MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
@ronegrasp of basic concepts is so vague that I skip right past anything they say about economics.
There is more than one way to look at economics than the neo-classical model
That's true. But if you don't understand the difference between investment and consumption then you're not going to grasp any of it, and be constantly confused abour why things don't work the way you want them to.
But if you don't understand the difference between investment and consumption
Oh come off it. Rone understands this just fine, and you know he's talking about something else but instead of engaging with that you prefer to make a pedantic point about semantics. Nickc is even worse, he just dismisses anything rone says because he thinks he knows better.
Rone and others - including myself - who make points about the monetary system and how it can be used to solve real world problems haven't pulled this stuff from their backsides, its comes from lots of serious work by lots of serious, educated and professionally experienced people. You and others may not agree with it but you can't just dismiss it because it doesn't follow the neo-classical model.
Has anyone done the maths on how this would help low to medium income earners (up to say £40k).
Would it actually put money into peoples pockets?
Has anyone done the maths on how this would help low to medium income earners (up to say £40k).
Doesn't look like the intention is to help people who pay NI, rather take more from those that don't pay NI by increasing their tax while balancing those that do pay NI by increasing tax and lowering NI by same amount.
Would it actually put money into peoples pockets?
I think the idea is to take more out of people's pockets rather than the other way round. It raises a bit more from investors and landlords but does very little for anyone working. The problem isn't the amounts, more the optics of breaking their promise not to raise income tax or NI. I doubt voters will accept the nuance of lowering one while raising the other, all they'll see is a raise in income tax and conclude they've broken one of their central manifesto promises. Would be better to abolish NI altogether and adjust other taxes to compensate for its loss.
@somewhere above.
Keep on doing everything badly and getting increasingly poor results then just like our Chancellor's version of reality'.
(Skip past but enough to comment. Got ya.)
Blinkered.
The point s anything referenced to MMT is built on evidence - a body of work with the only peer reviewed process of government spending and central bank financing. There isn't a neoclassical version of that.
Everything else that has been sold to you about spending is not backed up with evidence. Centrists and some leftists have adopted right-wing framing of this process and seem particularly stubborn with not dealing with reality.
It's amazing that when it comes to many political things Centrists demand evidence but not here.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4890683
The self-financing state: an institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom
"Vague."
Lmfao.
But if you don't understand the difference between investment and consumption
...you prefer to make a pedantic point about semantics...
The difference between investment and consumption is absolutely foundational to an understanding of economics. You wouldn't listen to someone waffling about nutrition when they don't know the difference between blood and urine.
The difference between investment and consumption is absolutely foundational to an understanding of economics.
And misrepresenting something someone says on an internet forum is foundational to having a decent discussion.
Will the last Labour voter please turn out the light
The difference between investment and consumption is absolutely foundational to an understanding of economics
Jeez this guy.
Just for clarity the political emphasis is what makes the difference. Not the spend. The spend is the same pot split into two.
What you mean or what you should mean is the difference between capital spending and day-2-day spending. (Still same pot.) Government carves it up so it can manipulate its budget.
When it comes to government spending all public spending can be viewed as 'investment' because money going into the economy effectively is what boosts a consumer economy and adds to growth. For instance giving people energy subsidies to help when the market has ****ed it up is probably a good investment. People will put the heating on keep themselves well - hopefully. You have a healthier happier population - in broad strokes.
Giving people money to say spend on fags would probably not be a great investment but but would still add to GDP etc.
Again it's political choices. The return on the investment for government spending should be viewed in outcomes. Does it solve a problem? Does it increase growth? What's the multiplyer effect? Is it a good for public purpose? Does it correct flaws in the market economy? Does it make the population healthier?
Anyway today's topic or yesterday's:
Half of us having been banging on for years about fixing material conditions - way before Labour came to be in 2024. But it's only now Labour (in the face of terrible polling and public discourse) have come to the conclusion that you need to spend some money in communities with their version of levelling up.
The other half have been going on about black-holes and balancing budgets. Good luck with that (see Argentina.) But as we've explained that ignorance leads to Brexit type reactions and crime increases.
Well it does appear, probably a little to late but welcome. Starmer is about to put the money in.
This is exactly what they should have come to power doing. And it's welcome.
They will get the money from exactly the same place as always but expect in the budget all manner of horeshit about how and why.
Let's see. Also funds being created for JLR.
Sigh it's all so painfully obvious and could have been prevented!
(Still think Burnham is in the rear view mirror.)
Burnham is definitely on the move. From what I've heard he has a good plan too. Public control of housing, energy and transport with the core aim to bring down living costs, and higher taxes for rich to fund it. In other words traditional Labour policies which directly benefit working people. Who would have ever thought this sort of stuff would be seen as radical or out of the ordinary for a Labour govt?
They should plan these policies, then swap leader and roll them out so they look like the new leader's policies. It's no good doing them now because Starmer's credibility is finished, so voters will find ways to moan about them. That said, these policies need implementing ASAP and you don't want to swap leader too soon before the election. 2 years probably. When you're sure all the groundwork has been done, you can put someone else in to capitalise on it and the outgoing leader can take the bad sentiment with him. That's assuming the party works as a team rather than being driven by egos, of course.
330 deprived areas will receive tens of millions of pounds over a decade to be spent on renewal schemes
10's of millions each or between them, because if it is the later it's is barely a grain of sand on a 10 mile long beach.
It's truly astonishing that regular observations about the idea of funding the country properly have now turned into the almighty power of the bond markets over government.
This is truly pathetic and inaccurate.
They all cite the Truss debacle incorrectly (fixed in a few days) as being why we can't have nice things - but never once cite the 15+ years that the illusionary power of markets have had over a decaying infrastructure and country - and have delivered appalling results for most.
It's mind-blowing that people are falling for this.
Once again the government sits at the top of the market- it issues the currency that bonds are purchased with, it sets the rate effectively at auction and can buy and sell bonds to control the market. The market's power is false and not a naturally occuring phenomenon - it is a construct of government, law and money creation. It is also a policy choice that is not a compulsory requirement to fund government spending. (As it was a while ago.)
This rhetoric needs beating back into its box now or we never improve.
Only Burnham speaks sense here. Everyone else talking shite.
https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1971137890953404561?t=FgT0iwFurim_nym9IdM4Hw&s=19
330 deprived areas will receive tens of millions of pounds over a decade to be spent on renewal schemes
10's of millions each or between them, because if it is the later it's is barely a grain of sand on a 10 mile long beach.
Very true. This is bare minimum stuff.
The trouble with these levelling up schemes the way they are interpreted at local level is exactly that! Round Chesterfield/ Clay Cross/North East Derbyshire there are grand schemes involving demolishing fantastic old buildings (the levelling bit) then building back (the up bit) with buildings that will be only successful briefly as people have a limited amount of spare money.
Cafes, small independent shops and business hubs will open with enthusiastic people going into debt or spending their savings to follow their dreams aided by grants and rate relief. A couple of years later the reality will bite and they will shut the doors to end the pain..
The only people who benefit from a lot of this cash are the construction companies who have got their noses well in the trough, the schemes are run by unelected business owners rather than councils, prices are rigged and their mates make fortunes.
This is not speculation, there were many businesses in North East Derbyshire found to be price rigging (for some obscure reason I was invited to one of their breakfast meetings), they were fined but as far as I know are still the corrupt entities they always were.
Any “cash” given out needs democratic, community control.
Off me soapbox now!
10's of millions each or between them, because if it is the later it's is barely a grain of sand on a 10 mile long beach.
don't be so harsh - 10 million over a decade divided by 330 is, uh, £3,030 per deprived area! Per year!!!
If they really want to help small local businesses, they need to end the tax advantage that corporations have over them and frankly move it a bit in the other direction. Property prices/rentals are also as big a problem for small start-ups/local businesses as they are for people trying too get on the housing ladder.
If they really want to help small local businesses, they need to end the tax advantage that corporations have over them and frankly move it a bit in the other direction. Property prices/rentals are also as big a problem for small start-ups/local businesses as they are for people trying too get on the housing ladder.
Capital grants would go a long way.
We had a couple under the Tories.
This Burnham job is gathering a bit of momentum and I still think he's got that failed Centrism take in his head - maybe that's harsh but he's likely the best option currently in Labour. Purely because I think he's 'liked' and he's recognised the value of fixing your environment.
I don't think Starmer was liked from the off. I don't like to talk about personality but in this situation I think they need this sort of help.
It would go a long way.
This Burnham job is gathering a bit of momentum and I still think he's got that failed Centrism take in his head
It's a damn sight better than the unbridled market conservatism peddled by Starmer, Reeves and Streeting so i'll take it. Also liking the anti-Westminster slant of what he's saying. That may well be just PR so he can claim to be outside the establishment but if he gets in and does half of this stuff it's going to be quite revolutionary. PR, more regional devolution, regional redistribution of local taxes etc. I guess he's not called the King of the North for nothing.
Still think he won't get in before Farage does though. Starmer and his cronies will opearate a scorched earth strategy to stop him getting into parliament so he'll probably have to wait til Starmer is gone after he loses the next election.
Starmer and his cronies will opearate a scorched earth strategy to stop him getting into parliament so he'll probably have to wait til Starmer is gone after he loses the next election.
You believe that Starmer will likely still be Labour leader by the time of the next general election?
That would absolutely guarantee electoral armageddon for Labour. I can't imagine even the MPs hand-picked by Morgan McSweeney agreeing to that.
I also very much doubt that Starmer gives a shit who takes over after him.
This isn't a man with any sort of political vision or ideological commitment.
I am sure that Starmer would be perfectly happy bailing out, handing over the reins to whoever, and getting on with the next stage of his personal career.
When it comes to government spending all public spending can be viewed as 'investment' because money going into the economy effectively is what boosts a consumer economy and adds to growth.
“Consumer economy” could mean more yachts in Monaco if the money is going into the pockets of the wrong people. Or straight into offshore accounts of investment landlords without controls and taxes to prevent that. The idea that where the money goes, and what it’s spent on, isn’t absolutely crucial (economically not just socially) is crack pot thinking. Just as ruling out any and all tax changes is. Spending more in total is absolutely not enough to achieve growth. The UK government has been leaking money to the wrong people, and wrong industries, for decades. Too early to see whether this government will do better… but a focus on how and where the money is spent is the correct one. As is addressing taxation.
I think a lot rests on the budget.
If this takes them off another cliff - there will be carnage.
But then again leaders seem to do a good job of hanging on in there.
Honestly what a waste of time - all that opportunity for rebuilding post Tory.
I am sure that Starmer would be perfectly happy bailing out, handing over the reins to whoever, and getting on with the next stage of his personal career.
...perhaps one day, if he tries hard enough - he'll become a toolmaker! 🤩
Failing government = bring in ID cards.
My god this will drop them another 2 PTS.
Tossers.
FUQ-A-DUCK - he's bloody clueless!! 😱😱
Lots trailed about this at LibDem conference… oddly. Talk there was about dropping opposition to it. If it’s about expanding NI numbers so they can be used for all income, I don’t hugely see the problem (apart from possibly yet more negative noise around “immigrants” rather than reducing tax dodging and HRMC mistakes). Talk of “services” worries me greatly. If linked to NHS services it could be very dangerous (and expensive).
Failing government = bring in ID cards.
My god this will drop them another 2 PTS.
Tossers.
It's no drama at all. I've already bought a fake one off TEMU for a tenner.
It seems very popular with the public, Tony Blair and Morgan McSweeney have obviously done their homework
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/digital-id-cards-tony-blair-institute-b2832661.html
Some 67 per cent said they would use it to report potholes, while 61 per cent said they would use the app to inform the council about missed bin collections or fly-tipping.
Plus it will stop illegal foreigners from reporting that their bins haven't been emptied.
I've already bought a fake one off TEMU for a tenner.
I don’t expect there to be a physical card. If there is, I won’t be carrying it, except on day one of a new job.
My god this will drop them another 2 PTS.
Give it a chance. The very latest opinion poll might give Reform UK a 16 point lead over Labour but it's still early days yet. You wait until it filters through to voters that despite rising food and energy prices they will be able to report their missed rubbish collection with the minimum of fuss.
Unless Nigel Farage can come up with a better gimmick 🤔
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-24th-september-2025/
How much will "THE WAR ON ID CARD FRAUD" cost?
I've cut starmer a lot of slack but this is an idea that I will not tolerate. Even Thatcher was against them.
My immediate concern is how are digital IDs going to be kept secure on a mobile with internet access?
What if someone pinches my mobile?
What if someone clones my ID number for dodgy activities?
What stops friends/family borrowing mobiles with suitable ID clearance to do things that their own ID prevents?
And how is this new ID going to be so much better/secure than NI cards, passports, driving licenses etc?
There is the cost to setup and renew a digital ID scheme, but primarily it's the security that jumps out at me right after this announcement.
The Times reporting this as ID cards for workers getting a job, although it’ll be the thin of a mighty wedge IMO. Interestingly The Time is running a poll on it and 8,000 votes in and it’s 80% in favour - not what I was expecting.
I really can't understand what the problem with an ID card is. You realise that most countries Europe, and in fact most countries in the world, have ID cards. Is using bank statements or utility bills really an efficient way of proving who you are and where you live?
My immediate concern is how are digital IDs going to be kept secure on a mobile with internet access?
Do you never pay with your phone?
And how is this new ID going to be so much better/secure than NI cards, passports, driving licenses etc?
I expect it’s more like the GDV/GOV.UK One Login (which can be linked to NI numbers) but not used by HRMC etc for everyone (yet). It’s currently far from simple… and not everyone has existing ID for set up… so a single digital ID could streamline it so everyone could use it everywhere. Many adults don’t have either a passport or driving licence (or residence permit).
My immediate concern is how are digital IDs going to be kept secure on a mobile with internet access?
Do you never pay with your phone?
Never used my mobile for payments.
There is a very big philosophical difference between compulsory ID cards and compulsory carrying of ID cards. I can't really see a problem with the former but have a big issue with the latter.
Unfortunately with a digital solution its going to blur the lines as most people carry a phone most of the time. If this was brought in I'd have to think carefully whether I wanted it on my main phone or just on my laptop, or even a burner phone I just carry when needed. If it was a compulsory carry, I'd almost certainly refuse and so would many others - I can't see a Labour govt sanctioning the arrest of British Citizens for non compliance, it would be Poll Tax x 100 - obvs if its a Reform led coalition then all bets are off but then I'd be moving to Europe in that scenario anyway.
Never used my mobile for payments.
Fair enough. You know that people do though, yes? Same as that.
You realise that most countries Europe, and in fact most countries in the world, have ID cards.
Yes but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea. In most countries in Europe and the rest of the world the police routinely carry firearms, I wouldn't want that to happen in the UK though.
The UK has had a long history of being less bureaucratic and more relaxed than many other countries. IMO that has been severely eroded in recent decades, compulsory ID cards appears to be part of that trend.
For the record I don't have particularly strong views on the issue, although my primary concern is probably with relation to people getting harassed to prove that they have a legal right to be in the UK and the inconvenience of not being able to produce a compulsory ID card when required, for whatever reason, such as a flat phone battery.
...perhaps one day, if he tries hard enough - he'll become a toolmaker!
I heard someone say his father was one.
Quite happy to own a government issued ID card, not so happy if expected to carry it around with me. But it's a very easy way to deal with the illegal labour market so if the dodgy car wash is raided and the owner can't show the evidence that he checked the IDs of his workers, then the book can easily be thrown.
Long term if it becomes difficult to get casual work then this will presumably have an impact on the number of illegal economic migrants.
I will be interested to see what they do about people who don't have a mobile phone or have an ancient dumb phone?
MY partner's mother is mid 90s and has never had a mobile phone or computer, she can't be the only one.
If it’s for digital services, then anyone in their 90s might struggle anyway I suppose. You can’t really deal with the HRMC for example without the use of a computer (or modern phone). Access to digital services is a big issue for many (be that through age, poverty, language or impairment), but I don’t see this making that any worse. Of course if they tried to mandate its use to access the NHS and other necessary services then that could have horrific negative effects.
If it’s for digital services, then anyone in their 90s might struggle anyway I suppose. You can’t really deal with the HRMC for example without the use of a computer (or modern phone). Access to digital services is a big issue for many (be that through age, poverty, language or impairment), but I don’t see this making that any worse. Of course if they tried to mandate its use to access the NHS and other necessary services then that could have horrific negative effects.
I think that's the main thing... the government already has your tax record, your national insurance number, your address, etc, etc.
Most people already have digital ID whether they know it or not, bus pass, drivers licence, passport...etc.
It's not the concept I have a problem with, because the all the data is already there so it's a moot point...it's the implementation...
Petition against digital ID rapidly approaching 250k signatures, not that these things are anything but the illusion of democracy in action.
No doubt the cross over between people who don't want ID cards and don't want migrants is pretty large.
Personally I've no issue with it. Would prefer it was optional, in reality if it's a decent scheme it will make most peoples lives easier and will have a pretty positive uptake. Making it compulsory just gives the moaners something else to moan about.
this will presumably have an impact on the number of illegal economic migrants.
Won't illegal workers carry on working illegally like they do today? Employers already have to check right to work. I don't see how this affects illegal workers. Whereas it does affect everyone else.
Keir Starmer is mad to be introducing this.
No doubt the cross over between people who don't want ID cards and don't want migrants is pretty large.
Exactly "illegal workers" is just double speak for immigrants, it is just more racism from Starmer with a veneer of deniability for the chattering classes. Another dead cat for his right wing economic failures.
Petition against digital ID rapidly approaching 250k signatures, not that these things are anything but the illusion of democracy in action.
Well there are around 50 million people in the UK over 18 soooooo....0.5% don't want it so far. Not that I'm massively for it mind you but sometimes when people quote these petitions as being useless (which they mainly are) this is generally because.
0.5% don't want it so far.
No, you appear to be referring to how many people have signed a petition, not how many people don't want it.
It is self-evident that 99.5% support for the proposal is unlikely.
I very rarely sign petitions but it doesn't mean that I am generally quite happy with what the government is doing.
It does seem to be popular though, in sharp contrast to when Tony Blair attempted to introduce it. Blair has obviously given it some thought and the "you'll be able to report potholes and missed bin collection" stunt appears to have possibly paid off.
No, you appear to be referring to how many people have signed a petition, not how many people don't want it.
That was kind of my point! This is why I said these petitions are mainly useless. I added in the mainly because they do trigger a commons discussion at 100,000. However in this instance that’s pointless as obviously there will be plenty of parliamentary discussion on this subject anyway.
Yes I agree that petitions of this sort are mostly pointless, which is why I rarely sign any. But the level of support they attract is a reflection of the wider public feeling.
A petition with huge public support is likely to attract the attention of government politicians, whatever they may claim.
Governments with massive majorities literally quake in fear when faced with an internet petition. It’ll be panic stations in number ten right now.
If you’ve not signed it already then you’ll be ostracised in the common room
Again a million and one other things they could fix and it won't stop sweet FA.
Quick my energy and water bill has gone through the roof - then the solution must be digital ID cards!
Starmer is walking disaster.
Like everything else, whether it's a good idea or not is going to depend largely on how it's implemented (the Digital ID, not compulsory physical ID cards, compulsory physical ID cards are always going to be a terrible idea).
Norway and several other countries have a 'P-number' which you get at birth and then is used for pretty much everything vaguely official. It's worth bearing in mind Norway is a country of 6 million, not 60 million.
As a foreigner, once you've got your p-number everything is fairly straight forward and you quickly forget all the hassle you had when you didn't have one. For example, you can't open a bank account without a P-number. Landlords (who often don't like renting to foreigners anyway) won't take tenants without a P-number, etc.
When I first moved to Norway I was quite lucky because work provided me with accommodation for the first month and someone from the employment agency took me to my appointments at the police station to get the paperwork sorted. For those who are left to sort themselves out it can be a nightmare.
So, like I said, it can be OK if it's implemented well. Good luck with that.
my watch probably has more data on me than the government does
im struggling to see a problem with this other than Bruce's point about implementing it well.
So it’s effectively a digital National Insurance card?
In a world where Tesco are holding more information on me than the government, it’s not even registering on my give-a-shit-ometer
Also: Farage is opposed to it, along with the usual tinfoil helmet brigade saying this makes us into North Korea or some other paranoid guff
I think the devil is in the detail.
You have about 3.5 million people without a phone. The records of the NHS, tax , pensions etc will all need linking.
Given successive governments wonderful record with big IT projects, there might be a few glitches.
Given that it has taken lots of phone calls and emails to sort out my electoral status after the local electoral services unit made an extra version of me. I remain to be convinced.
The other concern is for people like the Windrush people who have been here for years and who might get caught in the anti immigration fervour.
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet but my biggest concern with digital ID is how much cross-linking of data there is between phone apps. They all feed data from one another.
How long before Facebook, Insta, X and your health apps require permission to access your digital ID (hidden in T&Cs that we all click accept) cross pollinating personal data.
You have about 3.5 million people without a phone.
I can’t imagine many, if any of those are working age.
They might not be but it’s foolish not to recognise that use of this ID is going to proliferate.
Would you be happy for a Farage led government to be able to erase you from the digital record.
We are already seeing Starmer happily handing data to the AI tech bros, legislation reducing our rights to our own data at the time when we need more legislative protection.
I have always been a fan of big data being used for epidemiological studies to improve health and life, but the people the keys to the kingdom are being handed to are not interested in our health and happiness, they are interested in squeezing the life out of us for their gain not ours. In the past I ticked the box saying they can use my data whenever it appears on health forms, over the past 12 months I have stopped because of how I see data being treated and the likelihood that it will be used against me and the increasing lack of legislative protection.
Perhaps the likely collapse of the AI bubble will actually come to the rescue before the gormless clowns in government, but if we look at the dominance of the likes of amazon, facebook and google that emerged after the .com bubble, and how they use data and market dominance to control and manipulate society and politics, I would prefer legal protection rather than "hopes and prayers"
Would you be happy for a Farage led government to be able to erase you from the digital record.
How or why do you think anyone is going to ‘erase me from the digital world’?
if you don't think every form you fill in online isn't in some way already using your data you're woefully naive. At least with the card they're transparent about it.
Click to accept this message
or
Decline and subscribe
Also this is Labour were talking about will this ever see the light of day? Like all their fraudulent incoherent promises they're so far in the future as to be irrelevant.
They can't deliver a supermarket trolly back to the car park never mind run a country.
The conference will be written by Jesse Armstrong I'm sure.
Also this is Labour were talking about will this ever see the light of day? Like all their being promised they're so far in the future as to be irrelevant.
They can't deliver a supermarket trolly back to the car park never mind run a country.
Owen Jones is presently on the radio making out that this is Minority Report 🙄
So we’re being asked to simultaneously believe that the government
a) couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery
b) is the dark sinister hand, ruthlessly manipulating every aspect of our lives
Mkay…
How long before unscrupulous people figure out how to harvest your government ID from third party sites (see latest npm attacks for examples) and you wake up and find your pension is now being sent to a bank account in Russia, and you can't do anything about it because they changed the "security" questions?
Farage is opposed to it, along with the usual tinfoil helmet brigade saying this makes us into North Korea or some other paranoid guff
Ah, the politics of the sixth form common room......if people I don't like take a position then it must be wrong and I will oppose it. It makes life so much simpler and easy to understand !
Are the Liberal Democrats part of this "tinfoil helmet brigade"?
@oldandpasit Given that describes most modern banking, and that happens rarely, I'm going to say it's unlikely.
You have to prove that you have the right to work in the UK already to get a job. For most folks that's your passport or some other residency permit, and that goes un-remarked by 99% of people. But replace the word passport with ID card and some folks lose their minds
Farage is opposed to it, along with the usual tinfoil helmet brigade saying this makes us into North Korea or some other paranoid guff
Lmfao. You can bet if the Tories or Reform were doing this you'd be calling it Taliban-esq or something.
Who would even begin to trust Labour and Starmer with such a project - the lying mendacious charlatans. These are the same people that think private finance in the shape of Blackrock is going to save the UK.
Are the Liberal Democrats part of this "tinfoil helmet brigade"?
Aha the good old test of Liberal values versus Labour party zealotry.
"We are Centrists we shape our ideas based on whatever Starmer believes on a Friday."
When are you Libs gonna get it - Starmer is destroying everything you believed in and here they are lining up to justify another absolute Reform inducing win.
I haven't got a problem with ID cards but I do have a problem with Digital ID cards due to Cybersecurity risk. I can see a time in next 10 years or so when a lot of things go back to paper based as stopping cyber criminal activity (especially when state actors will have quantum computing available) will take more time/effort and importantly cost meaning any profits are gone on protecting digital systems. Yes it will be like going back in time to less efficient days but it will happen.
You have to prove that you have the right to work in the UK already to get a job. For most folks that's your passport or some other residency permit, and that goes un-remarked by 99% of people. But replace the word passport with ID card and some folks lose their minds
Which makes you wonder how introducing Digital IDs is going to 'Stop the Boats' as Starmer has claimed. How are Digital IDs going to do what the current requirements can't?
As usual, Starmer has framed this argument so poorly people are left scratching their heads and wondering what the real play is. And assuming the real play is not going to be something that benefits them.
There is definitely a conversation to be had about Digital IDs but the way Starmer has decided to kick it off means people are quite rightly asking questions about what the government is trying to achieve with all this.
The petition against the BritCard up nearly 100K signatures since I signed it this morning:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
Note, I have no political leanings and distrust them all equally.
Which makes you wonder how introducing Digital IDs is going to 'Stop the Boats' as Starmer has claimed. How are Digital IDs going to do what the current requirements can't?
It won't. It's impossible to police in that way.
There will always be away specifically in the digital realm to get passed it. (Can I borrow your phone mate.) It's hardly going to put desperate people of is it?
Also, is it actually going to be called a 'BritCard'?
I'm sure that's going to be wonderfully popular with at least one section of society in Northern Ireland and Scotland.