I wouldn’t normally post Times articles but they seem to be the first to run this bit of rare good news.
I can’t read the full article, but it says it’ll be optional. That sounds like they’re still wanting to develop it, spend the money, and then say “well now we’ve got it, it would be silly not to use it!”
Exactly, this is how Labour force ID, then on to verifying your ID before you can use the internet, all posts will be moderated by government AI produced by Palantir
From the BBC article:
The Liberal Democrats said the policy was “doomed to failure” from the start and called for “the billions of pounds earmarked for their mandatory digital ID scheme” to be spent “on the NHS and frontline policing instead”.
Damn right. We want our money spent on something useful.
Good news! No doubt the next Labour government will try again though.
This same one will try for other bills that similarly surrender their populations to tech in other ways.
Oh sweet, I can hate labour slightly less. Drop the OSA next and I might even be able to reluctantly approve of them.
Drop the OSA, free all the non-violent protesters, drop the threat to Jury trials, and publicly apologise for being a complete fascist cunt. Then, maybe they deserve a second chance.
And stop sending weapons to israel
Oh yeah, all the other bad things they did too…
I’m happy this has happened. I’m still pretty wary, though. Can there be a cross party debate and agreement on what the limits should be? I worry the “mandatory” part will just get pushed through later on, like the encryption backdoor clause of the OSA.
Good. The gov.uk ‘one login’ they are already rolling out is plenty good enough without the massive overreach of digital id.
I’m not from the UK and also don’t have any background on this, can you perhaps explain why it’s overreach?
I would think that ID documents being digital is a logical step to digitisation.
This is pretty much aligned with my POV: https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/campaigns/no2digitalid/
Is there any major Labour policy that hasn’t been U-turned on?
I’d rather they u-turned shitty ideas than waffle-stomp them through.
How the fuck the OSA seemed to just drift through is astoundingI genuinely don’t understand everyone complaining about u-turns. Setting aside that this isn’t really a u-turn, they’re still doing it, just won’t be mandatory.
Would you rather a government that dogmatically sticks to every single idea they have regardless of public opinion, or a government that changes its policies in response to feedback?
My issue is the government coming up with ideas that everyone can see from the outset are doomed to fail, for seemingly arbritray reasons, and then rolling them back when the inevitable happens.
Winter fuel being the most glaring: we need to show the banks we’re fiscally responsible, we then have no material change in how the banks view the government but have a minor shift in the forecasts for 5 years time, we’ve done it, we’re fiscally responsible now so pensioners can have their £500 back.
Yeah, I’d rather they did better in the first place too. But I’m not going to complain when they finally do the right thing. That’s just going to lead to them not changing unpopular policies at all.
Since 2008 the banks themselves have had to prove they are fiscally responsible which I very doubt they are.
Support of genocide?
Support for Brexit.
MP’s first
