ID cards: so remind me, what did you vote Labour for, exactly?

Mandatory ID cards are the latest idea to come out of the Labour brains trust, something so vital that it wasn’t actually in the manifesto they published just over a year ago. It does seem that the Starmer administration now resembles a rabbit caught in the Reform UK headlights or, perhaps worse, a pointer towards another ultimately authoritarian Labour government.

I have little in the way of fundamental problems with the concept of a Government-backed ID card. As a non-driver, having a widely recognised form of ID other than my passport, one I can carry with me without effort, could be useful. Given that opening most new financial products, for example, requires me to produce a range of documents, some of which are not readily available, being able to show a digital ID which demonstrated who I am would be easier than finding a utility bill with my name and address on.

I acknowledge the concerns about what an ID database could be used for by an incoming regime, although given the amount of information that authorities hold on us, let alone the information that many of us voluntarily put online via social media, you might wonder if that argument hasn’t effectively been conceded by stealth.

And I really don’t think that I’d be keen on the authorities having a right to insist that I produce ID on demand - others have made the case against that far better than I could.

There are the obvious problems - digital exclusion, data security - before we even start to talk about cost of the ability of Government to deliver what would be a huge project. But the Government does have to answer one fundamental question, which is, “what is the problem that this is going to solve?”.

So far, we are told, it will supposedly curb illegal immigration by making it harder for people without status to find jobs, but it’s already illegal for employers to employ those without the right to work and it’s obviously illegal to use false documents to circumvent those checks. If the Government really wanted to address that problem, a more joined-up approach between HMRC, DWP and the police would probably achieve more at far lower cost and be more visible, presumably one of the benefits of such a crackdown.

In other words, this looks like what I like to call a “Daily Mail policy”, i.e. something needs to be done, this is something, thus it needs to be done, regardless of whether or not it is needed or works.

It is, however, indicative of a sense of panic amongst Labour ranks, or perhaps a response to an evident lack of philosophical purpose. With a huge majority and still nearly four years until they have to go to the country again, you do begin to wonder why they can’t just get on and simply try running things better. After all, after the increasing shambles of Conservative administrations post-Brexit, you would have thought that was quite a low bar to set, but this administration does seem capable of shooting itself in the foot with unerring accuracy.

Spending significant sums of money to look as though you’re achieving something, rather than spending it on something that will actually make the lives of our citizens a bit better might buy you a little positive media coverage (although it probably won’t) but the long-term effect of voters looking around them and thinking that things are a bit better can’t be beaten.

But Labour seems determined to go down the route of doing authoritarian things because, if they don’t, Reform UK will do them. It’s hardly an argument to energise progressive voters, let alone liberals, and the polls seem to back me up.

And with the Greens heading leftwards and the Conservatives drifting rightward towards irrelevancy, there’s an increasing large space opening up for liberal politics. Only time will tell if the Liberal Democrats can take advantage of this opportunity…