{"id":310243,"date":"2025-06-12T06:32:13","date_gmt":"2025-06-12T06:32:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=310243"},"modified":"2025-06-14T06:49:02","modified_gmt":"2025-06-14T06:49:02","slug":"britcard-inside-labours-progressive-digital-id","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=310243","title":{"rendered":"\u201cBritCard\u201d \u2013 Inside Labour\u2019s \u201cProgressive\u201d Digital ID"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kit Knightly \u2013 Off-Guardian June 10, 2025<\/strong><\/h1>\n

A new report from a British government think tank offers some clear insights into the Starmer administration\u2019s plan to introduce a universal digital ID.<\/p>\n

That digital ID \u2013 in one form or another \u2013 is a major part of the endgame is not any kind of revelation. We\u2019ve known that was the plan for years, but the report tells us quite a lot about how it\u2019s going to be sold to the public.<\/p>\n

I guess we should go ahead and dive in.<\/p>\n

The Thinktank<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The report was published just this week by Labour Together<\/a> \u2013 formerly \u201cThe Common Good\u201d \u2013 a thinktank founded in \u201cLabour\u2019s wilderness years\u201d to help \u201cmake Labour electable again\u201d, according to their about page.<\/p>\n

Translation: They\u2019re centrist globalist Blairite shills who helped undermine and destroy the only vaguely genuine movement in the last 50 years of British \u201cdemocracy\u201d and now publish reports to push a globalist agenda.<\/p>\n

According to the Electoral Commission<\/a>, they received over \u00a3 9 million in donations last year (from only 234 donors), much of which seems to have been \u201cdonated\u201d by Labour Together Limited, a for-profit company. The murky world of Westminster finances is not my focus, however, and I\u2019m sure it\u2019s at least passably legal and no more corrupt than is standard practice in those circles.<\/p>\n

Exactly how a think tank with eighteen employees, ten advisors, four policy fellows and five board members manages to spend 9 million pounds writing a newsletter a week, a report every two months and doing some online polls I have no idea.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a good question for another time, perhaps. For now, we know everything we need to know \u2013 Labour Together are old-fashioned New Labour types shilling for globalist tyranny.<\/p>\n

The Authors<\/strong><\/h2>\n

We won\u2019t talk long about the authors, because there\u2019s not much point. They\u2019re names on a title a page, and while I\u2019m sure they believe in the words they write (or at least, asked ChatGPT to write), it\u2019s also true their job requires they believe it.<\/p>\n

I just wanted to point out that the three supposed authors of this work on technology have no tech backgrounds at all. The closest any of them comes is Laurel Boxall, the \u201cabout the authors\u201d section of the report proudly declares she has a Masters from Cambridge \u201cfocusing on AI\u201d, but a bit a of digging<\/a> reveals it\u2019s a Masters in \u201cDigital Humanities\u201d with a focus on fictional portrayals of AI in media. Apparently, that qualifies you to become a \u201ctech policy advisor\u201d.<\/p>\n

Which is interesting, because it demonstrates that they consider fictional portrayals of AI to be as relevant to this work as real AI experience. An apposite commentary on the state of society in general.<\/p>\n

The Name<\/strong><\/h2>\n

They\u2019re calling it \u201cBritcard\u201d, probably because the massively out-of-touch market relations types who end up naming these things thought it sounded friendly.<\/p>\n

The prefix \u201cBrit\u201d makes things sound familiar and non-threatening. \u201cBritcard\u201d. So much better than mandatory government-issued digital identity papers. (\u201cBritcoin\u201d, too, down the line, instead of programmable digital currency\u2026but that\u2019s another article for another time).<\/p>\n

You can sort of<\/em> see what they\u2019re going for, the kind of knowingly cringe, ironically patriotic self self-aware Britishness that was the hallmark of New Labour in the halcyon days of Blair pre-Iraq.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s very much the crux of it \u2013 Blair.<\/p>\n

Digital ID is Blair\u2019s baby. One of the authors works for the Tony Blair Institute. Labour Together was founded by Blairite MPs and is staffed with ex-members of Blair\u2019s cabinet.<\/p>\n

The name is old-style Cool Britannia soft authoritarianism. The informal tyrant who isn\u2019t afraid of having a jam sesh and getting down with the kids. The \u201ccool\u201d teacher who let\u2019s you use his first name, undoes his top button and plays the guitar at weekends.<\/p>\n

The Report<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Published just a few days ago, the report is titled\u2026<\/p>\n

BritCard: A progressive digital identity for Britain<\/p>\n

\u2026which tells you most of what you need to know, without even bothering to read the body of the text. But, unfortunately, \u201cbothering to read the body of the text\u201d<\/em> is a pretty accurate summary of my job description, so on we must plough.<\/p>\n

I would note that even in using the word \u201cprogressive\u201d, the authors demonstrate a remarkable ability to be out of touch. That word\u2019s hay day is long over, and it has been regarded with scepticism if not outright suspicion by most thinking people for a long time. As we mentioned above, it betrays an almost old-fashioned tone more in keeping with the politics of a previous generation.<\/p>\n

The report is 28 pages long, but once you remove the double-talk and graphs, it can essentially be summed up in three bullet points:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Digital ID will help control illegal immigration.<\/li>\n
  2. It can then be expanded to other things, too.<\/li>\n
  3. Polls say everyone is fine with this.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Points 1 & 2 tell us how this rollout is going to go. The \u201cBritCard\u201d will be introduced, primarily, as a part of a \u201cstrategy to tackle illegal migration\u201d [page 8]:<\/p>\n

    Given the very significant political and delivery benefits, moderate costs and the deliverability of this policy, the Government should announce as early as possible in Summer 2025<\/strong> its intention to explore introducing a digital right-to-work and right-to-rent credential, as part of its plan to tackle illegal migration<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    This will include the new legislation required that will make \u201cBritCard\u201d the only way to apply for a job or find a place to live [page 25]. Employers and landlords will be forced to use it.<\/p>\n

    Then, once that is in place, it will expand to include other services [page 14]:<\/p>\n

    Over time, the same system used to support the right-to-work and right-to-rent credentials could underpin many other features, allowing users to access and use a wide range of data and attributes generated by interacting with the public sector. For instance, the digital driving license and associated data, a proof of age feature, and healthcare records could be accessed and shared at the user\u2019s discretion via BritCard.<\/p>\n

    Much like the smoking ban, the plan is to introduce it gradually\u2026<\/p>\n

    The BritCard would be made available from a given date (say 1 September 2027), and made compulsory for all workers, tenants, employers and landlords to use from a later date (say 1 March 2028). It would have a gradual effect since only a small proportion of the population signs a new employment contract or rental agreement each year. We recommend that the credential is made mandatory for new employment and rental contracts signed following the introduction date. We do not recommend obliging employers and landlords to re-check all existing employees and tenants, to avoid creating unnecessary disruption and costs<\/p>\n

    What\u2019s interesting is that, while this is supposedly a report written by \u201ctech advisors\u201d, in many ways it\u2019s more like an internal memo from an advertising agency. It\u2019s about selling a system that essentially already exists in piecemeal form under a unifying rebrand to make it seem \u201ceye-catching\u201d.<\/p>\n

    To support better awareness and uptake of the new credentials, the Gov.UK App and Gov.UK Wallet could be relaunched as the \u201cBritCard App\u201d. This would create an eye-catching, memorable brand<\/p>\n

    All the while, pump the media space with marketing to sell the concept as normal or even \u201cfamiliar\u201d:<\/p>\n

    By introducing a mandatory, universal, national identity credential the Labour Government has the opportunity to build a new piece of civic infrastructure, something that would become a familiar feature of daily life for everyone in the country.<\/p>\n

    That kind of sentiment \u2013 the casual creepiness of the liberal tyrant \u2013 is interspersed throughout. Phrases that no doubt seemed benign to the author in the writing, but appear decidedly ominous in the reading.<\/p>\n

    This, for example:<\/p>\n

    For a progressive society to work, it needs to be able to collectively agree who is allowed to join it<\/p>\n

    Disregarding the very poor English, the sentiment is\u2026off-putting.<\/p>\n

    Very poor English is another recurring theme. It is, honestly, barely literate in places, to the point it is entirely believable it was AI-generated using prompts.<\/p>\n

    As for the polls showing \u201cwidespread public support\u201d for the plan, well, we can disregard them.<\/p>\n

    Polls are malleable. They are a tool to market pre-existing policy rather than steer undecided policy. Labour Together apparently did their own polling and \u2013 shockingly \u2013 found that most people agree with them.<\/p>\n

    Those are the general points; in terms of specifics, the report is fairly threadbare. There is very little in the way of technical analysis; indeed, there\u2019s very little in the way of understanding<\/em> of reality.<\/p>\n

    For example, the report stresses \u2013 multiple times \u2013 that the proposed digital identity would be \u201cmandatory, universal and free of charge\u201d<\/em>, without ever processing that you can\u2019t make a smartphone app mandatory without making smartphones themselves mandatory. And while they may be ubiquitous, they are currently far from universal.<\/p>\n

    The report pays lip service to \u201cin person support channels\u201d<\/em> for \u201cnon-smartphone owners and those with low digital-skills\u201d<\/em>, but doesn\u2019t ever actually try to explain how that could practically work.<\/p>\n

    But of course none of that really matters to the intended audience.<\/p>\n

    Reports like this don\u2019t exist to inform or convince, they\u2019re only meant to echo the opinions of people who already agree with their conclusions. They don\u2019t really exist to be read at all<\/em>, they exist to be referenced<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    A jumping off point for articles like Polly Toynbee\u2019s<\/a> in yesterday\u2019s Guardian.<\/p>\n

    It is not an argument, it is an excuse to turn a made-up poll into a hyperlink. A source for source\u2019s sake. A Wikipedia footnote they know most people will never click.<\/p>\n

    Further, it is a part of a process that must be seen to take place to maintain the illusion of political cause and effect. If it appears slapdash and lazy, that\u2019s largely because it is. A token effort required to tick a box.<\/p>\n

    This is our desired outcome, we need some research to recommend that we do it.<\/em><\/p>\n

    And, hey presto, here it is.<\/p>\n

    Summary<\/strong><\/h2>\n

    In closing, we should ask \u201cwhat does this report tell us about digital ID we didn\u2019t already know?\u201d<\/p>\n

    And the answer is a little, not a lot. We already new digital ID schemes were inevitable, and would likely be pushed through (in the UK anyway) as an answer to illegal immigration.<\/p>\n

    What this report shows us is the marketing strategy for the coming year, and it\u2019s fairly simple:<\/p>\n