Digital identity cards, or digital IDs, are comprehensive systems designed to verify an individual's identity by integrating personal data into an electronically scannable format.

A persistent policy objective in the United Kingdom for over two decades, championed by Tony Blair and his Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, who assure us digital IDs will modernise governance and public services, and tell us not to be concerned over privacy, the expansion of state power, and the potential for a surveillance society.

Historical Pursuit and Legislative Setbacks

The initial endeavour to introduce a national identity card system in the UK commenced in 2006 under Prime Minister Tony Blair. The proposed card was intended to consolidate personal details and a photograph, facilitating electronic scanning. At the time this initiative encountered considerable opposition from back-bench Members of Parliament and civil rights campaigners, due primarily to privacy concerns.

Blair dismissed these objections, asserting the scheme's necessity for modernity and drawing a parallel to the routine provision of personal data to private firms.

It's inevitable. It's convenient.

Despite securing a vote in the House of Commons, the proposed compulsory ID cards faced substantial resistance in the House of Lords, which repeatedly returned the bill, effectively impeding its passage.

Although the Identity Cards Act 2006 eventually became law, its national implementation was slowed during the Gordon Brown era, following Blair's departure in 2007. Only a limited number of prototype cards were produced, primarily in locations such as Manchester, preventing a nationwide rollout.

In 2011, the Identity Cards Act 2006 was formally repealed by the incoming Tory Lib Dem coalition government, led by David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

Continued Advocacy and Recent Developments

Despite the legislative setback, Tony Blair has relentlessly pursued the implementation of a digital ID system.

Through his organisation, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, he consistently pressed successive Conservative governments on the matter. In 2024, as a Labour government approached power, Blair immediately advocated for a digital ID.

On 7 July 2024, Blair's proposal was initially rejected, with Keir Starmer's government publicly stating it would not pursue the ID initiative. However, Blair indicated that Britain would require "a little bit of persuading".

Subsequently, in 2025, Blair reiterated his argument that Britons would be willing to sacrifice privacy for efficiency and safety.

During this period, Blair held discreet meetings with 30 to 40 rising Labour MPs. By 8 April 2025, over 40 Labour MPs publicly called for digital IDs to address migration and enhance public services through an open letter.

PROBLEM > IMMIGRATION

REACTION > EVERYTHING GOES TO SHIT

SOLUTION > DIGITAL ID

The concept of digital ID has also long been supported by Conservative leader William Hague. Official statements from the BBC have suggested that the government has no plans for mandatory digital ID, implying a phased introduction.

Public opinion indicates significant support for a national digital ID.

A recent Times poll revealed that 88% of the British public supports the notion, with the prevalent view being that there is "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" and that individuals already share data with large private firms like Amazon and Google.

Arguments in Favour of Digital ID

Proponents, most notably Tony Blair, assert that digital ID will render interactions between individuals and the state faster, cheaper, and more reliable. Key arguments include:

• Immigration Control: Digital ID would enable governments to discern who possesses the right to reside in the country, thereby addressing a major challenge posed by Immigration.
• Crime Reduction: The system would enhance law enforcement capabilities. Facial recognition technology can identify suspects in real-time from live video, facilitating the tracking of organised criminals at borders and in public spaces, and assisting in locating missing persons. A pilot project in London demonstrated its effectiveness, with 360 arrests by the Met Police between January and October 2024. This technology improves response times and expedites suspect identification in busy environments like train stations and public events.
• Police Operations: Live video feeds from body cameras and CCTV systems could provide real-time guidance to police officers from command centres. Artificial Intelligence(AI) would further augment these capabilities by identifying crime patterns, optimising patrol routes, and streamlining decision-making processes. Police forces are transitioning to cloud-based platforms to grant officers immediate access to data and advanced tools, enabling rapid fingerprint matches from crime scenes in minutes via smartphone photographs.
• Economic Efficiency: The implementation of digital ID in the UK is projected to generate annual savings of at least £2 billion, potentially more, through a reduction in fraud losses, improved tax collection, and more effective targeting of state support.
• International Precedent: Countries such as Estonia, Singapore, and India have successfully adopted digital ID systems, demonstrating their capacity to reduce bureaucracy and enhance efficiency. These nations are cited as examples of states reimagining their operational frameworks through technology.

Enhanced Data Control: When properly implemented with robust safeguards and transparency, digital ID systems can afford individuals greater control over their personal data, thereby enhancing rather than threatening personal privacy. The core objective is to design systems that are secure, fair, inclusive, and effective in combating crime and promoting public safety.

Concerns and Criticisms of Digital ID

HOWEVER:

• Privacy and Power Centralisation: Civil rights campaigners view digital ID as a "power grab", arguing it aims to centralise control and enable constant, comprehensive knowledge of every individual. The argument "if you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to fear" is antithetical to the concept of freedom, as privacy is fundamental to individual dignity.
• Mission Creep: A significant concern is that the initial purpose of digital ID, such as tackling crime, would certainly expand into broadly defined areas like "radicalism," "terrorism," and "online harms".This expansion risks blurring the distinction between genuine terrorist activities and legitimate political expression, potentially leading to the abuse of such tools by an authoritarian government.

Potential for Abuse: Evidence from the behaviour of the Keir Starmer government suggests digital ID system would be weaponised, abused and operated in a biased maand politicised manner.Reports advocating for digital ID are noted to include discussions on diversity and misogyny, raising questions about potential ideological biases influencing implementation.A steep decline in public trust in the police due to the same ideological factors - institutional anti-White racism and differing policing standards, favouring non-natives & ethnic minorities groups. The system is a direct threat to democracy, transforming citizens into subjects if the government gains the ability to track every movement, both physically and online.Historical patterns show time-and-again adverse outcomes whenever governments acquire excessive power over their populace.

Larry Ellison's Vision of a Surveillance State

Larry Ellison, the founder of Oracle and the primary financial supporter of Tony Blair's initiatives, advocates for an expansive digital ID surveillance state. His vision includes:

• School Security: Systems capable of "locking down schools" by immediately alerting authorities to unauthorised individuals or the presence of weapons, utilising AI cameras for instant recognition.
• Police Monitoring: Redesigned police body cameras that are "always on" and continuously transmit video to headquarters, subject to constant AI monitoring. Even personal moments like bathroom breaks would be recorded, albeit ostensibly requiring a court order for viewing. This raises significant privacy concerns, as the recording would still exist and be subject to scrutiny.
• Public Space Supervision: AI-powered surveillance of public spaces via cameras mounted on vehicles and drones, enabling continuous oversight and rapid response to incidents.

Dystopian Implications: This impossibly dystopian and totalitarian vision, with the capacity to employ mobile devices for the monitoring, punishment, and control of citizens. The concern is that such tools would lead to constant, 24/7 surveillance, effectively creating a total surveillance state.

Broader Technological and Societal Implications of AI

Both the fate of (and the discourse surrounding) digital ID is intrinsically linked to the broader impact of Artificial Intelligence. Blair et al consider AI to be a transformative technology akin to the 19th-century Industrial Revolution, poised to revolutionise healthcare, education, crime fighting, and governmental operations, as well as the private sector.

• Employment Impact: The employment ramifications of AI are anticipated to be enormous, with a good chance of mass unemployment, with AI capable of displacing jobs, including those in white-collar industries. While some jobs may be eliminated, new roles and opportunities will emerge, though concerns remain regarding their scale to absorb widespread displacement.The historical economic argument that labour reallocates to more productive ends is challenged in the current global economy where capital and labour are highly mobile across borders. This mobility can exacerbate unemployment as industries decline due to technological disruption.
• Public Services Transformation: AI is seen as fundamental to reforming public services, including the National Health Service (NHS). It could significantly improve healthcare through prevention, detection, and cure, leveraging vast amounts of NHS data to identify risks and improve lifestyles through monitoring from wearables.Modern cloud systems, by integrating diverse datasets, could enable more targeted state interventions and generate savings, such as in the allocation of furlough support. The transition from outdated, paper-based systems (e.g. the Crown Prosecution Service) to digital, AI-driven processes is advocated for greater efficiency.
• Governmental Organisation and Regulation: There is a recognised imperative for governments to restructure themselves to comprehend and effectively utilise AI. The establishment of a Foundation Model Task Force, reporting directly to the Prime Minister, has been suggested to drive UK capabilities. Due to the rapid evolution of AI, regulation is deemed challenging. Close international cooperation with major global players, including the US and the European Union, is vital for establishing a common regulatory framework. The UK aims to lead in AI governance, with a particular focus on safety, encompassing testing, measurement, risk reduction, licensing, and monitoring of AI models and their deployment.Discussions include the potential creation of new national and international agencies, similar to existing bodies for nuclear energy or civil aviation, to regulate AI, with calls for international harmonisation of standards. The UK's strengths in scientific research are seen as an asset to leverage in AI development. However, concerns exist regarding the limited public consultation in these discussions, which primarily involve governmental, industrial, and academic elites.
• Security and Disinformation: AI can be employed to detect and disrupt foreign cyber influence operations, particularly from nations such as Russia, China, and Iran. Technologies like watermarking are proposed to identify synthetically created audio or video content used to deceive the public. There is an urgent call for governments to update laws to make the alteration of content with intent to deceive an unlawful act. A richer and more deep dialogue between the state and its citizens regarding technological advancements is deemed necessary.

The Role of Tony Blair and Public-Private Partnerships

Tony Blair's influence extends beyond direct policy advocacy. He and his Institute are deeply embedded across various elite groups—government, industry, and academia—often operating with minimal public consultation.

Blair positions AI as a core "mission" for the UK's future, transcending traditional political debates. He envisions Britain as a leading global power in AI. Blair's role is perceived as an "interface" between large corporations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and governmental structures, facilitating the transmission of policy ideas downwards. His initiatives are substantially funded by figures such as Larry Ellison and Bill Gates.

The concept of "public-private partnership," strongly advocated by Blair, is a complete fusion of multinational corporations with governments. In this model, corporations contribute investment, while governments actively remove regulatory obstacles and clear the path for projects, effectively guaranteeing profits.

This approach is a form of corporatism, where the distinction between corporate and governmental power becomes blurred. This model could empower corporations to a greater extent than the state, with government acting as an enabler for corporate objectives.