Government drops plans for mandatory digital ID to work in UK

Status of the policy / what’s actually changed

• Many commenters argue the headline is misleading: the government dropped the idea of one mandatory, single digital ID, not the move to digital checks.
• Digital right‑to‑work and other checks are still planned to move fully online by 2029; people expect something akin to the US E‑Verify, with multiple acceptable IDs.
• Some predict that, in practice, opting out will simply be made very difficult.

Arguments in favour of (some form of) digital ID

• A unified or federated ID could greatly simplify KYC, right‑to‑work, right‑to‑rent, banking, tax, and healthcare; several commenters describe the current UK setup as “fractally awful”.
• Examples from Scandinavia, Estonia, Switzerland and others are cited as proof that privacy‑respecting digital ID is possible and hugely convenient.
• Proponents suggest it would be better to share validated tokens than raw personal data and could reduce bureaucratic catch‑22s for migrants and workers.
• Some think a mandatory system, tied to benefits and employment, could curb illegal immigration.

Arguments against / surveillance, trust and competence

• Strong concern that UK political culture and state capacity would turn digital ID into a tool of control rather than citizen convenience (“bind, not tool”).
• Fears of an “Orwellian panopticon”, digital fascism, and the ability to “switch off” individuals from work and services.
• Suspicion that immigration and fraud rhetoric is a pretext; right‑to‑work checks already exist and legal migrants already use online e‑visas.
• Deep distrust that contracts would be handed to politically connected firms and implemented badly, given the UK’s track record with big IT projects.

Immigration, citizenship and constitutional context

• Multiple threads argue digital ID will not fix the underlying mess of UK immigration and nationality law: high costs, heavy paperwork, fragmented statuses, and powers to strip citizenship.
• Debate over whether a written constitution would help; some say it’s largely symbolic against an adversarial government, others see it as a needed foundation before tightening citizen tracking.

Broader politics

• Comments highlight party discipline, MPs parroting changing lines, and rapid policy U‑turns.
• Views range from “this was a sensible idea ruined by politics” to relief that an “incompetent” government failed to implement something potentially dangerous.