Little as I am inclined to give the government any credit, given their record so far, there have been a couple of big U-Turns in the last day or two (another one on their AI Copyright carve-outs) and I would much rather have a U-Turn on a bad policy than have the government pushing it through regardless. We saw too much of the latter over the last decade.

The ideal would be for them to come up with good policies in the first place, but clearly that is beyond their capabilities, so although these pivots are quite funny I hope we can avoid being too mean about them. The alternative would be worse.

Agreed. I'd rather a U turn than ploughing head first in to a bad decision then flapping around trying to make it work.

> I'd rather a U turn than ploughing head first in to a bad decision then flapping around trying to make it work.

But we're so GOOD at that!

We've become practiced at it. Which is a damning indictment of those doing the admin.

"I would much rather have a U-Turn on a bad policy than have the government pushing it through regardless. We saw too much of the latter over the last decade."

More like the last 3 decades I think - the majority of new legislation and amendments to existing legislation since the late 80s/early 90s has been added as a 'Statutory Instrument', which means decided by a committee and having had no wider discussion in Parliament.

Although I agree with you, this is only a partial U-turn on a small part of the proposals. The implementation of the wider scheme with all its enormous costs and security/privacy issues continues to be pursued :(

Think ‘the majority of legislation’ is wildly inaccurate.

Please evidences Even the shitshow that was Brexit was voted for.

An advisory referendum said that the people (who by and large have no idea what the EU actually does or how it works) didn't like the EU and they would prefer if the UK was out of it. What this actually meant and how it was to be achieved was never on the table, it just sort of turned into a quasi-religion (the sacrosanct "will of the people" [*]) with red lines and harsher and harsher interpretations because pandering to the Telegraph and Daily Mail meant so much more than talking to the EU.

You mean that shitshow? Yes, something was voted for, but how many people actually knew what ?

* - I'm quite sure "the people" would like to pay less tax and retire at 60, shall we ask?

So you agree the Brexit shitshow was indeed for by Parliament- though Rammed through scrutiny by that Fuckwit BoJo, despite the extensive impact. Thanks Lady Hales, Kier Starmer, Hillary Benn … amongst many others.

You can’t cure (wilful ignorance) and stupidity of electors or MP’s (though as a representative that’s kinda their job).

You can cure people who misrepresented evidence and bare faced lied by prosecuting them for Misconduct in a Public Office.

Yes Brexit was voted for as an advisory referendum as was the withdrawal agreement. Then there was then a huge amount of Henry VIII powers by statutory instrument. All the important detail stuff that left us with the current clusterfuck.

"The ideal would be for them to come up with good policies in the first place"

Pre-election policies are designed to win elections. Post election policies have to deal with reality. Sometimes those objectives are mutually exclusive.

I don't know they even had many pre-election policies. I wasn't paying close attention to their manifesto but they seemed to mostly just be pointing at the Tories and saying "not that."

Ironic that by and large they have gone on to do more or less what the Tories would have done in a lot of regards. Especially as the policies in question are as dumb as a box of rocks or actively malign.

"Ironic that by and large they have gone on to do more or less what the Tories would have done in a lot of regards."

Not ironic. Whoever won would have been constrained by the same realities which have been a quarter of a century in the making.

1. Brown* decided that the future could pay for present bribes to the voters and we are that future.

2. John Major's "bastards" then persuaded enough of the public that we'd be better off by cutting the surviving industry's home market to a fraction of what it was.

Between them that left us extremely vulnerable to external factors.

* Aided by low consumer goods price inflation due to shifting manufacture to China. And look where that got us.

Larry Fink must be fuming that his pet policy, nobody voted for, gets a bit diluted. But on the other hand, they are just thinning the wedge.

Don't worry, billionaires will enslave us one way or another.

Digital Shackle will eventually be mandatory.

"Don't worry, billionaires will enslave us one way or another."

How?

They have more money than us and as long as money buys lawmakers, public opinion, and the courts, they will be allowed to do whatever they want and we won't be able to stop them.

This could be avoided by having sufficiently strong institutions that money couldn't buy those things, but no government is interested in building those because they're already clamped to the nipple of sweet hard cash, sucking like their little chubby bellies could never be filled.

Well said sir! my thought s exactly

By controlling the money.

They already do: the cost of living crisis isn't unsolvable, the ultra-rich could just pay a bit more in taxes. It's just that the ultra-rich benefit from people having to work multiple jobs for minimal pay. They like having more money than they can spend, it makes them feel important.

Until a revolution against the elites happens...

UKGOV has very little control over money, which is why it's fucked. When Labour disconnected the Bank of England from government control they gave up the last actual power the government had.

The ultra rich could pay more in taxes, but you would need cast iron ways to prove their wealth exists...you can look at a super rich person and know they're super rich, but you can't prove how much they have, where it is and where it came from without a huge amount of resources to get there. Taxing the super rich a bit more, unfortunately, would cost more than it would bring it.

The problem isn't how much the super rich actually pay, the problem is keeping their money in the country...you don't raise more capital by taxing it, you raise more capital by incentivising it to stay put.

Other countries do this with long term investment tax breaks...the UK doesn't differentiate between a 1 year invest or a 100 year investment...it's the same rate of tax no matter what...this encourages short term investment, because risk increases with time...therefore, the shorter the time you invest, the less risky is it is...that risk needs to be offset with incentives to prevent short term investment...this is why countries like Germany have zero rated capital gains on long term investments.

You don't want rich people being taxed, you want them putting their money into investments that pay wages, create jobs, build things etc...especially in a world where the government is as incompetent as we've seen over the last 20 years. I would only want taxes raised if I could trust the government.

"When Labour disconnected the Bank of England from government control they gave up the last actual power the government had."

Independent central banks are all too often the means of saving governments from their own folly. In this case they didn't quite achieve that. BoE was tied to aiming at a fallacious inflation index; fallacious partly because it ignored housing costs and partly because the non-housing element included the effects of off-shoring a lot of consumer good production to cheaper areas such as China.

Governments retain the power to set tax rates.

When the story constantly changes about WHY they want this, it is clear the stories are being used as an excuse to build up public sentiment in favor. Because there is a certain segment in favor of doing everything to restrict immigration they use that as an excuse.

The real reason they want digital ID is probably so they can say "papers please" and no one carrying a smartphone will have a good excuse why they can't show them. Whereas if it is a physical item most people won't carry that on them unless the law requires it - and a law requiring that makes it too obvious what the end goal is.

I'll revert to reading books on my commute instead of audio books, save my el reg reading Ng for home or the office and rely on a Garmin for sat nav.

"no one carrying a smartphone will have a good excuse why they can't show them"

The odds of a government sponsored app running on non-stock Android or another non-fruity phone OS are almost zero.

Government by (repeated) trial and error is failure by any measure.

It's not world leading or statesmanship or any of the other misinformation dreamt up by the professional, non-russian, British liars, I mean spin doctors.

Unfortunately, failure is the new success according to those in power. For the past decade and more.

Nothing new about it, it’s the way it has always been.

Just wasn’t so obvious in the days before 24x7 online news and the whinging, baying clamour of millions of irrational inadequates on social media.

Pretty pointless then. Just continue with existing schemes to allow Digital Passports and Digital Driving licences. Perhaps work hand in hand with Eire, EU/EEA, USA/Canada for common purpose/

Employers have wide access to rich ID Verification Servixes anyway so it’s not much of a loss. They just need to use them:

"cash-strapped departments might struggle to justify their contribution."

Including undoubted contributions to mission creep.

Mission creep is inevitable. The government have only dropped the word 'mandatory' from their vile plan and that will definitely return once the IT systems are in place.

"once the IT systems are in place"

So probably not this Parliament.

Or the next...

I think the phrase was "once the IT systems are in place" not "once the IT systems are fully working"...

In this case, mission creep is not only inevitable but clearly intended! It was obvious from the beginning that the scope of its use would rapidly expand, but they misjudged the pushback even at their initial level, so have gone back a bit further to try to ensure that they can get it approved. As soon as they get legislation through to allow it, all 'voluntary' pretence will disappear and the purposes for which it must be used will rapidly expand.

>>Digital ID will make everyday life easier for people,

In what way?

Digital ID won't make my every day life any easier, in any respect. Various random events every few years - perhaps it will streamline the process but somehow I doubt it.

For which people?

>>For which people?

probably not the people who have to have the ID...

People with irregular immigration status!

You mean the ones without a National Insurance number? Or a Tax Code (UTR), or the already-required right to work documentation?

If people are already working illegally - or let's rephrase that: if employers are already utilising illegal labour then why would yet another ID document actually be of any use?

Proprietary software and SaaSS never makes anyone's life easier ever - rather it always makes everyone's lives harder.

Such is reliant on you having to pay for a mobile plan that supplies a high-speed and high-bandwidth internet connection that is always available and working, the server being up and the mobile device having charge (mobile devices usually now have terrible battery life due to all the spying that is done) - something that will cause regular failures and ensure that you cannot show ID.

A physical card, which doesn't rely on the internet, doesn't need power and therefore cannot fail is clearly much more convenient, but what would be far more convenient would be to eliminate the pointless in practice and privacy invasive act of issuing and requiring ID's (drivers licences and the like really could just be a certificate of competence).

"The UK government has backed down from making digital ID mandatory for proof of a right to work in the country, adding to confusion over the scheme's cost and purpose."

The only people to be confused about its purpose are those believing the gov. Not just this one but the previous attempt too. The answer is ID cards, the problem is the latest fad to justify it. They are not intended to be there to control us, the purpose of the government is to serve us. If either side is confused about that it would suggest there is too much government

Not quite. The current government knows the objective of Starmercards is to control us.* They believe intrusive and pervasive surveillance is in our best interests and they serve us by foisting this unwanted crap. They just can't come out and say that. Well not yet.

* Just after the Starmercard was announced and would only be used for checking new employees, various Starmer stooges started mumbling about using them for getting access to healthcare, welfare and so on. This was/is clearly part of the Home Office's Grand Design and would get rolled out as soon as enough people were forced to carry their Starmercard.

I agree with much of that, but these are Blaircards, starmer wasn't even original enough to come up with these himself.

Please don't whitewash Blunkett out of this...

You're right to remind us of Blunkett's involvement. But real villains are the senior civil servants & left wing think tanks that for years have been pushing for imposition of identify cards. Starmer is just the latest useful idiot they've sold the idea to.

Or forget he takes backhanders (sorry consultancy fees) from companies selling ID card snake-oil.

If a Blair policy is just a plugin for a Starmer solution can we at least refer to it as being downgraded with "BlairWare".

I like the idea of installing a FudBlocker to prevent BlairWare.

As I follow it, they've not really backed down. They are not going to have a mandatory digital ID system. But the mandatory bit is the only thing that's changed.

They will still require a digital ID check for a right to work. And I don't think they've cancelled their digital ID scheme: and, really, they have no choice, because people without a passport or an driving licence will need something. And if, they are on benefits, it will have to be cheap or free.

So they will now be spending £billions on a system that is not mandatory, and there will be no need to use it when open a claim for benefits.

Something urgently needs to be done. My previous house was swamped with paperwork related to fraudulent benefit claims for about 2 years after I moved in (related to the previous owner, I suspect). DWP were not able to flag the address as related to fraud "as that would also prevent legitimate claims".

They don't have to make it a requirement to make it a requirement, if you know what I mean.

98% of people will end up with one within ten years because it will be a giant pain in the backside to not have one. It's not required to own a computer (even the one in your phone counts), but it's a massive ballache if you don't.

Yeah, but I get to decide when I use a computer or a phone. I can switch them off. Nobody can refuse me entry somewhere if I choose not to have one.

Not quite the same thing.

That choice will go away once Starmercards get rolled out. Papers citizen!

Uh yes, there are plenty of places that took covid as a chance to deny entry to anyone without an e-ticket. You may not go to gigs or nightclubs much, but you will be barred from entry without the ID of their choice - which is a very limited selection - and often an e-ticket that you must have a smartphone to use. Your dystopia already exists, and it's spreading.