Genuinely interested to know what specifically is grotesque about it in your view - surely only the state can legitimately say who is a member of it, and issue tokens of that?
June 6, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Genuinely interested to know what specifically is grotesque about it in your view - surely only the state can legitimately say who is a member of it, and issue tokens of that?
The brand: I don’t think it’s necessarily jingoistic to use the 🇬🇧 or the prefix “Brit”. But I think we would agree that if this does make a contribution to any sense of national identity (which is a loftier claim than any we make in the paper)...
June 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM
The brand: I don’t think it’s necessarily jingoistic to use the 🇬🇧 or the prefix “Brit”. But I think we would agree that if this does make a contribution to any sense of national identity (which is a loftier claim than any we make in the paper)...
...but I think a mixed economy is almost certainly both needed and possible here. Some use cases feel like they should be citizen<>state; and some might be more comfortable being mediated by a private sector provider.
June 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM
...but I think a mixed economy is almost certainly both needed and possible here. Some use cases feel like they should be citizen<>state; and some might be more comfortable being mediated by a private sector provider.
Impact of this on the private provider market: there are already some interactions between the Trust Framework and One Login/the planned digital credentials that need sorting out...
June 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM
Impact of this on the private provider market: there are already some interactions between the Trust Framework and One Login/the planned digital credentials that need sorting out...
The costings do include roll-out and IRL support channels for people who are digitally and/or ID-excluded. I think you might be right that we missed out comms though.
June 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM
The costings do include roll-out and IRL support channels for people who are digitally and/or ID-excluded. I think you might be right that we missed out comms though.
There will always be bad employers who are just not interested in doing checks. But there are also those who don’t know they need to check; or try in good faith to check, but are duped by forged or borrowed ID. This will rule out those cases, and free up resources to get to the real bad guys
June 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM
There will always be bad employers who are just not interested in doing checks. But there are also those who don’t know they need to check; or try in good faith to check, but are duped by forged or borrowed ID. This will rule out those cases, and free up resources to get to the real bad guys
This is just one part of a migration strategy - definitely not a silver bullet. Nevertheless I think it’s quite a fundamental part. I think it’s reasonable to expect the state to have a clear idea of who is and isn’t allowed to live in the country, and to issue a proof of that to those that are.
June 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM
This is just one part of a migration strategy - definitely not a silver bullet. Nevertheless I think it’s quite a fundamental part. I think it’s reasonable to expect the state to have a clear idea of who is and isn’t allowed to live in the country, and to issue a proof of that to those that are.
Thank you for the thoughtful critique - I do appreciate it. I think it's helpful to have these arguments in public, so here's some thoughts in response:
June 6, 2025 at 11:33 AM
Thank you for the thoughtful critique - I do appreciate it. I think it's helpful to have these arguments in public, so here's some thoughts in response: