In a dramatic reversal that has sent ripples through Westminster and beyond, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has officially abandoned plans to make digital ID cards mandatory for all workers in the United Kingdom. The government’s decision, confirmed on January 13, 2026, marks the thirteenth significant U-turn of Starmer’s premiership and underscores the mounting political and practical challenges of implementing sweeping digital reforms in a climate of public skepticism and party unrest.
Originally unveiled with considerable fanfare in September 2025, the digital ID scheme was positioned as a cornerstone of Labour’s strategy to tackle illegal immigration and overhaul the country’s approach to employment verification. Starmer’s rhetoric at the time was unequivocal. According to The Times, he declared, “Let me spell it out, you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.” The aim, as Starmer put it, was to “know who is in our country” and to prevent migrants from being able to “slip into the shadow economy.”
Yet, what was initially framed as a tough, pragmatic measure soon encountered a torrent of opposition from multiple fronts. As More in Common polling cited by New Statesman revealed, digital IDs for workers started out as a popular idea, boasting net support of +35% in early summer 2025. However, enthusiasm quickly waned. By the weekend after Starmer’s announcement, support had plummeted to -14%. YouGov polling, referenced by The Times, showed that nearly six in ten voters initially backed the plan, but that number dropped to under four in ten following the announcement, with nearly half of respondents opposed.
Party insiders and government officials were quick to register their misgivings. Cabinet ministers reportedly described the rationale behind the scheme as “incoherent,” pointing out that right-to-work checks already existed and questioning the need for an additional layer of bureaucracy. Some feared the proposal smacked of state overreach, while others worried about alienating left-leaning Labour voters and fueling conspiracy theories about digital surveillance. As one government source told The Times, “We do not want to risk there being cases of some 65-year-old in a rural area being barred from working because he hasn’t downloaded this app.”
There were also practical concerns about the scheme’s cost and complexity. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that implementing digital IDs could cost as much as £1.8 billion over the next three years—a figure the government disputed but notably failed to replace with its own estimate. Critics warned that the scheme risked recreating existing systems, such as electronic visas for migrants, without delivering meaningful improvements in security or convenience.
Within Labour’s own ranks, the policy became a lightning rod for dissent. Ministers described the digital ID plan as a “fantasy” and “too expensive and complicated,” according to The Times. One frontbencher reportedly called the eventual U-turn a “shitshow,” reflecting the depth of frustration and embarrassment among some of Starmer’s colleagues. The Liberal Democrats, never ones to miss an opportunity for a quip, said: “Number 10 must be bulk ordering motion sickness tablets at this rate to cope with all their U-turns.”
Opposition figures wasted no time in seizing on the government’s reversal as a sign of weakness and poor judgment. Conservative MP Mike Wood, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, was especially scathing: “While we welcome the scrapping of any mandatory identification, this is yet another humiliating U-turn from the government. Keir Starmer’s spinelessness is becoming a pattern, not an exception. What was sold as a tough measure to tackle illegal working is now set to become yet another costly, ill-thought-out experiment abandoned at the first sign of pressure from Labour’s backbenches.”
Despite the political fallout, the government has been keen to stress its ongoing commitment to modernizing right-to-work checks. A spokesperson from the Cabinet Office explained, “We are committed to mandatory digital right to work checks. Currently, right to work checks include a hodge podge of paper-based systems with no record of checks ever taking place. This is open to fraud and abuse. We have always been clear that details on the digital ID scheme will be set out following a full public consultation which will launch shortly.” The spokesperson added, “Digital ID will make everyday life easier for people, ensuring public services are more personal, joined-up, and effective, while also remaining inclusive.”
Under the revised plan, digital IDs will be optional when they are introduced in 2029. Workers will be able to use other forms of documentation—such as electronic visas or passports—to verify their right to work. The government hopes that by making the scheme voluntary, it can still deliver the benefits of digital verification without provoking fears of exclusion or state overreach. As one Labour MP put it, “The most important thing is that we make Digital ID so good that everyone wants to have it, not that we force everyone to have it.”
Government insiders have characterized the change as a “barnacles off the boat” strategy—a conscious effort to shed contentious policies and refocus on core priorities like the cost of living. Starmer himself appears eager to reframe the digital ID debate around convenience and accessibility, highlighting potential benefits for services such as registering births, deaths, and marriages, opening bank accounts, voting, and booking GP appointments.
Responsibility for the scheme’s future now falls to Josh Simons, the newly appointed science and technology minister, who reports to Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister. Jones remains optimistic about the policy’s prospects, telling The Times, “I’m confident that this time next year, polling will be in a much better place on Digital ID than it is today.”
The digital ID reversal is only the latest in a series of high-profile policy backtracks by Labour since Starmer took office. The government has previously reversed decisions on winter fuel payments, disability benefits, higher business rates for pubs, inheritance tax changes for farmers, welfare reforms, and more. Each U-turn has provided fresh ammunition for critics, who accuse Starmer of lacking conviction and consistency.
Still, not everyone sees the government’s latest move as a defeat. Some within Labour argue that listening to public feedback and adjusting course is a sign of responsive, pragmatic leadership. Others, however, worry that repeated reversals risk undermining trust and making it harder to deliver on key promises.
For now, the fate of digital IDs in the UK remains uncertain. The upcoming public consultation will likely bring further debate over the scheme’s merits and pitfalls. What is clear, however, is that the road to digital reform is anything but straightforward—and that the politics of identity, technology, and trust will continue to shape the conversation for years to come.
