The Liberal Democrats, a party long known for its fierce opposition to identity cards in the United Kingdom, are now facing a pivotal moment as they consider whether to rethink their stance in the face of changing technology and political winds. At the party’s annual conference in Bournemouth on September 21, 2025, both the leadership and grassroots members engaged in a lively debate about whether digital ID cards might—under certain conditions—align with liberal values, or whether the risks to civil liberties and vulnerable groups are simply too great.
The conversation comes at a time when Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has signaled his intent to advance a digital identity scheme, with a policy announcement expected at the upcoming Labour conference. According to reporting by BBC and PA Media, Starmer told the BBC earlier this month that digital IDs could help tackle illegal immigration, a topic that has become ever more contentious in British politics. Ministers have also floated the idea that digital IDs might help address the problem of illegal migrants working in the so-called black economy, drawing inspiration from Estonia’s widely praised digital ID system.
For the Liberal Democrats, however, the debate is not just about policy effectiveness. It’s about core values. The party famously blocked Labour’s first attempt to introduce ID cards back in 2010 when it entered coalition with the Conservatives. Many Lib Dems still remember that fight, and their skepticism remains strong. Yet, as Sir Ed Davey, the party’s current leader, explained during a Q&A session on the main stage, “Times have changed, and that is why I am saying let’s look at it.”
Davey’s openness to the idea is conditional. He’s clear that any UK digital ID scheme must be fundamentally different from the one proposed by Tony Blair’s government over a decade ago. “I think when we talk about digital identity, it could be a different thing, but may not be. We don’t know what they’re actually going to put forward. We should scrutinise it really,” he told members. His support hinges on whether the system is about “giving individuals power to access public services,” which he argues could actually increase people’s freedom and rights. But he’s wary, warning, “However, I fear that’s not what we’re doing.”
The party’s internal divisions were on full display at the Bournemouth conference. During a straw poll conducted by journalist Carolyn Quinn at the Q&A, about half the members in the room indicated they were open to rethinking the party’s position on ID cards. Later, during a show of hands in a separate session, approximately two-thirds of attendees supported debating a potential shift in policy. Yet, this was only a debate about whether to debate—a formal vote on the issue is unlikely before the government introduces any legislation, as Lib Dem home affairs spokeswoman Lisa Smart pointed out. “It was not scheduled for debate this week,” she cautioned, meaning the party’s official position remains unchanged for now.
Resistance among rank-and-file members remains robust. At a packed fringe meeting chaired by Smart, most participants voiced strong opposition to digital ID cards. The primary concerns? Civil liberties, data security, and the specter of government overreach. Veteran MP Alistair Carmichael delivered a particularly pointed critique, warning, “It seems to me if we are going to go along with the Labour Party on this then we are saying ‘we are quite happy to trust the government on this’. And I think the day we start saying we trust the government is the day that we stop being a liberal party.” He didn’t mince words, calling it “ocean-going nonsense to change our mind at this stage.”
Others, like Bridget Fox, a veteran of the No2ID campaign from two decades ago, raised alarms about the impact on digitally excluded people—such as the elderly and disabled—and the potential for digital IDs to be abused by vigilantes or used to intimidate vulnerable and marginalized groups. “I shouldn’t have to prove who I am, going about my own business in the place where I live,” she said, echoing a sentiment that resonates deeply with many civil libertarians. Fox also highlighted the risks of creating a massive government database and questioned the environmental impact of such a scheme. “Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should,” she cautioned.
Despite these concerns, some party members and outside experts argue that digital ID systems, if designed properly, might actually enhance democracy and freedom. Estonia’s experience is often cited as a model. There, digital IDs are used not only for accessing government services but also for voting, banking, and even managing medical records. Security expert Edward Lucas, who claims to be the first person issued an Estonian ID card, told the meeting, “My experience is that people’s scepticism about digital ID tends to evaporate when they go and see it in operation first hand.” He acknowledged worries about a “Big Brother system,” but countered, “Digital data drives democracy and that you can do things with your digital ID that make you safer and freer. So on balance I think the case is really strong.”
Lucas sees the party’s willingness to even discuss the issue after 20 years of “visceral opposition” as a sign of progress. “I think the fact that the party is discussing this after 20 years of visceral opposition to any ID is actually a step forward,” he said. Other Lib Dems pointed to Estonia’s liberal government as proof that digital IDs need not be tools of oppression, provided they are implemented with strong safeguards and a clear focus on empowering citizens, not surveilling them.
Still, the path forward is anything but clear. The government’s actual proposals remain under wraps, and as Sir Ed Davey noted, “We don’t know what they’re actually going to put forward. We should scrutinise it really.” The party’s leadership appears ready to engage in that scrutiny, with Davey himself saying, “There are models that may answer our objections as liberals.” But the debate among the grassroots is far from settled, and the risk of a split looms if the leadership moves too quickly or too far.
For now, the Liberal Democrats are walking a tightrope—caught between a commitment to personal freedom and privacy on one hand, and the promise of digital innovation and more efficient public services on the other. As the government prepares to unveil its plans, the question of whether digital ID cards can ever be truly liberal remains very much alive, both within the party and across the United Kingdom.
How the Lib Dems ultimately resolve this dilemma may shape not just their own future, but the direction of British civil liberties for years to come.
