Forum Topic

This thread is about digital ID cards but Labour's plan to introduce them is symptomatic of its performative style of government, going through the motions of running the country while actually achieving nothing. The three most important tasks facing the government on the domestic front are cutting the  welfare bill, stopping illegal immigration and reducing energy prices for the consumer. Unfortunately the government is prevented from taking the necessary steps to achieve these aims by large numbers of its own MPs and party activists who regard cutting welfare payments as cruel, deterring and deporting illegal immigrants as racist and making energy cheaper as environmentally destructive. So instead Labour pretends to deal with these problems by taking a series of irrelevant measures, some of which are positively harmful. On the economy Rachel Reeves has tried to maintain welfare spending  by taxing the rich, most notably in her disastrous decision to increase employers' NI contributions, which has slowed growth and increased unemployment. On illegal immigration, Keir Starmer has come up with digital ID cards, a hugely expensive measure, open to abuse by government, which will do nothing to deter migrants since dodgy employers working in the black economy will not bother to ask for ID cards. And as regards energy, Miliband has promoted the idea that green energy will reduce bills whereas the opposite is true. Heat pumps are much more expensive to install than gas boilers whose use he is discouraging by his boiler tax.

Steven Rose ● 20d

Hello David,I totally agree that in the 80s, the housing market went completely mad.  But it was not only the private market but the purchase of council houses was allowed by individuals living in them at the time of purchase.  Nothing said they could not be sold or rented out.  Remember Dame Shirley Porter?One very important difference between the '80s and now is that mortgages then were much easier to get.  Then greed took hold, mortgages of up to 125% of the asking price for a property were granted and the rot set in then. Remember the period of negative equity?To be honest, I cannot remember homelessness in the '80s.  Better said, I cannot remember people sleeping in the street then.  But social housing building was reduced in the 80s but virtually stopped completely in 2010 or thereabouts when funding stopped for this purpose.When the EU introduced the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD), the response of the UK was to hold a referendum which resulted in Brexit.  All sorts of excuses were found but ATAD was the reason behind this, most strongly by the then Euro Sceptics.....I am not too sure I follow your statement of generational inheritance.  I can see no wrong with this.  Why not?  What alternative(s) do you have?  Tax avoidance and evasion I do mind enormously, but if I have worked very hard during my working life, why could I not leave my assets (however big or small) to my children? They will be taxed, even after I am dead!As for wealth concentration, can you imagine what this will be like with the introduction of AI?

Ivonne Holliday ● 20d

"It is true that for the last decade or so, the poor have become poorer and the rich much richer."Longer than that. The last 4 decades."The wealth gap in the UK has significantly widened, especially since the 1980s, with a substantial increase in absolute wealth disparities even as relative wealth inequality has been high and relatively stable for decades. This surge in the absolute gap is largely driven by wealth generated from asset growth, particularly in the housing market, leading to higher living costs for those with no wealth and making it increasingly difficult for younger, less wealthy generations to build assets. Key Trends in the UK Wealth GapWidening Absolute Gap:While the proportion of wealth held by the richest 10% has remained fairly consistent over recent decades, the absolute value of their wealth has grown enormously. Increased Concentration of Wealth:Since the 1980s, the wealth gap has widened to its highest recorded level, second only to the US among advanced economies. Dominance of Asset Growth:The rise in net household wealth has been significantly influenced by capital gains from assets, especially housing, rather than increased savings, which has stretched the wealth distribution. Lack of Financial Buffer:The widening gap leaves a large portion of the population with little to no wealth, making them vulnerable to the rising cost of living and with limited financial assets to fall back on. Impact on Generations:Wealth inequality is now more pronounced across generations, with individuals born in the 1980s facing greater challenges to acquire wealth compared to earlier generations. Drivers of the Wealth GapHousing Market:The UK's housing market boom has been a significant factor in the rise of net household wealth and the widening gap between those who own assets and those who do not. Inheritance:The intergenerational transfer of wealth plays a key role, favoring those with wealthy parents and making it harder for others to climb the wealth ladder. Wealth Concentration:There is a trend toward the consolidation of resources into fewer hands, with wealth accumulating and amplifying over time. Consequences of the Wealth GapEconomic Impact:The wealth gap can undermine productivity, growth, and the ability to reach net zero targets.Social Impact:It reduces social cohesion and can damage faith in democracy. Life Chances:Wealth has a significant impact on life chances and outcomes, with those lacking assets facing higher levels of poverty. (AI)

David Ainsworth ● 21d

I don’t agree, Ed, that the problem is simply one of corrupt government. It is true that many of the leading figures in the current government, starting with Keir Starmer, are venal. This was demonstrated by the freebies scandal. But the fundamental problem is that the Labour movement no longer stands for anything other than a vague mission to improve the lot of an undefined group called ‘working people’. The party was founded by utopian idealists who wanted to take the means of production into public ownership. Except for a fringe element no one in the party wants to do that now. Instead Labour has accepted the need for a market economy. Only some vestiges of its former ideology remain, such as a vague feeling that profit means exploitation and that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. Unfortunately these ideological remnants prevent Labour from running a market economy successfully. The prejudice against the profit motive has led to an expansion of state activity which is somehow regarded as more noble than private enterprise. So for example the number civil servants has increased by 34% since 2016, reaching over half a million FTEs in 2025. This increase is a drain on the public purse, which can only be met by higher taxes on ‘working people’. The notion that the wealth of the rich is the cause of the poverty of the poor is the motive behind calls among the Labour grassroots to redistribute wealth through the tax system by introducing a higher rate income tax band and a wealth tax. We have already seen an example of this in Rachel Reeve’s disastrous decision to increase employers’ NI contributions, on the grounds that employers can afford to pay more, which has slowed growth and increased unemployment.

Steven Rose ● 21d

I am not particularly worried by this in principle and to be honest I find Ivonne’s hysterical posts risible.  However I suspect that Blair is now pulling Starmer’s strings and that does bother me.  I no longer have a valid passport because I haven’t needed to renew it and I relinquished my driving licence about 10 years ago, so digital ID would be useful for me.  Starmer’s reasoning is that digital ID is a way to tackle illegal immigration; ergo being able to identify illegal workers would be a deterrent🙄but the man is a deluded fool clutching at straws. However I would take this idea even further.  I would propose a national database that would record the DNA of everyone in the U.K.  It would be a mammoth task but it could be done systematically.  In order for such data capture to be effective it must begin from birth. DNA would be taken from: 1. Every baby born here 2. All babies and children who have been granted asylum here3. Every adult who has been granted asylum here 4. Everyone being housed in temporary accommodation/detention whist waiting for their claims to be assessed 5. Everyone who accesses GP, hospital snd dental services6. Everyone detained by the police for whatever reason7. Everyone in prison 8. Basically EVERYONE !!DNA samples can be taken in several ways but I believe the easiest and least invasive test is the buccal which is taken by a cheek swab and the result can be processed in as little as 2 hours if needed.  1.1.1. Technological advances have resulted in laboratory-based systems being able to process samples using direct amplification for short tandem repeat (STR) DNA profiling to produce a result within a couple of hours, that is rapid DNA profiling or rapid DNA. Many of these systems are automated for high volume throughput.1.1.2. Portable instruments that can produce STR DNA profile results within 2 hours for a small number of samples per run have also been developed. These devices extract, amplify and separate the amplified products and designate the profile in the single device and are therefore described as rapid DNA devices.1.1.3. Methods using rapid DNA devices could be deployed as follows.a. In locations where PACE DNA samples are taken (for example, custody suites) for processing buccal samples in order to obtain investigative leads during the custody retention period of the individual, or for immigration border control use.b. At incidents (incident scene, mass disasters, for example a terrorist attack) for processing samples in order to obtain investigative leads or to identify a deceased individual.Draconian, possibly?  Necessary to keep us and future generations safe, definitely!Smelling salts needed for Ivonne!

Sue Hammond ● 23d

Ed. The HMRC case wasn't a breach of the HMRC systems, it was phishing of tax payer to (as far as I  know) gain sufficient information to gain access to accounts. It appears the HMRC antifraud systems identified issues,  better than many commercial organisations.Roughly a decade ago I was involved in a financial investigation that involved criminals putting malware on the PCs of clients of execution only brokers. That allowed the fraudsters to manipulate the LSE to make their money, but none of the financial organisations' systems were breached. Often the easiest target is the customer's PC or email account, or just social engineering the customer, as in the HMRC case.The legal aid agency is probably a case of such agencies being starved of government cash. I didn't say all goverment systems were perfect. Some of the police systems are several decades old - although cumbersome it probably makes them more difficult "hack"! Who writes malware for 1980s systems when Microsoft is easier and has more plentiful targets?Nothing's going to be 100% secure but the more secure your system is it's more likely the criminals will go elsewhere where the security isn't so good. The exception to that will be state security services ... Obviously, the MoD case of Afghan asylum seekers' data being leaked by emailing Excel spreadsheets was a terrible security lapse but, again, not a case of systems being breached, but one of poor practice.What doesn't seem to have been thought through is how those without a mobile device or passport will use the system.I also know that monitoring of the Internet being done by government agencies means they will sometimes notify companies they have a security issue - but I don't know if I'm supposed to know that. But there's good people at the NCSC and GCHQ, plus they draw on skilled people within security consultancy companies. But my original point is the government already has all your data needed for ID Cards. You perhaps should be more concerned about which of you data have been moved to the US by Google, Meta, Microsoft, etc post Brexit?

Michael Ixer ● 23d