Hitchens warns Labour's identity plan could create a 'Stasi' state, urges voters to reject compulsory IDs

A Daily Mail column by Peter Hitchens argues that Sir Keir Starmer's push for compulsory identity documents extends beyond immigration policy and risks creating a sprawling, digital surveillance state that could affect everyday life.

He describes Labour's plan as a system of pervasive identity checks that would be demanded by doctors, shopkeepers, bus drivers, and other officials, turning verification into a routine gatekeeper for access to services, employment, housing, and travel. The piece argues that people would be monitored not because they have something to hide, but because the state would insist on lifelong proof of identity as a matter of course.

According to Hitchens, the more law-abiding a citizen appears, the more scrutinized they would be, under a regime that would steadily broaden the demand for proof of identity. He warns that the result could be a population forced to navigate a web of checks to access basic rights, with services and opportunities increasingly conditioned on digital credentials.

He argues the border policy would require an expensive passport to leave or re-enter the country, while those entering illegally could destroy documents and disappear, making enforcement inconsistent and punishing the innocent. The columnist contends Labour would effectively punish ordinary people while allowing lawbreakers to operate with fewer constraints.

On migration, he claims Labour has signaled openness to mass movement, framing the policy as a matter of security and national identity rather than humanitarian concern. He contends the broader aim is to reshape the country's demographics by changing who is permitted to live there, rather than addressing migration on its own terms.

Security concerns are central to the piece; Hitchens cites recent cyberattacks on retailers and other services as proof that digital systems could be exploited by hackers or foreign powers. He notes examples such as high-profile breaches at Marks & Spencer, Jaguar Land Rover, and the Kido nursery chain to illustrate how quickly a poorly defended system could be compromised.

He draws a stark comparison to China, arguing that once the state turns against an individual, access to essentials can be curtailed swiftly. He argues that correcting government errors can be nearly impossible, reinforcing his claim that a compulsory ID regime would leave ordinary people with little recourse when mistakes occur.

The column repeats the familiar warning that the adage nothing to hide does not justify round-the-clock surveillance. Instead, it portrays privacy protections as fundamental rights jeopardized by a system that presumes guilt and treats identity as a permanent credential required for nearly every aspect of daily life.

Through exaggerated scenarios, the author argues that the reach of such a policy could extend beyond ordinary governance. He imagines a heavy-handed approach to enforcement, including proposals to deploy large numbers of traffic wardens as a de facto enforcement arm, and even suggests actions aimed at discouraging arrivals on the south coast. The piece hints at using state power to police borders in ways that could stretch resources and distort priorities, while also invoking distant conflicts where such authority might be deployed.

Hitchens closes by urging voters to oppose any candidate who advocates compulsory identity documents, arguing that safeguarding civil liberties should be as much a political priority as border control and national security. The column frames the debate as a test of how the country balances security with individual rights, especially ahead of the next election.

The discussion reflects a broader national conversation about surveillance, identity, and governance as the United Kingdom weighs policy directions in the lead-up to a pivotal electoral contest. While critics may view the piece as a polemic, it underscores enduring concerns about how modern technology, data collection, and migration policy intersect with personal freedoms.