Tony Blair wants digital IDs to stop populists but it is Tony Blair’s illiberalism that needs to be stopped.
The former Prime Minister is returning to his technocratic roots to protect British citizens and impede his political opponents, such as Reform UK and other populists and put an end to the root causes of their popularity. He suggests introducing a national digital identification system and facial recognition cameras.
As a premise, by tracking and watching everyone, somehow distasteful politics will cease as will crime, it is a ridiculous one.
There will always be some level of risk and danger in society. We need to be aware and conscious of this. But this does not mean that we should try and eliminate all signs of risk in society. It may seem noble but can have pernicious results. There are diminishing marginal returns as well as unintended consequences, something Tony Blair has not taken into account. A government could get rid of all sugary products or give the police unlimited power.
Far from protecting and promoting a free society, Blair is obsessed with technocratic efficiency. In order to achieve this societal efficiency, people must give up their rights and their privacy. The only question for Blair is not if, but rather how much they should give up. The trade-off of rights is not an unusual one in human history, especially in post-war liberal societies, however the usual trade-off is rights and privacy for safety and security rather than efficiency. Many will not see a problem with this. Tony Blair’s own think tank has polling results that suggest some people would be open to this trade-off. But the freedoms and rights people would happily discard without a second thought, have been fought for and defended over centuries of oppression and disregard. Freedom and individual rights need to be protected, maintained, and promoted so that everyone can continue to live in a free society.
One of the consistent enemies of the hard-fought freedoms is policies made in moments of crisis, emergency, and panic. Some examples include World War II and the COVID-19 pandemic. One policy is the Emergency Powers Act 1939 originally only supposed to remain in power for one year however parts of the Act were preserved such as the power to control industry for wide purposes as well as the power to impose price controls on goods and services.
Introducing digital IDs has the makings to be a similar policy. It would be so extensive and integrated into the current system, providing MPs and cabinet ministers with previously untapped powers that would extend their capabilities and reach. Politicians love such implementations because it expands their capabilities. It would make them feel much more important and lets them show and tell voters they are doing something to help them, in the hope of winning their vote.
Given the high levels of integration necessary to achieve Blair’s vision of digital IDs, it would almost by definition become irreversible. The UK has one of the most extensive camera networks in the world that surveil the population every hour of every day, especially prominent in London. The state will never willingly take down the network of cameras much like a bear will never voluntarily poke one of its eyes out. It is essential to how the government functions, in its current form.
The case of CCTV is not a good comparison in Blair’s case because while it is a huge imposition on our privacy, it has increased our safety. The point is not whether this is right or wrong. It is to say the trade-off here is safety.
However, Blair stands his case firmly on the grounds of improved efficiency which is not, and should never be used as an argument to take away people’s rights and freedoms. Hypothetically the state can always be more efficient therefore opening up a path for government to take away all of our freedoms. An unlimited confiscation of rights to achieve unlimited levels of efficiency.
The proposal is fundamentally illiberal and goes against the very principle of what a free society is. The British public needs to firmly stand against digital IDs and keep in mind that efficiency is never a good argument to surrender your rights to. Especially ones that have been fought for and defended so vigorously.
