Johnson rails against government ID cards as Labour proposes smartphone-based scheme

Former prime minister Boris Johnson sharpened his opposition to a government-issued ID card scheme, saying he would never carry or use one and urging others to resist a proposal he described as expensive, invasive and “un-British.” Johnson’s remarks targeted a plan associated with Labour leader Keir Starmer to store state-sponsored identification in smartphones, arguing that the government would create a vast new database that would be vulnerable to abuse and fraud.

Johnson’s critique centers on the perceived scale and purpose of such a system. He contends that requiring an ID card for tens of millions of people would be prohibitively costly—he described the price tag as “many tens of billions of pounds”—at a moment when the tax burden is high and the government is grappling with economic pressures. He also questioned the practical benefit, noting that employers already have legal duties to verify workers’ rights to work in the country and can require documentation such as passports, visas, or National Insurance numbers. He warned that the new scheme would shift data collection from a targeted process to a broad national repository, exposing personal information to potential breaches and misuse.

The former prime minister highlighted recent privacy and security concerns in the private sector as a cautionary backdrop. He cited high-profile data incidents at British retailers and manufacturers as indicative of how even well-protected systems can be compromised, arguing that the proposed government archive would be a ripe target for criminals and hostile actors. He warned that the system would not simply store basic credentials but would include sensitive details—name, address, date of birth, National Insurance number, job description, height, eye color, hair color, and sex—raising questions about who would have access and how safeguards would function at scale.

Historically, Johnson invoked Britain’s uneasy relationship with ID cards to bolster his argument. He pointed to wartime experiments with identity verification that were never sustained in peacetime, and to a landmark 1950 debate sparked by a motorist who refused to produce an ID during a police stop. Johnson recounted how the incident helped galvanize public opposition and culminated in the abandonment of compulsory ID schemes, framing today’s proposal as repeating a discredited path. He stressed that the British have long resisted compulsory identity checks and that the current relationship with identity verification—largely through voluntary and employer-driven processes—reflects a broader cultural preference for privacy and individual liberty.

The debate arrives as Labour seeks to expand identity verification capabilities in response to concerns about illegal immigration and border enforcement. Johnson suggested that the proposed ID scheme would be exploited as a “mass surveillance” instrument rather than a targeted tool to deter wrongdoing, arguing that it would impose costs on ordinary citizens rather than solving the underlying problems it seeks to address.

In Johnson’s view, a more effective approach would involve robust border policies that deter illegal entry, including provisions that he has previously praised as strong deterrents. He argued that Labour’s plan would be politically expedient but ineffective, and that it would burden law-abiding citizens with new obligations while doing little to deter those seeking to enter the country illegally. He urged opponents of the plan to speak out, suggesting the policy would force the state into a sprawling, costly new bureaucracy that could be vulnerable to cyber threats and administrative failures.

The remarks come at a time of internal pressure within Labour as the party grapples with policy direction and leadership dynamics. Johnson attributed the proposal to a broader political strategy associated with Starmer’s leadership, accusing it of reflecting ideological edges rather than practical governance. He framed the debate as a clash between what he characterized as a “papers please” culture and a traditional British preference for civil liberties that resist mandatory identity verification.

Beyond the domestic political narrative, Johnson’s comments touch on a wider global conversation about how states balance security, privacy and efficiency in an increasingly digital world. While some governments have pursued digital identity initiatives as a means to streamline public services and border controls, opponents warn of overreach, data breaches and the risk of normalization of pervasive surveillance. Johnson’s stance reiterates a line often echoed in British public discourse: that any move to widen identity verification must be justified, costed transparently, and accompanied by robust protections for personal data.

As the policy debate moves forward, observers will watch for how the government and opposition address questions of implementation, cost, privacy safeguards, and the practical impact on workers, migrants and ordinary citizens. The timing matters as public sentiment interacts with broader economic pressures and concerns about government overreach in the digital age. Supporters of enhanced identification argue that a unified system could improve immigration enforcement and service delivery, while critics say it risks turning identity into a state-controlled instrument—posing a challenge to the decades-long British tendency to resist expansive ID schemes.

Ultimately, Johnson’s message emphasizes a broader skepticism about the feasibility and desirability of a universal ID regime in the United Kingdom. His message, delivered in the language of constitutional liberty and fiscal prudence, underscores a persistent tension in British politics: how to reconcile security and efficiency with privacy and personal freedom in an era of rapid digital transformation.