Perhaps the illegals issue could be solved by simply not paying people to come here? Boatloads turn up daily and we put them in hotels etc. They've trekked through at least two other safe countries so if they're really in peril they could stay in those. But they'd rather come here as we give away money.

We already have ID - NI card. If you don't have one then you get nothing and don't stay. Legal immigrating could be allocated one as we'd want them paying tax etc.

1. We don't pay people to come here. Providing housing for asylum seekers (75+% of whom are successful in their claims) is expensive, even when using disused hotels. They are explicitly NOT allowed to work to pay their own way, which is daft (some do, apparently, work in the black market to make some income for themselves).

2. It's irrelevant which countries asylum seekers have come through, they are free to claim asylum in any country of their choosing. Given that some (a small percentage) decide that it's worth risking their lives to cross the Channel in dinghies to get here. Most likely due to family ties, languages spoken, and a country with a decent rule of law.

If Russia invades the UK, and makes life here hell, would you prefer to claim asylum in France or somewhere English-speaking? Would you cross the Channel in an inflatable boat for an "easy life"?

" would you prefer to claim asylum in France or somewhere English-speaking? "

Nothing wrong with France. I live here. If you would rather go someplace English speaking, that's either Ireland or a vastly larger bit of water to cross (and you might find yourselves unwelcome the way things are going).

No-one said there was anything wrong with France :)

A small point but the Asylum process requires migrants to apply in the first 'safe' country they reach. For those coming to the UK that would have been one of the EU countries.

This is made clear in the EU Agency for Asylum information handouts.

You're thinking of EU agreements - we left the EU with Brexit. Hence the appearance of small boats crossing the Channel so dangerously.

See: [1]https://www.unhcr.org/uk/about-unhcr/overview/1951-refugee-convention . Particularly the FAQs.

[1] https://www.unhcr.org/uk/about-unhcr/overview/1951-refugee-convention

Maybe that's an internal EU policy, but that's not what the UN Refugee Convention says:

https://freemovement.org.uk/are-refugees-obliged-to-claim-asylum-in-the-first-safe-country-they-reach/#What_does_the_Refugee_Convention_say_about_safe_countries

Don't forget - it's not all about money - all immigrants come here to do nothing whilst simultaneously stealing all our jobs, girlfriends, houses, cars, and eating all our cats and dogs.

They are also attracted here by the warm welcome they receive from the hard-of-thinking "reform" types who just love cheering them on, and are even known to give them house-warming presents.

In fact, it's also the politicians fault. Not once have politicians and right wing media persuaded their sheep that the immigrants (and trans people) are the source of all their problems. No, politicians readily admit that they are the cause of our misery, and all immigrants should be welcomed with open arms. After all, it's not like we've squandered far more than the cost of immigration by leaving the EU. No-one would advocate for that, would they?

By the way, any news on Michelle Mone, the other 'fast-track' scandals, or the Russian report?

'National Insurance' (card) is NOT an ID system, not even a de facto one, and was never intended as such. The NI system is simply a means to help manage the bureaucracy surrounding employment and taxation. There are many more NI numbers in circulation than there are people using them, some people have more than one NI number, and some NI numbers have more than one person attached to them. The whole system is rather messy, but on the whole works for what it is intended to do. It is absolutely not intended as any kind of useful ID system, and would make a very poor and expensive foundation for one.

There are so many lies and so much stupidity in this posting, you must be Nigel Farage.

@SomeRandom1

"Perhaps the illegals issue could be solved by simply not paying people to come here?"

How the hell you are downvoted equal to upvotes I do not know. Maybe by people in France trying to cross the channel

*and in the time to post this it seems the crazies have come to downvote more

"How the hell you are downvoted equal to upvotes I do not know. Maybe by people in France trying to cross the channel"

Bastard asylum seekers! It's bad enough they come over here, getting free hotels, rape our womenfolk, get zillions from social security, etc, etc. Now they downvote postings on EL Reg. When will these affronts to the Farage/Yaxley-Lennon/Badenough nutjobs end?

If their life is really so cushy, here's what you can do.

Give away / abandon all of your belongings, and most of your friends and family. Keep only a few thousand pounds. Go to France. Find some dodgy trafficker, pay him all your money, and then, with only the clothes on your back, get into an overcrowded dingy headed for Britain, and hope that with all the dangers you don't drown.

If you make it alive, you too can then experience the luxury of people like your current self treating you as less than human, and blaming you for all their problems. You'll have the luxury of knowing that you are now hated, and have a good chance of being beaten up, or worse.

Did they not lose enough votes with age verification?

They might as well be inviting Farage into No.10 to measure up.

Definitely quite a bit in the MSM recently about digital id so clearly somebody has made plans & the push to roll 'em out has now started.

My guess who the somebody is, is elements of the civil service, the Uniparty, certain left wing think tanks, and especially the "Tony Blair Institute for Global Change" who completely coincidently have today published

https://institute.global/insights/politics-and-governance/time-for-digital-id-a-new-consensus-for-a-state-that-works

And it's a fantastic(al) read!

So yes, maybe this time around digital id will become law, what with Lab's unerring ability to always choose policies unpopular with the electorate combined with their incessant drift towards totalitarianism.

But while it might become law I doubt it'll ever become an actual thing because by the time the legislation passes, then the system is built, and then there'd have to be a roll out period, it'll easily be 2029 and Lab will be out and Ref will be in, and Ref swear they'll ditch any id scheme.

”Lab will be out and Ref will be in, and Ref swear they'll ditch any id scheme”

Well, we all know what happens to pre-election promises once a party is in power, don’t we?

And, of course, once they're in power they'll only use ID cards for the greater good because they're the sensible and caring party, so there'll be no need to ditch them any more.

"They also point out that Labour said it was not planning a digital identity scheme in advance of last year's general election."

On the other hand I don't suppose they said that they planned not to. There's a huge gap between the two.

>There's a huge gap between the two.

Size of gap doesn't matter. Point the article was making was if the policy wasn't in Lab's manifesto (and it wasn't) then getting the legislation through the Lords is not a given.

Can someone please ask them to read:

The Shockwave Rider by John Brunner, published in 1975

(

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider

)

It speaks for itself.

"We already have ID - NI card. "

In 71 years I have never had one of those!

I do though, reluctantly, have a Driving Licence with my photo on.

You have to have your DL with you when you drive. Soon you'll have to have a smart phone with your Digi ID on it with at all times, driving or not.

Here it comes again, round and round we go. Each iteration slightly more rancid and panicked than the last. The thing is, it's never really about effectively 'IDing' someone, but always about how many databases we can attach to the ID, how many agencies (and random quangos) can we give access to the data, and how much can we ensure that we have to take no responsibility for the misery and chaos our system will inflict on people when it goes wrong?

IOW, it's about a politician/civil servant's fantasy of 'bureaucratic nirvana' where 'the people' are entirely subject to the authority of 'the system'. Losing sight of the purpose of 'the system', which (in theory) is there to serve 'the people' (as is 'the state')—at least that is what most sensible and compassionate people hope for.

The arseholes at the Home Office who keep fanning the flames for a national ID card scheme should be permanently deported to North Korea. That way, they can get to enjoy the full experience of all-pervasive state surveillance of everyone. That also goes for their politician cheerleaders like Starmer, Blunkett, and Bliar. And the likes of Crapita, Fushitu, IBM and KPMG who are salivating at the prospect of never-ending multi-billion pound contracts for an IT system that will never work.

Notice too how the propaganda for ID cards changes to suit the flavour-of-the-week bogeyman. When that stupid bastard Blunkett was first pimping this snake-oil, he called it a social security entitlement card because welfare fraud dominated the headlines back then. Today, it's asylum seekers. Maybe we'll be told next time that ID cards will put an end to overdue library books or litter on our streets.

Yes, it's is probably the Home Office angling for this, again.

It's about time the Home Office was split up into smaller agencies for their different functions. Then they could fight amongst themselves and not worry the rest of us.

There's nothing wrong with a photographic ID card that can easily be used to show you're British enough to see a doctor, find a job, etc etc.

However, I would certainly think twice before having a digital ID because the government doesn't exactly have a track record of competence with anything that has a plug attached...

"the government doesn't exactly have a track record of competence with anything that has a plug attached"

As the eVisa system has already demonstrated. There's a reason why it is being compared to the Windrush scandal.

"There's nothing wrong with a photographic ID card that can easily be used to show you're British enough to see a doctor, find a job, etc etc."

Yes there is. Photographic ID cards are easily forged. Ask any teenager in the US who uses fake ID to buy beer.

There's no point in having photographic ID cards unless they can be verified/authenticated. Which means they'd have to get checked in real time against a database every time you're made to show it. Those transactions will be logged. And monitored. Think about it.

poor Keir. If it only had a functional brain to make decisions

Just be thankful that neither you, nor I, are in his place. ;-)

...we already have several government IDs. Why another one?

Because the government don't want to do anything decisive or effective about illegal (or indeed legal) migration, but that's resulting in losing support from some voters. Rather than publicly admit that actually they're pretty much happy with the current migration scenario, they think it better to try and claim they're doing something about, whilst making sure that the "something" won't make much difference. 'Twas the same under the Tories.

I’ve just spent the last few years working and living in the Netherlands and they have an mobile app called DigiID which gives access to essentially all Government sites and some financial institutions (pension providers etc.).

This is a lot of help in having SSO to everything government, and is on the websites (sort of like “login with Google”, and if you think the US security services don’t have access to that I have a bridge to sell you!).

People get far to prissy about ID cards in the UK and have to be physically restrained from mentioning the Gestapo or KGB when it’s mentioned, but many other countries have them without losing civil liberties, and if it allows services to be made more straightforward and convenient then so much the better.

If you’re truly worried about the Government tracking you, or looking into your affairs do you seriously think not having a bit of plastic or a personalised id number is going to stop them?

The boys and girls in Cheltenham and the police and security services have rather a large number of people and resources to throw at this and if they are looking your way you’re sunk, lack of computer records didn’t stop the Gestapo, KGB or Stasi.

People will say “but what if the government goes rogue?” Well what of it, we only have to see what’s happening across the pond to see how able people are to resist a government gone bad.

For the average person it’s likely the security services are just not that into you :)

A little ironic that you chose to go AC when posting that.

I'm not particularly worried about GCHQ, or even really about the police, if they want to track me. What I am worried about is the concept that it matters who I am for 99% of things I do!

I certainly don't want commercial entities knowing anything about me, or having an easy or "normalised" way to track me or target me. I don't want it to be normalised that people carry (or have) ID and it could be asked for by anyone. How long before you have to show ID to go to a concert? Or into an expensive shop?

And most importantly, I (and, I am sure, you) are in the luxurious position that it wouldn't matter if I had my name and ID number in flashing lights on my hat. However, many other people are not in that position: some are socially excluded, some are just poor, some are hiding from an ex or a former employer, some just like to keep themselves really private, some may be delusional. Whatever the reason, the normality must be that people are private and not required to identify themselves except in very exceptional conditions.

We have managed for thousands of years with no ID cards and we don't want them now.

'... many other countries have them without losing civil liberties...'

Have you taken note of what previous attempts under the label of 'ID Cards' by successive administrations actual entailed?

And, have you taken note of the UK Govt's success rate in implementing large scale and complex IT projects?

It's not an encouraging scene, regardless of how other countries have managed things.

Does this explain the latest Palantir deal?