No to Starmer’s Digital ID, we must Defend Britain’s Ancient Liberties Against Modern Tyranny
The news broke today, September 25, 2025, that Sir Keir Starmer’s dysfunctional Labour government has become dystopian, as it announced that it is pushing ahead with plans for a compulsory digital ID system. This so-called “Brit card” (something sinister even in that foreshortening of our nationality itself) that every adult in the UK will be required to carry in virtual form. Sold as a tool to combat illegal immigration and streamline services, this isn’t just bureaucratic busywork; it’s a direct assault on the civil liberties that have been the bedrock of British, and in particular English society, for centuries.
Let me make my position unequivocally clear: I will not comply. If this scheme becomes law, I will resist it with every fibre of my being, joining the ranks of those who have historically stood against arbitrary power. This is a fight we cannot afford to lose, for it edges us closer to the continental nightmare of citizens as compliant serfs, beholden to an all-seeing state.
To understand the gravity of this threat, we must first confront the profound dangers it poses to our civil liberties. At its core, a mandatory digital ID transforms the relationship between citizen and state from one of mutual respect to one of constant suspicion and control. Imagine a world where accessing basic services, banking, healthcare, employment, or even public transport, requires scanning a digital credential that logs your every move.
This isn’t hyperbole; civil liberties organisations like Big Brother Watch have warned that such a system would create a “bonfire of our civil liberties,” enabling mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale. Your location, purchases, and interactions could be tracked in real-time, feeding into vast government databases vulnerable to hacks, leaks, and misuse. Britain’s history is littered with data breaches, from the 2023 Electoral Commission hack exposing 40 million voters’ details to the NHS’s repeated cyber vulnerabilities, that demonstrate how no system is infallible. A single breach could expose sensitive personal information, leading to identity theft, blackmail, or worse, state-sponsored targeting of dissenters.
But the perils extend far beyond privacy erosion. This digital ID is the gateway to even more insidious tools of control, such as Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and social credit systems. A CBDC, a programmable digital pound issued by the Bank of England, could integrate seamlessly with your ID, allowing the government to dictate spending: restricting purchases deemed “undesirable,” like alcohol during a health campaign or fuel during an environmental crackdown.
Tie this to a social credit score, akin to China’s model, and you’ve got a mechanism where “bad behaviour”, protesting government policy, sharing “misinformation” online, or even associating with the “wrong” people, could lower your score, barring you from loans, travel, or jobs. Liberty warns that such systems won’t solve issues like migration but will exacerbate exclusion, particularly for the digitally vulnerable: the elderly, the poor, and minorities without reliable internet access, effectively creating a two-tier society where non-compliance means social and economic exile. As if society, justice and this Government were not too tier enough already.
From the perspective of the international elite, this is no dystopia, it’s utopia. Figures like Tony Blair and William Hague, those perennial globalists, view digital ID as an “unalloyed good,” a means to “redesign the state” for efficiency and control. Blair’s institute touts it as a way to save billions and fight fraud, while Hague dismisses critics as outdated Luddites. Labour under Starmer echoes this, seeing social control as a benevolent force for “good governance.” But this mindset betrays a contempt for individual autonomy, treating citizens as data points to be managed rather than free agents. It’s the same elite consensus peddled at Davos: technology as the saviour, liberty as an obstacle.
To grasp why this battle is existential, we must revisit Britain’s storied history of liberty, a legacy forged in blood and defiance against precisely this kind of overreach. Our freedoms weren’t handed down by benevolent rulers; they were wrested from tyrants by martyrs who understood that unchecked power corrupts absolutely. Consider “Freeborn John” Lilburne, the indomitable Leveller leader of the 17th century. Born around 1614, Lilburne emerged from the English Civil War as a champion of the common man’s rights. Imprisoned multiple times for his Puritan beliefs and radical pamphlets, he famously invoked the “freeborn rights” of Englishmen in his trials, refusing to self-incriminate and demanding due process.
In 1649, amid the Putney Debates, Lilburne and his Leveller comrades articulated the Agreement of the People, a proto-constitution calling for universal manhood suffrage, religious tolerance, and an end to arbitrary arrest, ideas that echoed Magna Carta’s 1215 guarantees against unlawful detention. Lilburne’s defiance, enduring whippings and exile, embodied the English spirit: no man is a serf, subject to the whims of kings or parliaments.
Fast forward to the 18th century, and we find John Wilkes, another martyr whose struggles resonate eerily today. A rakish MP and journalist, Wilkes was arrested in 1763 under a general warrant for seditious libel after criticising King George III in his newspaper, The North Briton. His case sparked riots with cries of “Wilkes and Liberty!” as crowds rallied against invasive searches and press suppression. Expelled from Parliament multiple times yet repeatedly re-elected, Wilkes fought for parliamentary reform, free speech, and the right to privacy, principles that influenced the American Bill of Rights and our own 1689 Bill of Rights.
These martyrs, Lilburne, Wilkes, and others like Richard Overton and William Walwyn, weren’t abstract theorists; they were flesh-and-blood resisters who faced torture, imprisonment, and death to preserve the idea that Englishmen (and now, all Britons) are born free, not as subjects to be monitored and moulded.
This history contrasts sharply with the “continental dream” of compliant serfs, rooted in absolutist traditions where the state reigns supreme, as in pre-revolutionary France or modern authoritarian regimes. Britain’s common law heritage, Magna Carta’s habeas corpus, the Petition of Right in 1628 banning arbitrary imprisonment, has always prioritised individual rights over state convenience.
Yet Starmer’s digital ID threatens to import this servile model, turning us into data-serfs in a surveillance state. If we lose this fight, the martyrs’ sacrifices fade, and we slide toward a Europe of centralised control, where privacy is a relic and dissent a crime. It is astonishing that those who hold up the idea of the ECHR as the guarantor of our Human Rights are those who would most deliberately create a regime that deliberately undermines our liberties. This isn’t just gaslighting, this is gaslighting by flame thrower.
Now, let’s dismantle the government’s chief pretext: curbing illegal immigration. Blair’s acolytes claim digital ID will verify identities, slashing fraud and illegal work, potentially saving £2 billion annually. This is utter rubbish, a cynical ploy using migration as cover for broader surveillance. If Labour were serious about borders, they’d pursue effective, liberty-preserving alternatives.
Crack down on illegal employment with hefty fines and unannounced inspections on exploitative bosses. Target illegal accommodation by empowering councils to raid and shutter slum-like operations run by criminal landlords. Detain and deport swiftly those without legal status, investing in efficient asylum processing and border tech like improved E-gates. End the hotel housing farce and prioritise returns agreements with source countries. These measures work without digitizing every citizen’s life. As critics note, digital ID won’t deter Channel crossings; it’s political theatre that ignores the real trust crisis in government data handling.
This is why my hopes rest with Reform UK. Today Nigel Farage has said, “I am firmly opposed to Keir_Starmer’s digital ID cards.It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalise the rest of us.
The state should never have this much power”.
He has opposed ID cards, physical or digital, for years, labelling them ‘tools of suppression’. During UKIP’s heyday, we backed the No2ID campaign that helped scrap Blair’s 2005 scheme in 2010. Reform should now pledge unequivocally: if we gain power in 2029, we’ll abolish this anti-democratic abomination, implemented or not. This puts Starmer and the multinational tech firms eyeing fat contracts on notice, no profits from peddling chains.
Even if legislation passes, implementation within four years is improbable. Past efforts faltered amid technical woes, public outrage, and civil liberties backlash, Blair’s plan collapsed under similar pressures. With groups like Liberty and Big Brother Watch gearing up for legal challenges, and concerns over excluding millions of digitally illiterate citizens, this could implode.
But complacency is our enemy. This one we must fight, and fight with every sinew. Channel Lilburne’s unyielding spirit, Wilkes’s audacious defiance. Write to MPs, join campaigns, protest in the streets. Our liberties are a sacred inheritance; defend them, or watch them digitise into dust. The continental serfdom beckons, repel it.
Stay resolute.
I hope the tide is turning in the UK, Fred. It is very much needed.
This is stupid . Why didn’t the US rep object /
From the UK:
I will not comply:
No to Starmer’s Digital ID, we must Defend Britain’s Ancient Liberties Against Modern Tyranny
The news broke today, September 25, 2025, that Sir Keir Starmer’s dysfunctional Labour government has become dystopian, as it announced that it is pushing ahead with plans for a compulsory digital ID system. This so-called “Brit card” (something sinister even in that foreshortening of our nationality itself) that every adult in the UK will be required to carry in virtual form. Sold as a tool to combat illegal immigration and streamline services, this isn’t just bureaucratic busywork; it’s a direct assault on the civil liberties that have been the bedrock of British, and in particular English society, for centuries.
Let me make my position unequivocally clear: I will not comply. If this scheme becomes law, I will resist it with every fibre of my being, joining the ranks of those who have historically stood against arbitrary power. This is a fight we cannot afford to lose, for it edges us closer to the continental nightmare of citizens as compliant serfs, beholden to an all-seeing state.
To understand the gravity of this threat, we must first confront the profound dangers it poses to our civil liberties. At its core, a mandatory digital ID transforms the relationship between citizen and state from one of mutual respect to one of constant suspicion and control. Imagine a world where accessing basic services, banking, healthcare, employment, or even public transport, requires scanning a digital credential that logs your every move.
This isn’t hyperbole; civil liberties organisations like Big Brother Watch have warned that such a system would create a “bonfire of our civil liberties,” enabling mass surveillance on an unprecedented scale. Your location, purchases, and interactions could be tracked in real-time, feeding into vast government databases vulnerable to hacks, leaks, and misuse. Britain’s history is littered with data breaches, from the 2023 Electoral Commission hack exposing 40 million voters’ details to the NHS’s repeated cyber vulnerabilities, that demonstrate how no system is infallible. A single breach could expose sensitive personal information, leading to identity theft, blackmail, or worse, state-sponsored targeting of dissenters.
But the perils extend far beyond privacy erosion. This digital ID is the gateway to even more insidious tools of control, such as Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and social credit systems. A CBDC, a programmable digital pound issued by the Bank of England, could integrate seamlessly with your ID, allowing the government to dictate spending: restricting purchases deemed “undesirable,” like alcohol during a health campaign or fuel during an environmental crackdown.
Tie this to a social credit score, akin to China’s model, and you’ve got a mechanism where “bad behaviour”, protesting government policy, sharing “misinformation” online, or even associating with the “wrong” people, could lower your score, barring you from loans, travel, or jobs. Liberty warns that such systems won’t solve issues like migration but will exacerbate exclusion, particularly for the digitally vulnerable: the elderly, the poor, and minorities without reliable internet access, effectively creating a two-tier society where non-compliance means social and economic exile. As if society, justice and this Government were not too tier enough already.
From the perspective of the international elite, this is no dystopia, it’s utopia. Figures like Tony Blair and William Hague, those perennial globalists, view digital ID as an “unalloyed good,” a means to “redesign the state” for efficiency and control. Blair’s institute touts it as a way to save billions and fight fraud, while Hague dismisses critics as outdated Luddites. Labour under Starmer echoes this, seeing social control as a benevolent force for “good governance.” But this mindset betrays a contempt for individual autonomy, treating citizens as data points to be managed rather than free agents. It’s the same elite consensus peddled at Davos: technology as the saviour, liberty as an obstacle.
To grasp why this battle is existential, we must revisit Britain’s storied history of liberty, a legacy forged in blood and defiance against precisely this kind of overreach. Our freedoms weren’t handed down by benevolent rulers; they were wrested from tyrants by martyrs who understood that unchecked power corrupts absolutely. Consider “Freeborn John” Lilburne, the indomitable Leveller leader of the 17th century. Born around 1614, Lilburne emerged from the English Civil War as a champion of the common man’s rights. Imprisoned multiple times for his Puritan beliefs and radical pamphlets, he famously invoked the “freeborn rights” of Englishmen in his trials, refusing to self-incriminate and demanding due process.
In 1649, amid the Putney Debates, Lilburne and his Leveller comrades articulated the Agreement of the People, a proto-constitution calling for universal manhood suffrage, religious tolerance, and an end to arbitrary arrest, ideas that echoed Magna Carta’s 1215 guarantees against unlawful detention. Lilburne’s defiance, enduring whippings and exile, embodied the English spirit: no man is a serf, subject to the whims of kings or parliaments.
Fast forward to the 18th century, and we find John Wilkes, another martyr whose struggles resonate eerily today. A rakish MP and journalist, Wilkes was arrested in 1763 under a general warrant for seditious libel after criticising King George III in his newspaper, The North Briton. His case sparked riots with cries of “Wilkes and Liberty!” as crowds rallied against invasive searches and press suppression. Expelled from Parliament multiple times yet repeatedly re-elected, Wilkes fought for parliamentary reform, free speech, and the right to privacy, principles that influenced the American Bill of Rights and our own 1689 Bill of Rights.
These martyrs, Lilburne, Wilkes, and others like Richard Overton and William Walwyn, weren’t abstract theorists; they were flesh-and-blood resisters who faced torture, imprisonment, and death to preserve the idea that Englishmen (and now, all Britons) are born free, not as subjects to be monitored and moulded.
This history contrasts sharply with the “continental dream” of compliant serfs, rooted in absolutist traditions where the state reigns supreme, as in pre-revolutionary France or modern authoritarian regimes. Britain’s common law heritage, Magna Carta’s habeas corpus, the Petition of Right in 1628 banning arbitrary imprisonment, has always prioritised individual rights over state convenience.
Yet Starmer’s digital ID threatens to import this servile model, turning us into data-serfs in a surveillance state. If we lose this fight, the martyrs’ sacrifices fade, and we slide toward a Europe of centralised control, where privacy is a relic and dissent a crime. It is astonishing that those who hold up the idea of the ECHR as the guarantor of our Human Rights are those who would most deliberately create a regime that deliberately undermines our liberties. This isn’t just gaslighting, this is gaslighting by flame thrower.
Now, let’s dismantle the government’s chief pretext: curbing illegal immigration. Blair’s acolytes claim digital ID will verify identities, slashing fraud and illegal work, potentially saving £2 billion annually. This is utter rubbish, a cynical ploy using migration as cover for broader surveillance. If Labour were serious about borders, they’d pursue effective, liberty-preserving alternatives.
Crack down on illegal employment with hefty fines and unannounced inspections on exploitative bosses. Target illegal accommodation by empowering councils to raid and shutter slum-like operations run by criminal landlords. Detain and deport swiftly those without legal status, investing in efficient asylum processing and border tech like improved E-gates. End the hotel housing farce and prioritise returns agreements with source countries. These measures work without digitizing every citizen’s life. As critics note, digital ID won’t deter Channel crossings; it’s political theatre that ignores the real trust crisis in government data handling.
This is why my hopes rest with Reform UK. Today Nigel Farage has said, “I am firmly opposed to Keir_Starmer’s digital ID cards.It will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalise the rest of us.
The state should never have this much power”.
He has opposed ID cards, physical or digital, for years, labelling them ‘tools of suppression’. During UKIP’s heyday, we backed the No2ID campaign that helped scrap Blair’s 2005 scheme in 2010. Reform should now pledge unequivocally: if we gain power in 2029, we’ll abolish this anti-democratic abomination, implemented or not. This puts Starmer and the multinational tech firms eyeing fat contracts on notice, no profits from peddling chains.
Even if legislation passes, implementation within four years is improbable. Past efforts faltered amid technical woes, public outrage, and civil liberties backlash, Blair’s plan collapsed under similar pressures. With groups like Liberty and Big Brother Watch gearing up for legal challenges, and concerns over excluding millions of digitally illiterate citizens, this could implode.
But complacency is our enemy. This one we must fight, and fight with every sinew. Channel Lilburne’s unyielding spirit, Wilkes’s audacious defiance. Write to MPs, join campaigns, protest in the streets. Our liberties are a sacred inheritance; defend them, or watch them digitise into dust. The continental serfdom beckons, repel it.
Stay resolute.
I hope the tide is turning in the UK, Fred. It is very much needed.