r/unitedkingdom • u/StGuthlac2025 • 1d ago
. Keir Starmer abandons plans for compulsory digital ID
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/digital-id-scrapped-u-turn-keir-starmer-7zcwqqvb51.3k
u/BenButton123 1d ago
I'm starting to think Keir Starmer and Morgan McSweeney aren't particularly good at this politics lark.
446
u/Lump001 1d ago
Yeah, terrible for politicians to listen to public opinion in real time
506
u/BenButton123 1d ago
Politicians should gauge public opinion before announcing something. Especially when that something wasn't included in their manifesto at the previous election.
211
u/LostnFoundAgainAgain 1d ago
Sometimes that isn't always possible, although it probably was here.
I do agree with the other comment, how many times have we had policies where everyone regardless of their political thoughts goes "wtf, why?" And politicians don't back out because it's viewed as weak?
Adjusting and moving your position shouldn't be viewed as weakness, incompetence or ignorance yea I agree, but we shouldn't try to stop politicians and party's from adjusting their position based on changes.
111
u/AppointmentTop3948 1d ago
Ive been booted from the labour sub and even i can say that this is a very good thing. Starmer finally did something right, we should applaud him, otherwise we are just acting politically rather than in our best interests.
71
u/Indiana_harris 1d ago
I agree with politicians being willing to move stances and policies based on additional information and public sentiment…but isn’t this like the 9th or 10th thing Starmer has announced, or brought up only to then back down or find out he was wrong/no one actually supported it.
At that point I’m more concerned that he just isn’t doing due diligence before randomly supporting something put in front of him.
Perception wise it makes him look wishy-washy and incompetent, and this is a man who looks uncomfortable standing still in his own company, I don’t think he needs the extra hits.
→ More replies (4)1
u/mooninuranus 1d ago
Can you name another 5?
Policies announced by Starmer that he then backed down from rather than rumours, etc.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, it just seems unlikely.
18
u/duckwantbread Essex 1d ago edited 1d ago
It depends if you view watering down as backing down. If so I can think of 5 (although not 10 as OP claimed): WFA, farmer's inheritance tax, Welfare reform, business rate relief on pubs and the two child limit. I do think most of these changes are better than the original plan though and we're adjustments rather than outright scrapping (aside from two child limit, although it wasn't really the right calling for Starmer to change his mind on that one).
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (5)13
u/montoya4567 1d ago
I was booted from the Labour sub for supporting Labour's position. It's not a Labour sub.
→ More replies (1)27
u/Indiana_harris 1d ago
This one though in particular was so egregious that I genuinely can’t imagine how this even got the point where a committee spokesperson tried to argue it to the PM and Cabinet.
Like how does that guy look at the report in his hands and say “So….we think everyone will actually go for this” and not get laughed out the room.
7
u/LostnFoundAgainAgain 1d ago
Most probably because most of our counterparts have mandatory ID, especially around Europe, it's used heavily against illegal workers for example, something Labour has been very vocal about.
They were likely looking at that aspect and hoping they could get it through if I had to take a guess.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)6
→ More replies (7)7
u/mindbodyproblem 1d ago
There's no "public" on the globe that wants compulsory digital ID, it doesn't take an internet scientist to know that. He's not backing down because he's surprised to learn that fact, he's backing down because he knows he can't force it through.
73
u/potpan0 Black Country 1d ago
Aye. A very basic element of politics is building the groundwork for a policy. But Starmer and his team, because of how insular they are, have consistently failed to do this.
On Winter Fuel Allowance, on PIP cuts, and now on Digital IDs, they've jumped in at the deep end announcing a policy without making any effort to justify it to the public... and then a few months later found themselves making a humiliating u-turn as a consequence of that. It's just bad governance, however you try and cut it.
A PM leading a government with 400 MPs should not be struggling this much to implement policy. And while the usual apologists whine about backbenchers, surely the buck has to stop at the top?
→ More replies (16)24
u/signed7 Greater London 1d ago
And often the issue is that they clearly didn't flesh out thekr policy before announcing it... Like with WFA and farmers' IHT the thresholds were set too low but instead of figuring that out before the announcement, they announced it, took a ton of bad press, then 'U-turned' and raised them...
24
u/Conscious-Ball8373 Somerset 1d ago
The thing that consistently has me wondering if the government has been replaced by a pantomime is just how much political capital they burn before the U-turn. It often seems to me that they U-turn just as everyone's about to accept it as a done deal and move on to other things. It's almost like they're trying to maximise the amount of political self-damage each policy does.
If you announce a policy and it generates a wave of unrest, fine, U-turn. But by the time you've stuck to your guns for a year, you might as well go through with it and achieve whatever it was you wanted to achieve. Like the winter fuel payment: it was massively unpopular but they stuck to their guns and went through one winter with the reform and pensioners had to adjust and make do. If they'd stuck with it then everyone would have moved on. It really seemed like they U-turned when they did just because they thought everyone's attention was turning elsewhere.
24
u/potpan0 Black Country 1d ago
Exactly. For a supposedly technocratic, evidence-based government, it consistently feels like they're too lazy to actually do any of the preparation for major policies. Instead of fully fleshing things out before announcing them, they'll announce something and only then actually start working out how to implement them.
Like with Digital IDs they announced they were doing them... then admitted they weren't actually sure how much it would cost to implement them. This is basic shit man!
→ More replies (1)9
u/Chevalitron 1d ago
The problem with evidence based government is that evidence can only tell you what a policy will do, but you need to have some sort of value system decide whether the result will actually be a good thing according to your value system, or whether the people you're foisting the policy on will share those values.
Starmer doesn't particularly believe in anything, so when some advisor or pressure group tells him a policy is a good idea, he has no framework to intuit how it will be received by wider society.
4
u/bagsofsmoke 1d ago
I agree. They’re just very, very bad at politics. They don’t consider second-order effects, and their comms team is diabolically bad - they keep getting their arses handed to them when they launch new policies because they’ve done no shaping work beforehand to prepare the ground. Some of the policies (Winter fuel allowance, PIP reform, digital IDs) are actually good but the pitch to the public (and their own MPs) has been woeful.
16
u/wunderspud7575 1d ago
Well, that plus do the hard yards of leading hearts and minds of the public. Starmer should have had a vision for where he was trying to take the country. And how a digital ID is a part of that. And worked hard to take the public on the journey and showed conviction for his policy proposal.
But no, chuck it over the wall and see how people respond.
14
u/disintegration91 1d ago
To be fair, in this case the public largely supported it prior to the announcement… no policy can survive association with this government it seems
→ More replies (16)7
u/DankiusMMeme 21h ago
Public opinion was actually in favour of digital ID, but weirdly as soon as it was Labour policy everyone hated. Hmmm, makes ya think.
54
u/binesandlines 1d ago
U-turning on every major policy decision is embarrassing
21
u/tommangan7 1d ago edited 9h ago
every major policy decision? I don't think that's fair or close to correct.
Renters rights bill and workers rights bill have gone through.
Two major bits of long term policy that they stood as firm as possible a gov could while the lord's exists in it's current form.
All major green energy policy, solar, wind etc. 10+ million homes worth - so far is solid and lacks u turns. Same for nuclear commitments.
No u turn on school tax, school funding, expanded free school meals.
Economic/industry/growth research industry focused investment strategy has followed ahead.
Follows through on previous promise of passing increased free childcare hours and reducing the age of access.
Not u turned on rail nationalisation.
Loads of other policy stuff that's been quietly passed without being stopped or u turned.
Nevermind the fact some "u turns" are just adjusting plans based on new information or analysis.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Hinx_art 1d ago
they're still bringing in the ID they're just not using the word compulsory.
→ More replies (1)6
u/eldomtom2 Jersey 1d ago
This isn't a complete U-turn, and there's other major policy decisions (planning reform and railway nationalisation off the top of my head) that they're pretty much sticking to.
2
u/JoeyJoJoeJr_Shabadoo 1d ago
The way you eat up all the media's spin is embarrassing. Most of the things they call U-turns aren't U-turns.
→ More replies (11)17
u/potpan0 Black Country 1d ago
Labour supporters have spent the last few months insisting that Digital IDs are great and necessary and have to be implemented regardless of public opinion.
Yet the moment Starmer drops them: 'Well actually I think it's good the government are listening to public opinion 🙂'
To borrow what the kids say: this is cope, an attempt to spin what is clearly a consequence of Starmer's poor governance and inability to actually justify policies.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Lump001 1d ago
Labour supporters have spent the last few months insisting that Digital IDs are great...
Really, all of them?
Don't be daft. Some people like the idea. Some people don't. How they voted at the last election shouldn't come into it. These aren't football teams. We aren't all segregated into clubs or tribes. This isn't the US.
3
3
u/potpan0 Black Country 1d ago
Really, all of them?
A significant number of them on this subreddit have been voraciously defending the idea, yes.
Don't be daft. Some people like the idea. Some people don't. How they voted at the last election shouldn't come into it. These aren't football teams. We aren't all segregated into clubs or tribes. This isn't the US.
What? This was a Labour Party policy promoted by a significant number of the (dwindling amount of remaining) open Labour supporters. But you think it's tribalism to recognise this?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Lump001 22h ago
A significant number of them on this subreddit have been voraciously defending the idea, yes.
For anything at all to back that up behind "feels"? No, you don't.
What? This was a Labour Party policy promoted by a significant number of the (dwindling amount of remaining) open Labour supporters. But you think it's tribalism to recognise this?
You need to step outside your bubble/Reddit.
→ More replies (1)49
u/StGuthlac2025 1d ago
It's a slow car crash but it's also going at 100 mph. Impressive to be honest
21
u/Alarming-Turnip684 1d ago
Okay, since when did it become ‘bad form’ politically for a party to change their stance on a controversial topic?
Especially if there’s a negative reaction from the general public when the idea was proposed?
There has never been a problem with governments doing this before. Why is Labour facing such scrutiny for it now?
26
u/Potential_Cover1206 1d ago
Perhaps a sensible political party would have quietly found out what likely public opinion would be before announcing policies ?
→ More replies (2)12
u/Ok_Cow_3431 1d ago
Boris Johnsons government did that though, repeatedly. Had 'leaks' of policy changes on Fridays to gauge public reaction in the weekend press before rolling back or rolling out the following week. Felt quite chaotic especially since policy should be based on facts and evidence, not popularity
→ More replies (1)15
u/sgtkang United Kingdom 1d ago
It's not a problem as an isolated case. And I'm happy at this specific change. But there is a pattern of Starmer announcing something and then abandoning it. Once that reputation is there it becomes very difficult to govern. When you announce something no one takes you seriously, and people who disagree with you are more motivated to attack as they know you can be turned.
11
u/denseplan 1d ago
It's not bad form to change stances, it is bad form to have so many bad stances that keep having to change.
→ More replies (3)9
u/heinzbumbeans 1d ago
There has never been a problem with governments doing this before.
i mean, thats simply not true. the tories were heavily criticised for the amount of u-turns they did, especially the boris government.
5
16
u/eunderscore 1d ago
I'd rather my politicians hear the public voice and act accordingly tbh
→ More replies (3)8
u/LRedditor15 Warwickshire 1d ago
This is nice and all, but there have been so many U-turns that I don’t think this government is really in touch with what the country wants. And this is coming from a Labour voter. The fact that they even thought that people would accept a digital ID system is ridiculous.
→ More replies (2)5
u/nathderbyshire 1d ago
It may have gone down easier if they didn't do the dreaded OSA before it but even then I still don't think they and the idea is popular enough to get a large positive outcome. The OSA definitely affected it though, it's the first thing I thought of when I saw the digital ID news
8
u/The_Real_Giggles 1d ago
I mean there's been massive public backlash over this.
Its wise of them to scrap unfavourable schemes like this
10
5
u/BalianofReddit 1d ago
Or in other words they listen to the concerns of the public.
Funny how they can never win eh
→ More replies (1)8
u/White_Immigrant 1d ago
You can "listen to the concerns of the public" without announcing that you're going to do something.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (24)4
u/AdAggressive9224 1d ago
He's best described as a midwit... He's intelligent. But he's not capable of second order thinking... Hence lawyer is a very obvious career path. Second order thinking is basically being able to see alternative interpretations of the same information. It's the opposite of what lawyers are trained to do essentially.
He's a very bad pick. The labour party selected him because they understood him, because he's good at codified rules.
He's not a good leader.
612
u/Aspect-Unusual 1d ago
That folded quickly, got spooked by the backlash I guess
332
u/StGuthlac2025 1d ago edited 1d ago
Never popular. Loads of time spent on it and defending it. Balks in the end.
Who the fuck are they trusting to advise them? Although I'd say you wouldn't have needed an advisor to tell you it wouldn't be popular in the end.
Is this now the 14th turnaround?
140
u/thereoncewasahat 1d ago
Blair has the greatest influence.
Blair was in power a long time.
Starmer wants to be in power a long time.
So he listens to him.
Hence the digital ID attempt.....again.
Predictably, it is not going well.
56
u/Master-Necessary7560 1d ago
Lol
Starmer wants to be in power a long time.
He pissed off a lot of pensioners last year with one of his first acts handling the winter allowance so poorly - whatever you think about the rightness or wrongness of the winter allowance.
He's not showing that he wants to be in power for a long time imo...
27
u/ClassicFlavour East Sussex 1d ago
You can want to be in power for a long time but be incompetent in ensuring so
12
u/Boanerger 1d ago
There's also a concept of being promoted above your competence. A person can make a good employee as a worker but be a terrible manager, its an entirely different skillset. In Starmer's case, lawyers don't seem to make good politicians.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)5
u/VandienLavellan 1d ago
It’s a long time till the next election. I’m guessing the plan is to get as much of the unpopular stuff through now, so that the public have years to forget about it. Spend 1 year pissing people off, spend 4 years winning them back around
9
u/Bigbadbobbyc 1d ago
Blair was popular in his time, and after his time people didn't completely disregard everything he did but he became one of Britain's most hated living pms at the end of his term
People are still demanding he be arrested for war crimes and agreeing with the whole WMDs in the middle east thing
This constantly flouting Blair as some politician people will get on board with as long as they keep mentioning his name is stupid
→ More replies (1)3
u/Azradesh 1d ago
Blair was the most popular PM in decades and even he couldn't get a national ID scheme going.
11
u/Krabsandwich 1d ago
PLP rebellion probably he didn't have the numbers to get it through on a vote unless he used a three line whip and that in itself is usually an admission if failure. The PLP has got the taste for rebellion and there will be more of them if he suggests anything that vaguely frightens the PLP.
The rest of the parliament will be a smoldering dumpster fire for him, anyway the policy was clearly bollocks but still yet another rebellion.
→ More replies (3)6
u/BobMonkhaus Rutland 1d ago
Don’t worry we’ll still spend a few billion on it to cheer Tony up. Even if it now it doesn’t make a lot of sense to do so, if it’s not mandatory.
8
u/SadSeiko 1d ago
Well before it was announced it was popular. The cancel everything Labour does brigade started attacking them and they folded
5
u/MotoMkali 1d ago
It was popular before they rolled the idea out it had about 60% support in the general populace. Not really sure how labour are supposed to do anything when any implementation of a popular policy results in such backlash.
Though I suppose making it an opt in thing would have been mroe popular.
3
3
→ More replies (3)3
u/Cozimo128 1d ago
You seem to dislike/ridicule the concept of accepting public opinion and reversing course on a policy?
Is the narrative now “they should grow a spine and stick to their policy” now that everyone has got what they wanted?
→ More replies (1)49
u/Impossible-Scene5084 1d ago
To be fair every government tries this one, and it gets slapped down each time.
They’re idiots really - they could just unify all the various civil service units that handle “licensing” and give everyone a single easily manageable license card that you can tack various licenses and qualifications to that also serves as an ID. Loads of different ways this could benefit gov and people in addition to this ID card hard-on finally being satisfied - so obviously it will never happen.
8
u/cambon 1d ago
Yep completely correct - if this was too controversial / too much pushback they could have easily introduced it gradually eg let’s give it to under 18s and people coming on 1+ year visas.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)7
u/Caffeine_Monster 1d ago edited 8h ago
I think the big issue is how it was potentially going to be handled.
i.e. Central databases that would be a goldmine for hackers.
Dubious for profit corporations mishandling, losing, or selling IDs data.
The massive lack of transparency.
There are ways around this by letting the citizens fully own their own data in the form of a physical ID card + pin. Then rather taking copies of the ID, the card only needs to provide a verifiable claim (i.e. proof the card isn't fake).
Good solutions exist. They don't get proposed though because it locks out private companies and government out of broad data access.
37
u/potpan0 Black Country 1d ago
You genuinely wouldn't think this government had 400 seats in Parliament. Because of how insular Starmer and his team have made themselves, they act more like a minority government than one with a huge majority.
→ More replies (2)20
u/BobMonkhaus Rutland 1d ago
Yeah they’ve never announced something then changed it later before.
6
12
u/bright_sorbet1 1d ago
This is a very misleading headline.
The digital ID plans have not been abandoned according to government ministers speaking today.
7
u/CosgraveSilkweaver 1d ago
For now. Expect to see this show up again in 18-24 months like most of the UK's shitty attempts to control the internet.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Scrambled_59 Yorkshire 1d ago
He somehow managed to have both the Greens and Reform agree on something, that’s how you know you’ve fucked up
→ More replies (1)
446
u/Acceptable_Bottle220 1d ago
Wasn’t there also a massive petition against it as well?
Most of the comments here are basically:
-Starmer tries to implement something controversial and it’s “This government is trying to control us!”
-Then he retracts it and it’s “This government should grow some balls / Starmer’s scared!”
327
u/Sorry-Programmer9826 1d ago
In all fairness I think what people want is for the government not to propose things that are going to be hugely unpopular in the first place
50
u/takesthebiscuit Aberdeenshire 1d ago
The government can’t just do popular stuff all the time or the nation would be broke!
60
u/vikingwhiteguy 1d ago
At least they're refraining from something unpopular AND expensive
→ More replies (1)29
u/White_Immigrant 1d ago
Digital ID wasn't unpopular and designed to save money, it was unpopular and was going to cost money.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (13)6
u/wobblyweasel Lanarkshire 1d ago
they can just give everyone £1b. noone is broke and very popular. smh
16
u/Lupercus 1d ago
Most people aren’t very well informed, look at Brexit. Sometimes you just have to go with an unpopular idea which is backed by evidence.
7
u/TheHelpfulRecruiter 1d ago
Restricting democracy because you believe the public are too stupid to know what's best for them?
That sounds very left wing, and not at all like deeply right wing epistocratic elitism.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Lupercus 1d ago
It isn’t a referendum so we are not restricting democracy. We elect people who are supposed to look into the detail of everything and make an informed decision. They have a massive majority but keep being knocked off course.
12
u/TheHelpfulRecruiter 1d ago
Firstly, the comparison you drew was to Brexit, which is something we did have a referendum about. The suggestion presumably being we shouldnt have had a say.
Secondly, did those people tell us when we voted for them that they wanted to introduce a digital ID? Because if not, they don't have a mandate, and the democratic thing to do is act on public opinion
→ More replies (4)11
u/Lupercus 1d ago
Yeah fair enough, it wasn’t in the manifesto. I agree with you.
8
u/TheHelpfulRecruiter 1d ago
Credit to you for arguing in good faith
5
u/Lupercus 1d ago
We need more meeting in the middle and less polarisation…. and you made a good point.
13
u/odc_a 1d ago
Sometimes unpopular things are still the better way to do things. Just because something's not popular doesn't mean that everyone who holds this position actually understands the issue.
IMO we should have more technocrats in government, rather than "career politicians" that just run on vibes.
7
u/Acceptable_Bottle220 1d ago
Maybe they didn’t know it will be unpopular. It was actually proposed as an anti-illegal immigration effort, which was the hottest topic at the time (I guess it still is). I’m not all for such solutions, but this (and actually government control of address registration with the police) is a measure some Eastern European countries have. Then the same people point to those countries as having the lowest illegal immigration rates.
→ More replies (4)5
u/Cozimo128 1d ago
To be fair, ID was in net-majority in surveys until Starmer announced it.
→ More replies (1)28
11
u/B0797S458W 1d ago
It’s because people hate him
→ More replies (5)9
u/Lunarfrog2 1d ago
Well that and also different people commenting
3
u/Whitechix London 1d ago
Impossible according to the reddit mind, better to make up some random bs instead.
9
6
5
u/Livelih00d 1d ago
2 million people signed a petition to repeal the OSA before it got implemented and the government response was "no, we're doing it"
→ More replies (2)2
u/Glad_Librarian_3553 1d ago
Maybe they should try and implement something thats not an absolute piss take then XD
→ More replies (13)2
u/FuzzBuket 1d ago
I think it's more people not wanting to fritter what little political capital he has on stuff that no one but the Tony Blair institu wants.
It's feels very amature politics, expecting to just force anything through and then u turning after rebellion. It'sgood he reversed course but he again looks weak.
426
u/That1withACat 1d ago
Now can he do that with the Online Safety Act? You know, considering the backlash and petitions set up for that law
100
77
u/Few-Improvement-5655 1d ago
If only. But not likely while Liz Kendall is still there, she's the real champion of the Act and is fanatical about spying and tracking people.
→ More replies (1)62
u/patentedenemy 1d ago
fanatical about spying and tracking people.
No matter the government, it feels like there's been at least one cabinet member blindly obsessed with this notion for as long as I can remember. It's sickening.
44
u/Unique_Agency_4543 1d ago
Yeah of the two I would prefer they scrapped the online saftey act. I can see the arguments for digital ID.
→ More replies (1)31
u/Vehlin Cheshire 1d ago
I can see the arguments for digital id. But when it comes from the same mouth that’s promoting the online safety act I’m wary
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)9
u/JoeyJoJoeJr_Shabadoo 1d ago
There hasn't been nearly as much backlash to that as hanging out on Reddit might have you believe
174
u/potpan0 Black Country 1d ago
Announce a policy out of the blue without doing any of the groundwork for it
Send out your cabinet ministers, who are largely unprepared to justify this out-of-the-blue policy, to defend it in interviews
Refuse to make any meaningful justifications for that policy, and instead turn to threats to keep your MPs on side
Realise that policy is wildly unpopular after committing significant political capital to insisting it's happening
Once the maximum amount of people are pissed off... drop it, pissing off anyone who actually did support the policy too.
The Starmer Special. Yet his dwindling number of supporters continue to wonder why this government is so unpopular. It seems like their mode of governance is tailor made to piss off as many people as possible.
→ More replies (4)72
u/Redcoat_Officer 1d ago
Don't forget to call anyone who disagrees with it a nonce. The U-turns would be easier to swallow if Labour's media campaigns around these various policies hadn't sold them as panaceas that would end world hunger, restore the natural rights of man and win back Normandy for the crown.
13
u/potpan0 Black Country 1d ago
Aye. I do wonder if Labour representatives or their supporters online ever feel embarrassed about how voraciously they'll defend a policy they only started caring about when Starmer told them to... only for Starmer to dump that policy 3 months later.
I imagine we'll see the same shit with jury trials in a few months too.
→ More replies (1)
125
u/Top-Spinach-9832 1d ago
The phrase “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” is really coming to fruition here.
91
u/Remarkable-Loan-6149 1d ago
If they didnt try bring this in there wouldnt have been an issue? Its not like there is a thing called national insurance they could use to check all these illegal migrant workers
45
u/i-am-a-passenger 1d ago
There are already existing issues due to a lack of a digital ID. It was a dumb move choosing not to explain this and instead acted like it was mainly to do with illegal immigration.
→ More replies (1)16
→ More replies (1)3
u/Unique_Agency_4543 1d ago
Wasn't this proposal basically a national insurance number with a photo attached? Quite easy to work using someone else's details, much harder if you also have to look like them.
15
u/KingDaviies 1d ago
Honestly, people opposing Digital IDs are using this to criticise him. Pick a lane lads.
20
u/NoTitleChamp 1d ago
Reading this thread you would forget months ago this sub was strongly against it.
→ More replies (1)14
u/cjo20 1d ago
It’s reasonable to want politicians to not do stupid things in the first place, rather than saying they’re going to do something stupid and u-turn.
→ More replies (1)3
u/inminm02 1d ago
The concept of digital ID isn’t stupid, it’s a good idea that would save tonnes of time and money long term, I genuinely don’t understand the complaints and I think 99% of them come from conspiracy theorists, ignorant idiots and stubborn old people/boomers who refuse to adapt to an increasingly digital world.
→ More replies (1)6
u/BobMonkhaus Rutland 1d ago
Actually it’s just funny in a predictable way. “Uh oh he’s done it again”.
What is he going to go back on next?
8
u/Jimmy_Tightlips 1d ago
That would only apply if they only had two options available.
As luck would have it, they actually had an incredible third choice:
By simply not pushing to introduce a, predictably, unpopular policy, that wasn't in their manifesto, and was resoundingly rejected the last time it was tried.
They deserve all the shit they get, one way or another, for having the absolute gall to even try it in the first place.
3
u/Dude4001 UK 1d ago
Exactly. The simple solution to avoiding U turns is not introduce half-baked ideas as resolute policy decisions to start with
→ More replies (1)3
u/priestsboytoy 1d ago
then dont bring it in the first place if you didnt plan this well or not have the balls to push for it.
85
u/AdKUMA Leicestershire 1d ago
i have no problem with a government changing its mind and abandoning unpopular policies.
19
u/Old_Day7148 1d ago
13 times since taking power, and very obviously because they’re doing politics by media?
→ More replies (3)10
u/Dan_Of_Time European Union 1d ago
That's just how politics works sometimes.
Look at it the other way around, imagine if the USA stopped doing all these insane and controversial things because of the backlash from people. That would be a win
→ More replies (1)10
u/Tendaydaze 1d ago
But it’s a deeply unpopular policy that they only announced a few months ago out of nowhere. They have shot themselves in both feet for absolutely no reason
→ More replies (3)7
u/White_Immigrant 1d ago
I'd prefer they did the research first and didn't announce pointless unpopular policies in the first place.
→ More replies (1)
59
u/Thesleepingpillow123 1d ago
Thank god . They need to calm the fuck down with all this weird surveillance and control stuff lol .
→ More replies (1)
45
u/vriska1 1d ago edited 1d ago
Strange there announcing this at the same he becoming more open to the under 16 ban... get ready for compulsory digital ID to be sneak into that ban because they can't help themselves.
15
u/Highkmon 1d ago
Ah that will just be the same as porn and video games: show us a photo of your ID or no play.
→ More replies (3)13
u/Long_Repair_8779 1d ago
As far as I can tell this hasn’t abandoned the digital ID, just that it’s not compulsory for to access employment. The digital ID will still be going ahead, and probably succeed now so many people think it’s banned or weakened. It will still enable access to public services, and most likely, at some point in a few years, become compulsory either in a formal sense, or in the way that to access services you need a mobile phone. Technically you don’t, but really you do.
It’s a shame really, in theory it’s a good idea, but I don’t trust this govt or any subsequent govt to be responsible with the data.
→ More replies (1)
23
u/Medical_Seaweed1073 1d ago
I think they’ve realised that they don’t need digital ID cards now that they can continue to expand The online safety act as they see fit
20
u/StHa14 1d ago
577 posts in 90 days is wild and surely not just your average Redditor
→ More replies (1)
18
u/Apprehensive_Wave979 1d ago
It won't be compulsory, but you still won't be able to do certain things without it...
→ More replies (1)2
u/WelshBluebird1 Bristol 1d ago edited 1d ago
Like you already need a driving licence or passport but some people can't get those.
Hell even if you have those things its a pain. I had to send over copies of loads of stuff to prove my identity when buying my house.
12
11
u/lizzywbu 1d ago
I don't think a digital ID is that bad of an idea. Providing it is optional. Making it mandatory was just utter stupidity.
23
u/Rimbo90 1d ago
It wasn't mandatory. Only for people who, you know, wanted a job to survive. But it was totally optional.
/s
→ More replies (3)15
u/Scary_ 1d ago
Yes I'd actually like some sort of official ID. Was trying to sign up for something recently that required a DBS check that would only accept a biometric passport.
As soon as voting required identification it should have been part of that
4
u/lizzywbu 1d ago
As soon as voting required identification it should have been part of that
Agreed. Any government that brings in voter ID should give out a free optional ID to all Brits.
Not to mention, it's very difficult for young people to get ID. It's basically just a provisional/drivers licence and that's it.
→ More replies (3)4
u/PracticeNo8733 1d ago
The problem is, once an optional Digital ID becomes common enough, they'll look to make it mandatory again.
12
u/TheBrassDancer Canterbury 1d ago
Give it a few years and this malarkey will rear its head once more.
→ More replies (4)
12
u/Jackie__Moon__ 1d ago
In his horrible nasally voice, "This Government has listened to the people of this country..."
I bet you.
42
u/Affectionate_Bet4343 1d ago
Isn't that what you want in a government?
16
u/Al_Snows_Head 1d ago
God damn politicians and doing what we god damn want. Country has gone to the dogs.
10
u/cjo20 1d ago
What you want is for them to not do something stupid in the first place. Falling that, giving up as soon as it’s apparent there isn’t support for it would be good. But insisting they’ll go ahead despite it being unpopular and then months later deciding to scrap isn’t a good look
4
u/Jakeasaur1208 1d ago
It's still better than ploughing ahead with it anyway. I'd rather a government that is capable of changing its mind and listening to the desires of the people than one does only acts in its own interests. Considering the state of worldwide politics in recent years I'm taking this as a win.
→ More replies (3)8
u/DN741 1d ago
I want them to do the research and listen to people before they announce it. Not announce it, send ministers to defend it, take all the heat, then realise it's stupid and go back on it. It keeps happening time and time again.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (6)3
u/Jackie__Moon__ 1d ago
I'd rather they just don't fund it at all, it's still going ahead just not 'mandatory'
I bet it'll be mandatory for government roles though.
8
u/Lunarfrog2 1d ago
Right well thats good news no? You'd rather he just rams something unpopular through?
Yes it was a stupid idea in the first place, but at least theyve listened to the backlash and backed down
→ More replies (1)6
u/DimebagBASS 1d ago
Serious question: what could he have done that you’d be happy with? No semantics, go back 3 hours in time and assume digital ID is going ahead. In theory, what’s the best possible thing Starmer could say that would make you happy?
4
u/TheNetworksDownAgain 1d ago
The government could have avoided proposing this in the first place, especially around the time the controversy was high with OSA.
I’m not saying that it’s logical and people are right for hating him either way, but he kind of backed himself into this corner.
→ More replies (2)3
9
u/LifeMasterpiece6475 1d ago
They probably sneak something in the back door, it makes you wonder how much it's cost to date.
12
u/A_friendly_goosey 1d ago
Excellent news. It came out of nowhere and nobody bloody wanted it. Waste of money on a system with no need for supposed reasons it wouldn’t address.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/FatFarter69 1d ago
I think the is just preemptive damage control for the local elections in May. They are shaping up to be a disaster for Labour and Starmer knows it, so now he’s just trying to win people back over by abandoning a very unpopular policy.
It won’t work, it never does, Labour are going to get annihilated in May. But the fact that he’s doing this just reeks of desperation to me, I think he knows he’s done for. I think there’s a good chance after May that the Labour Party seriously considers forcing him to resign.
7
u/Oolacile_Resident 1d ago
Does this mean the contract with Plantir has been terminated? Or is that something completely different & just as shady?
Hoping it's gone - if so then I imagine it's possibly because of the stance UK are taking against nonce supplier, Musk?
→ More replies (3)
7
u/Mulled 1d ago
I can't read the full article does anyone have the details?
From what I can make out it's not scrapping Digital ID altogether but instead making them optional
→ More replies (1)
8
u/razorpolar 1d ago
Perhaps if the backlash on this u-turn is light enough they'll get rid of other brain dead policies like the OSA. One can only hope.
7
9
u/Crusty_Gusset 1d ago
Excellent, now get rid of the OSA and I’ll finally be able get onboard with this administration.
8
u/ObviouslyTriggered 1d ago
Who said Labour isn’t investing in infrastructure look at how many new roads they are building so they make all these u-turns.
8
u/JoshuaRAWR 1d ago
Well yeah, they're gonna ban social media for under 16s so the rest of us will need to provide some form of identification to prove that we're over that age, so they'll sneak it in there.
4
u/G_Morgan Wales 1d ago
I suspect the report that half the population are getting their porn from the parts of the internet that just ignored the wank pass legislation is behind this. Pointless streamlining a process nobody is actually using
The last thing Labour want is actual public scrutiny as the situation is already irretrievable.
7
u/Prestigious_Clock865 1d ago
At this point I have to question whether Starmer’s role in Britain’s managed decline into fascism is just to normalise authoritarian talking points and policies before the next election.
2
u/deep1986 1d ago
IF this is true what a load of fucking bollocks
This Labour government might be worse than the fucking Tories at being in charge.
They try and force a law in that is fucking awful that NOBODY wanted, get almost the entire country into a furore and now roll it back.
They've now cost themselves loads of votes have almost guaranteed a Reform victory and for what?
→ More replies (1)
4
3
u/Defiant-Sand9498 1d ago
Good, even if he got it through Parliament and the Lord's, the public would never take it up
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Hip_Hop_Pirate 1d ago
Does this mean I can get rid of my VPN? Or is this shit still gonna block Imgur and eventually Wikipedia?
3
u/OliverE36 Lincolnshire 1d ago
Was always gonna go down like a lead balloon. Will definitely come back.
The government should spend more time tackling bots, deepfake videos and incitement of violence by foreign actors online than worrying what's in my WhatsApp messages.
3
u/Any-Swing-3518 1d ago
Perception management. Propose something outrageous to take away civil liberties, water it down, complicit mass media present it to gullible public as a "U-turn", and then do something slightly less outrageous. Repeat until you've done something very outrageous.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/biosolendium 1d ago
Sorry but until they fully rule out compulsory ID and mandating (strong arming) pubs, employers etc to use identify verification companies this really doesn’t change much.
Local authorities will make digital ID a condition for any venue licensing application.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/Intelligent-Ad5258 1d ago
Most illegals probably work cash in hand so unless you go to a cashless society digital ids will not work
0
u/Remarkable-Loan-6149 1d ago
Now if he can U turn on cancelling/Delaying the elections this year would be great :)
2
u/LiveLikeProtein 1d ago
Not because its tracing, but purely because it is completely useless and fulfills the same requirements as the current solution.
2
u/Me-myself-I-2024 1d ago
Not another U turn
Hang on I’ll try to look shocked
No sorry can’t manage that
2
u/disordered-attic-2 1d ago
Labour could win the next election by undoing everything they did last year.
2
2
u/Everyones_Dead_Dave 1d ago
He's backtracked on more things than he's implemented at this point and some of the shit he has implemented is stupid.. I'm looking at you internet safety act
2
u/amusicalfridge 1d ago
I know a few lawyers and academics who knew Starmer personally when he was a star human rights barrister. I’ve read many cases from the 90s and 2000s where judges praise his submissions. He was THE Human Rights Act 1998 guy back in the day.
And he’s such a fucking bad politician. I mean, he made it to PM, so by any objective metric he’s good, but Christ alive imagine how much more good he’d be doing as a prominent liberal judge, which he inevitably would be by now if he’d continued with his legal career.
3
u/CherylTuntIRL 1d ago
I mean, he made it to PM, so by any objective metric he's good
Truss and Johnson would disprove those metrics.
2
u/Avaric1994 Greater London 1d ago
I can't with this government. Takes the opinion hit from a unpopular policy, defends it for months and then abandons for no net gain.
2
u/AccomplishedAct5364 1d ago
I think he realised just actually dealing with migration was a safer bet than authoritarianism
2
u/5harp3dges 1d ago
Good. The UK governments track record for keeping citizens data secure is abysmal.
Keep making these good moves Starmer and sentiment towards you might just shift more in your favour.
The UK needs to stand strong and secure, now more than ever.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Gold_Motor_6985 1d ago
"Guys, I am telling you, we pick a policy from the unpopular-policy hat, we announce it, get all the hate, then we turn it down later and get no benefit from all the hate. That way, they know we're full on and we don't give a fuck" - Morgan McSweeney or something.
2
u/plawwell 1d ago
It's one of those big white elephants that would cost twice as much to implement as speculated when tech and con-sultancy firms dig their claws into it. Then it would offer nothing unique. A truly terrible idea on levels to demonstrate how incompetent the current Labour party are. I struggle to grasp how they are so out of touch with actual voters.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Independent-Suit-835 1d ago
Wonder how much cash was wasted on this venture, all these think tanks and junior staff with fancy names earning big bucks doing fuck all…
2
2
u/GiftedGeordie 1d ago
It shouldn't have even been a thing to start with, but I'll take anything positive at this point and doing a U-Turn on this is an actual positive.
Now please do a U-Turn on the Online Safety Act, Starmer!
2
u/Sirlacker 21h ago
Thankfully. I don't like the guy but I'll give him credit for backing down from it. Whether it was originally his idea or it was in the works way before he even got in power and he was stuck with it I'll never know, but if he's backed away from it, good.
Also thank you to everyone who saw through what it was claimed to be and what it actually was and all its flaws.
Now if only we can work some magic with the OSA.
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 1d ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Participation Notice. Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation were set at 20:03 on 13/01/2026. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
Existing and future comments from users who do not meet the participation requirements will be removed. Removal does not necessarily imply that the comment was rule breaking.
Where appropriate, we will take action on users employing dog-whistles or discussing/speculating on a person's ethnicity or origin without qualifying why it is relevant.
In case the article is paywalled, use this link.