UK Scraps Mandatory Digital ID Enrollment for Workers After Public Backlash (bbc.com) 33
The UK government has abandoned its controversial plan to require workers to sign up for a mandatory digital ID system to prove their eligibility to work in the country, opting instead to move existing document-based checks -- such as biometric passports -- fully online by 2029.
The reversal follows a dramatic collapse in public support; polling showed approval falling from just over half the population in June to less than a third after Prime Minister Keir Starmer's announcement. Nearly 3 million people signed a parliamentary petition opposing the scheme. The government says it remains committed to mandatory digital right-to-work checks but will no longer require enrollment in a new ID system.
The reversal follows a dramatic collapse in public support; polling showed approval falling from just over half the population in June to less than a third after Prime Minister Keir Starmer's announcement. Nearly 3 million people signed a parliamentary petition opposing the scheme. The government says it remains committed to mandatory digital right-to-work checks but will no longer require enrollment in a new ID system.
U-Turns are Embarrassing. (Score:4, Interesting)
But they're still preferable to pushing through an unpopular policy just to show strength.
Re: (Score:3)
The government says it remains committed to mandatory digital right-to-work checks but will no longer require enrollment in a new ID system.
TL;DR: They found a way to get what they want from the existing paperwork.
That means the new ID system isn't required, can be "sacrificed" to appease the public, and hopefully distract the public long enough to enact their overall goals in spite of the public.
Re:U-Turns are Embarrassing. (Score:4, Informative)
Labour have wanted a national ID card for years. Most of our neighbouring countries have them, but there's some part of the British psyche that hears "ID card", thinks "papers please" and then replies "no fucking way". I don't really see much of a problem myself since we're not legally obliged to identify ourselves to police anyway, unless they suspect you of a crime. On the other hand I can foresee this government or a future one changing that if a national ID scheme existed. I think I'd rather carry on without them; we seem to be managing well enough without ID cards and I haven't heard of any benefit that would justify them.
This time around Labour have framed them as a way to cut down on foreigners working illegally, as a sop for people tempted by the Reform Party, but at the end of the day if the employer is willing to pay cash under the table and risk the consequences they'll do it, whether or not ID cards exist.
Re:U-Turns are Embarrassing. (Score:4, Interesting)
The ID checks are already decently strict. Any reputable employer demands a passport or equivalent and will check it.
Cunty non-employers like deliveroo pay sub minimum wage specifically on the principle that one account can be shared between people and they have no idea who it is so they are really contractors not employees and Deliveroo is basically exempt from everything.
And cash under-the-table people already know what they are doing and are likely also doing tax fraud and don't care either.
I agree that the number of people in the first group fooled by a well forged passport is basically non existent compared to the second two groups.
Re: (Score:3)
A national ID is better than proving residence with gas bills, at least in my opinion. Then again I live in one of those neighbouring countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'm waiting for them to come up with a use case that actually justifies the card. Until then, I'm in the "no fucking way" camp, mostly for the reasons you state, I've read 1984, and I have German family, who can still remember "papers please", and so are about as opposed to it as you could ever imagine.
This iteration of the ID Card was entirely made-up and absolutely was nothing to do with the right to work. Illegals already can't get "nice" jobs in the UK because they are already ID checked and
Re:U-Turns are Embarrassing. (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think that a honest admission of having made a mistake and a frank acceptance of blame is a far greater show of strength than pushing through an idea everyone knows is stupid but too craven to say it out loud.
Captain Asoh is a role model for me in this regard.
Re:U-Turns are good. (Score:2)
I personally think that a honest admission of having made a mistake and a frank acceptance of blame is a far greater show of strength than pushing through an idea everyone knows is stupid but too craven to say it out loud.
Yep, it was always going to happen this way. Unpopular idea is unpopular, gets slowly watered down as government realises its really just a solution that doesn't have a problem. Eventually it gets shelved indefinitely and forgotten (and eventually someone else will have the same brainfart 15 years later and we begin the process all over again).
As a colleague pointed out to me this morning, what killed the Poll tax wasn't the riots but the huge amount of non-compliance. This would go the same way.
The L
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. I have been saying that about our AfD for a long time - it doesn't matter whether our conservatives attempt to become AfD lite or even try to overtake them on the right, their voters will still vote for the real fascists, not the wannabe ones.
Re: U-Turns are good. (Score:2)
But those parties grow in support. Because the rest of them refuse to solve the problems they point out.
Solve them. Or else..
Re: (Score:2)
How can you solve imaginary problems? Take brexit for example, since we are talking about the UK. The problems it was supposed to solve was the supposedly oppressive EU and immigration from Pakistan (yes, seriously).
Re: (Score:3)
They can't help but show weakness or indecision.
It's not so much weakness and indecision as directionless.
Starmer has no apparent politics. No principles and no ideals.
So it's not weakness so much as a lack of direction. He has no particular idea why he's doing anything. Even his vague claims of "working people" and "making things better" don't hold up because you have to define what "better" is, for whom (who is a working person and why), what it looks like to be better, and so on. That ultimately requires
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
That seems to be what the electorate wants. Bland, no ideology. Managers who are just competent enough not to screw things up really badly.
Worked well for David Cameron, until his own party blew everything up.
Re: (Score:3)
OK, we're talking specifically about u-turns here!
That seems to be what the electorate wants. Bland, no ideology.
I don't think this is the case. I think firstly Starmer is almost uniquely free of ideology. It's weird, frankly and I think it weirds people out.
I'm not saying this is good but Johnson and Cameron did have ideologies. Sure they were shitty ones around funneling money to the rich, i.e. their buddies. At least a strong belief that the poor are shit and basically deserve whatever comes to them. But
Re: (Score:2)
Corbyn nearly beat May, with a hopeful message. But then the moment it looked like he might actually get somewhere, much of the press went insane trying to smear him in any way possible. Anti-Semitism was part of it, but you had deranged rants about how he was evil because he wore a tie, or once stood near someone the paper doesn't like now.
We need socialism, and that's the thing that our masters desperately do not want us to get. Starmer is centre right, so acceptable to them.
Because of our system, they on
Re: (Score:2)
Corbyn nearly beat May, with a hopeful message. But then the moment it looked like he might actually get somewhere, much of the press went insane trying to smear him in any way possible. Anti-Semitism was part of it,
Thing is the right only made hay over it because there was hay to make. Sure, they didn't have a sudden attack of actually liking the Jews and were being very opportunistic, but the opportunity was there. The left has had a little antisemitism problem. I've got a couple of books on my bookshelf
Re: (Score:2)
For the sake of argument, let's say I accept that anti-semitism was a big problem in Labour during Corbyn's time as leader, and he didn't do enough about it.
The alternative was May, Johnson, Truss... Countless dead due to the botched COVID response. Brexit a total disaster. And to cap it all off, the Tory Party is pretty racist too. In fact, their implosion may lead to the far right racists getting into power.
As for Putin, he seems to have won. Ukraine will be quickly forgotten once the war between the US a
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative was May, Johnson, Truss... Countless dead due to the botched COVID response. Brexit a total disaster. And to cap it all off, the Tory Party is pretty racist too. In fact, their implosion may lead to the far right racists getting into power.
I'm not going to defend the Tories here!
But also bear in mind the Tories squeaked in with 2.3% points more votes than labour. The decisive factor as always was the FPTP system. It's not like Corbyn was wildly less popular than the Tories.
This is another re
Re: (Score:2)
It's been a long time and it's easier to see things with hindsight but I think you're off with Corbyn here.
Corbyn had some strengths. He was to the left of the spectrum, something Labour hasn't been since Blair. He was populist and able to motivate younger groups.
But... the anti-semitism thing wasn't a smear, it was based on problems that people within the Labour party were complaining about. Jewish MPs indeed had stand up arguments with him about it.
And just as many on the right seem to not understand the
Re: (Score:2)
It's fair to say that Corbyn was far from perfect, but I wouldn't say that any of it ruled him or the party out. Aside from anything else, look at what people did elect instead. A guy who couldn't even tell you how many kids he had, but did put one of them in the HoL. A man who was not unfamiliar with racism.
The British electorate, as a whole, makes bad decisions.
Re:U-Turns are Embarrassing. Not a U-Turn (Score:3)
This is NOT a U-turn. They are backing off, for the moment. When they think no one is looking they will stomp on the gas again.
They won't give up. The answer is to vote them out of office.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
They won't give up. The answer is to vote them out of office.
No, I'll stick with a spineless and dull former public prosecutor over a mendacious frog-faced cunt with a case Trump envy, thanks.
Always pointless (Score:3)
It is already the case - and has been for ages - that you have to prove that you have the right to work in the UK before you can start a job by producing various paper documents. However, there are also huge numbers of people working who don't have that right. Ergo, unscrupulous employers don't do the required checks because then they can pay the illegal workers less and not bother with tedious things like taxes and workplace safety.
Nobody (not least from the government) ever explained how this "digital ID" would make any difference. The dodgy employers simply wouldn't bother to check that either!
Re: Always pointless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably the goal here was tracking. If the ID system is digital you the government can track when the ID system is looked up and presumably by whom.
Oh HuskyDog Pty Ltd registered they have 15 employees with Companies House, but have only performed 8 Digital ID Lookups? Maybe it's time the Home Office pays them a visit and checks the colour of their employee's skin.
Re: well.. (Score:2)