Hitchens warns of digital Stasi under Starmer as UK identity plan looms

A Daily Mail column by Peter Hitchens portrays Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer’s calls for compulsory identity documentation as a threat to civil liberties, arguing the plan would usher in a digital surveillance regime that resembles a modern Stasi.

Hitchens contends that Starmer’s past statements and public stance signal an anti-liberty trajectory, and he warns that as officials demand identity verification for more daily acts, ordinary life would gradually hinge on government scrutiny. He sketches a scenario in which the state would insist on ever more checks for access to services, work, travel, and housing, with the default expectation being mistrust of the public. In the column’s most provocative note, he suggests the logic of pervasive ID could, in his view, push toward measures as invasive as street-level identifiers or even head‑level markers, should such a regime be introduced.

Hitchens argues that the proposed system would effectively punish the innocent while letting the guilty carry on under the radar. He claims the more the state requires proof of identity, the more ordinary citizens would find themselves unable to obtain goods, travel, or access essential services without frequent, official checks. The columnist cites familiar refrains from identity debates in which a public fear of confrontation with authorities is framed as a deficit of trust in the population, a dynamic he says enshrines the idea that surveillance is for the public’s own good, regardless of the cost to liberty.

As part of his critique, Hitchens notes that even in legal questions tied to borders, obtaining an expensive passport to cross in and out would be a marker of compliance, while many who enter illegally might evade records entirely. He argues that this asymmetry undermines the stated aims of immigration control and instead creates a dual system where law-abiding citizens are constantly checked while the guilty evade similar scrutiny. He points to France, which he says operates strict identity rules yet still faces a substantial number of illegal migrants living off the grid, highlighting the tension between policy design and real-world outcomes.

The security posture of a nationwide identity system is another pillar of his warning. Hitchens notes a string of high-profile cyber incidents affecting retailers and organizations, arguing that no system is immune to hackers or foreign interference. He invokes recent breaches at major brands and companies to question whether a centralized, government-backed ID framework could withstand such pressures. He also draws on a broader international reference, contrasting what he calls the Chinese model of control with Western governance norms, and raises concern about the potential consequences if a state overrides individuals’ access to essentials due to automated mismatches or errors.

In addressing Labour’s stance on migration, Hitchens asserts that the party has historically welcomed large-scale migration and suggests the policy is less about migration itself than about expanding the state’s reach into private lives. He recalls claims from years past that Labour sought to alter the country through population change, framing the present debate as a test of who should bear the costs and burdens of such policy choices. The columnist contends that the aim is not merely to manage borders but to extend a pervasive supervision that could redefine civic life as a continuous negotiation with officialdom.

Hitchens closes with a call to voters: oppose candidates who advocate compulsory identity documents. He finishes with a late‑career flourish that contrasts the imagined army of parking wardens with the shrinking national army, suggesting that civilian enforcement powers could grow to fill gaps—an argument he uses to caution against replacing traditional institutions with ubiquitous surveillance and administrative control. In his view, the real question is whether citizens will accept a regime in which basic freedoms are treated as privileges conditional on continuous proof of identity and loyalty to state processes.