATE OUR DATA?, IMAGE: LORIN BOTH
It’s 2025, Not 2005: Digital ID Could Be the Revolution Britain Needs
Alexander Peace
Contributor
The fire has been lit under a huge public debate since Starmer announced the government’s plans to introduce digital ID through the new “BritCard”. The argument over identity cards is not new; Blair made his own attempt in the mid-2000s. Then, limited technology meant physical cards were the ambition. Now, the digital revolution that has swept the world offers us the chance to streamline and modernise the state like never before. From faster right-to-work checks to fewer documents cluttering our lives, the potential to make daily life easier and boost productivity is immense.
Yet, unlike the technology, the debate itself has barely evolved. Concerns about privacy and surveillance remain, but they often ignore the vast amounts of data we willingly hand over to private companies in exchange for convenience or a Labubu. The reality is that the world has changed since 2005: most of our personal data already sits with corporations far less accountable than our own government. The small amount required for a digital ID is minimal in comparison and safer.
The benefits of a digital ID will be profound, not only in tackling illegal migration but in making our everyday interactions simpler, faster, and more secure. The British state, as it exists today, is already creaking under outdated systems. Eventually, we will have to face up to the digital future that has already arrived.
Digital IDs Pose Great Risk to Freedom and Security in Britain
Contributor
Digital ID cards are an overt infringement of civil liberties. The concerning question, that not even ministers can answer, is where does this policy end? I fear this will be the beginning of increased state interference in our lives and that the consequences will be far-reaching. It is supposedly being introduced as a measure to stop illegal migration, but it won’t work. Just as the criminal gangs have found ways to commit fraud in the past to get illegal migrants into work, they will find a way again, with or without digital IDs.
I also have grave concerns over the government handling more of our data, as they haven’t had the best record in the past of protecting it, like, for example, in 2007, when the details of over seven million families were lost in the child benefit data breach. Although the systems the government uses have progressed since, increased cybersecurity threats, particularly from our adversaries such as Russia, this policy is ill thought out, especially coming weeks after Jaguar Land Rover and Marks and Spencer have suffered significant cybersecurity breaches (neither carried out by states, but the point remains).
Alongside the recent ban on refills for sugary drinks in restaurants like Nando’s, we are heading toward a more Orwellian future. It’s time for the state to do less and start getting the basics right once again.
MANY HAVE RAISED OVER CONCERNS OF DIGITAL IDS PUTTING PERSONAL DATA AT RISK, IMAGE: MARKUS SPISKE
Orwellian? Seriously?
Managing Editor
The introduction of digital ID has its merits and its drawbacks. They will aid productivity and reduce bureaucratic clutter, but will do little to challenge the illegal labour currently thriving within Britain’s increasingly odious gig economy. The proposed system is not flawless by any means, and as should be the case with all government policy, constructive criticism should be welcomed. But the avenue of attack many have pursued is that the measure is Orwellian, constituting a laughably dramatic linguistic overstep.
So, you’re a British citizen? Okay, so you have both a National Insurance and an NHS number. The government already has data about you that it uses to confirm your identity, and it's tough to see how digital ID infringes upon privacy any more than these existing systems do. These unjust accusations of draconian governance are likely the result of nothing more than outright anti-Labourism.
In the States, individuals are assigned a Social Security number. Almost all government agencies use this to verify identity, even though it provides no actual verification. Such a system seems ludicrous – if you were to lose the number to an evil party, the consequences would be catastrophic. Of course, trying to protect citizens from such risks in Britain would be a step into authoritarianism…
What is Starmer Playing At?
Contributor
Starmer seems to be trying his absolute hardest to make everyone hate him. Every decision his government takes, from slashing the winter fuel allowance to tampering with disability benefits (before backtracking after those ideas surprisingly received backlash), paints a picture of outrageous, borderline farcical, incompetence.
Even his attempts to placate the right are embarrassing. His Powell-esque “island of strangers” speech was meant to sound tough, instead coming off as hollow mimicry of the politics he claims to oppose. How are you calling Reform’s pledge to abolish indefinite leave to remain racist when you want to double the time to qualify for it from 5 to 10 years? Utter incoherent codswallop.
This latest digital ID fiasco is a testament to just how profoundly out of touch Starmer’s government has become. When you’re polling as the least popular Prime Minister on record, why, in the name of reason, would you choose this moment to propose the most Orwellian policy imaginable? Even Palantir, whose founder is the veritable HAL 9000 of our age, has condemned it as undemocratic. All this scheme achieves is to drive the country straight into the hands of Reform. Shame on you, son of a toolmaker.
PRIME MINISTER STARMER, IMAGE: NUMBER 10
Digital ID Is an Insult to the British Public
Contributor
More pressing even than the obvious attacks on civil liberties, the digital ID scheme reveals a terrifying lack of respect for the public’s intelligence. It seems to be the unfortunate fetish of Labour governments to market a convenient slash of the right to privacy in the name of whatever the fearmongering buzzword of the time appears to be. We shouldn’t forget the Blair government’s attempt to introduce a similar scheme under the guise of anti-terrorism.
For Starmer to now use the same rhetoric, copied and pasted to fit the anti-immigrant sentiment of our time, feels insulting to say the least. The sentiment is clear. The government feels it can do as it likes, so long as it is flimsily marketed to tick the right boxes. Considering that, among other things, employers must already follow the right to work, it is unclear how the new system will be significantly more effective in identifying illegal migrants. Can the slightly elevated numbers really be worth such a wide opportunity to infringe on privacy? Is that even their true intention? As far as Starmer is concerned, who cares when it feels so easy to misdirect us?
Anything and Everything, Now on Our Phones
Editorial Director
Though I don’t exactly fully agree with the common view of the UK becoming an Orwellian dystopia from the introduction of these IDs, after all, we have gone through so much more worrying information-grabbing, like through debit cards and contactless, I have a greater issue with the fact that it will most definitely be bypassable.
Even without considering the Online Safety Act 2023's failure with VPNs, there will be no secure way to prevent digital IDs from being exploited in the same way fake IDs are made. More and more, we are moving into a technological society based on the notion of individuality and unsociability. Convenience is not worth us abandoning tangible, physical aspects of our lives so every single element of our essence can be stored on one device.
Google Sites
Report abuse