Backlash mounts as Starmer weighs compulsory digital ID plan amid migration crisis

Keir Starmer faced a fierce backlash last night over plans to announce compulsory digital ID cards for all British residents, a move that even some of his own MPs have described as an utter, dystopian disaster. The idea, described by sources as something the prime minister had begun formulating as he was desperately thrashing around to find a solution to the small boats crisis, has set off a broad wave of criticism from across Labour’s spectrum and from outside the party. A Financial Times report suggested the plan could be unveiled at Labour’s annual conference, which is set to begin in Liverpool next weekend, and would entail issuing digital IDs to all people legally entitled to reside in Britain, with the IDs used for employment verification and rental agreements.

The concept of ID cards dates back to Tony Blair’s time as Prime Minister and remains popular among Labour’s right flank, but those on the party’s left, including former leader Jeremy Corbyn, warn that such a scheme could be used repressively by any future right-wing governments. Last night, Labour opponents argued that the plan would effectively shift the burden of the migration crisis onto law-abiding citizens and would expand government surveillance powers under the guise of border security.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp condemned the plan, saying Labour was “desperately thrashing around for a solution to their borders crisis.” He argued that the party had lost control of its borders and urged the government to focus on stronger immigration measures, including proposals to end the Human Rights Act for immigration matters and to deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals. Philp’s critique underscored a broader concern within Conservative and some cross-party circles that digital IDs would not address root causes of illegal migration and could chill civil liberties.

Reform UK MP Lee Anderson joined the criticism, calling the policy proposal “more smoke and mirrors from the worst Prime Minister in the history of our country.” He warned that digital ID cards would “achieve nothing apart from allowing the state to spy on decent British folk,” and he urged Starmer to step aside. His remarks reflected a line of attack that portrays Labour’s approach as technocratic overreach that would intrude on everyday life without delivering tangible border-control gains.

Labour backbenchers were not alone in their skepticism. Norwich South MP Clive Lewis described the plan as an “utter, dystopian disaster” and said it would serve as “part of a repression-ready, gift-wrapped surveillance state for [Nigel] Farage to pick up and run with.” The criticism from within the parliamentary party highlighted concerns that the proposal could become a political liability for Starmer if framed as an expensive intrusion rather than a practical solution to migration pressures.

Proponents of digital ID schemes argued that existing digital identity programs already exist in other government contexts, and that a universal approach could streamline access to public services, employment, and housing. A spokesperson for the Adam Smith Institute, a free-market think tank, said the government’s pursuit of a new digital ID to crack down on illegal migration appeared misguided, noting that many countries already require some form of ID. The Institute cautioned that immigration and labor practices have long existed in many nations with or without universal digital IDs.

The government itself signaled openness to technology-enabled solutions while insisting that any plan would be carefully evaluated. A government spokesman said the administration is committed to expanding the use of technology and would consider serious proposals that would help people access public services, including digital ID. The remarks suggested that digital ID remains on the policy radar, even as critics warned of serious civil-liberties concerns and political risks for Labour ahead of the conference.

The Digital ID proposal, if announced, would mark a high-profile step in Labour’s approach to migration and border security at a time when opposition parties argue that the government has yet to demonstrate a credible strategy for managing arrivals and asylum claims. While Labour officials have framed the plan as a potential tool to verify eligibility for work and housing, critics warned of the broader implications for privacy, civil liberties, and who would ultimately control the data collected under such a system. The policy’s reception inside Labour highlights a broader tension within the party between those who advocate more assertive border controls and those who worry about the consequences for civil rights and the culture of suspicion surrounding the migration debate.

Analysts noted that any move toward a universal digital ID framework would require careful consideration of data protection, oversight, and democratic accountability, particularly given the potential for mission creep and the risk of overreach by security and immigration authorities. Supporters argued that in an era of online hiring, rental markets, and public service access, streamlined identification could reduce administrative friction and help ensure compliance with immigration rules. Opponents, however, warned that the plan could become a default instrument for surveillance, enabling misuse by future administrations regardless of current safeguards.

As Labour prepares for its conference in Liverpool, stakeholders in Westminster and beyond will watch closely how the party balances the need to address migration concerns with the protection of civil liberties. The coming weeks are likely to feature a broader debate about how technology should intersect with citizenship, residency rights, and public services in a reform agenda that risks defining Starmer’s leadership as either principled but bold or overbearing and politically risky.