What if you just don't want to have a smartphone? Is the government going to force you to buy one? Increasing numbers of younger people are ditching smartphones in order to reduce their screen time.
Labour are hoping that figures like the ones mentioned and the lower NHS waiting lists will get around. The fact is they are not. The general public is not being informed of these in any meaningful way. Labour are failing to on their communications in general.
Due to train arriving had to split my post in two. As to the ID issue. Even if Labour stick to their word on this. What happens if Reform get in? I could see uneven ID requirements, along the lines of but hopefully not as harsh as the ID system in South Africa during apartheid.
The proof of work for those on visas is already digital -- unless you want to suggest that there's a rash of fake passports floating around.
Somehow, I would have assumed that people who lie about their right to work (or conspire with their employer to lie about their right to work) would have produced a fake birth certificate and NI card, which are paper, and easier to fake.
Lastly, it's digital. How will that work given the large digital divide in the UK ? Which smart phones will it support ? For long will older smart phones stay in support? What about the homeless and asylum seekers, who may not have smart phones and frequently have their belongings stolen (leaving aside the issue that a percentage of the public think that the government just gives migrants free smartphones).
On what planet does you showing me something on your phone prove anything? I have no control over your phone, I have no idea what software you're running on it, and I have no reason to trust anything you show me.
I can, presumably, trust a government database, and I can to a reasonable extent trust my own phone or computer. Surely the only reasonable way a digital ID can work is if you present an identifier (a number would be fine; a QR code would work as a computer-readable way of displaying it), and I query the government database with your ID number. The government database will tell me the information I am authorized to have (which might be "yes, this person is legally permitted to work in the UK"). We then have to establish that you, the human in front of me, is the same as the owner of the ID. Perhaps the government database sends me photos of you and I check; perhaps I take a photo of you and there's some automagic biometric check that you look the same as your previous stored photos.
Perhaps the app on your phone is to generate a one-time key to permit an ID query, so if I'm applying for a job with your company, I need to authorize you to query my employability?
Surprisingly enough, checking a government database is how an employer can currently check on whether someone has the right to work in the UK. AFAICT (given that no details have been released about the proposal), the "digital ID" simply changes how an employer would access that database.
The proof of work for those on visas is already digital -- unless you want to suggest that there's a rash of fake passports floating around.
Somehow, I would have assumed that people who lie about their right to work (or conspire with their employer to lie about their right to work) would have produced a fake birth certificate and NI card, which are paper, and easier to fake.
I assume if they conspire to their empire to lie about their right to work, they don't actually have to produce anything.
I can, presumably, trust a government database, and I can to a reasonable extent trust my own phone or computer. Surely the only reasonable way a digital ID can work is if you present an identifier (a number would be fine; a QR code would work as a computer-readable way of displaying it), and I query the government database with your ID number.
Well, I presume in some cases it would be checked against an offboard database (in a similar manner in which bank cards on your phone work), and in other cases (the ones mentioned by ministers other than Starmer) you would be essentially presenting the credential on your phone to a government run or other website/app.
The costs of reversing the two child cap will be quite small, I've heard numbers around £2b per year. That's about 5% of the defence budget, or 5% of the interest on national debts. Or, about 10% of the net worth of the richest person in the UK. It's also probably the cheapest way to lift a significant number of children out of poverty.
The costs of reversing the two child cap will be quite small, I've heard numbers around £2b per year. That's about 5% of the defence budget, or 5% of the interest on national debts. Or, about 10% of the net worth of the richest person in the UK. It's also probably the cheapest way to lift a significant number of children out of poverty.
Or half of what the Duke of Buccleuch dodged in inheritance tax by buying land.
The costs of reversing the two child cap will be quite small, I've heard numbers around £2b per year. That's about 5% of the defence budget, or 5% of the interest on national debts. Or, about 10% of the net worth of the richest person in the UK. It's also probably the cheapest way to lift a significant number of children out of poverty.
And, even for those worried about budget deficits, it will almost certainly pay for itself over time with improvements in health outcomes and reductions in crime. It was never a financial decision, it was performative punishment of the supposedly "feckless" poor.
The ILR changes are bad. You can't say that Farage's policy is immoral whilst simultaneously moving in this direction. If you work in health, then a significant proportion of your coworkers will be in precarious work circumstances for longer given this decision.
The idea that it may be made retrospective is even worse -- and even floating the idea that it might be degrades political culture.
The mandatory volunteering is also bad, on any number of levels (is the Home Office going to audit volunteering opportunities now?)
This trend towards treating people who've already met stringent criteria to enter the country (and mostly to do jobs we don't have enough qualified people for) as supplicants to be ritually humiliated is disgusting.
Comments
Somehow, I would have assumed that people who lie about their right to work (or conspire with their employer to lie about their right to work) would have produced a fake birth certificate and NI card, which are paper, and easier to fake.
On what planet does you showing me something on your phone prove anything? I have no control over your phone, I have no idea what software you're running on it, and I have no reason to trust anything you show me.
I can, presumably, trust a government database, and I can to a reasonable extent trust my own phone or computer. Surely the only reasonable way a digital ID can work is if you present an identifier (a number would be fine; a QR code would work as a computer-readable way of displaying it), and I query the government database with your ID number. The government database will tell me the information I am authorized to have (which might be "yes, this person is legally permitted to work in the UK"). We then have to establish that you, the human in front of me, is the same as the owner of the ID. Perhaps the government database sends me photos of you and I check; perhaps I take a photo of you and there's some automagic biometric check that you look the same as your previous stored photos.
Perhaps the app on your phone is to generate a one-time key to permit an ID query, so if I'm applying for a job with your company, I need to authorize you to query my employability?
I assume if they conspire to their empire to lie about their right to work, they don't actually have to produce anything.
Well, I presume in some cases it would be checked against an offboard database (in a similar manner in which bank cards on your phone work), and in other cases (the ones mentioned by ministers other than Starmer) you would be essentially presenting the credential on your phone to a government run or other website/app.
Should have done it a year ago but still the right thing.
Of course, it was an evil policy when the Tories brought it in.
AFZ
They're going to confiscate Yaxley-Lennon's GoFundMe.
Or half of what the Duke of Buccleuch dodged in inheritance tax by buying land.
And, even for those worried about budget deficits, it will almost certainly pay for itself over time with improvements in health outcomes and reductions in crime. It was never a financial decision, it was performative punishment of the supposedly "feckless" poor.
The idea that it may be made retrospective is even worse -- and even floating the idea that it might be degrades political culture.
The mandatory volunteering is also bad, on any number of levels (is the Home Office going to audit volunteering opportunities now?)