Business
UK Government Dismisses Public Outcry, Pushes Ahead with Controversial Digital ID Plan

Over 2.7 million signatures couldn’t move the needle on a dystopian plan already set in motion.
A UK government plan to introduce a nationwide digital identification system is moving ahead, despite a public backlash that saw more than 2.7 million people sign a petition urging its cancellation.
The proposal, first announced by Labour in September, would provide a digital ID to every UK citizen and legal resident aged 16 and above.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer claimed the new system would help strengthen border enforcement and reduce illegal employment, describing the ID, dubbed the “Brit Card,” as a tool to “make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.”
The public response was overwhelmingly opposed. Warnings about centralized data collection, privacy intrusions, and increased state surveillance flooded public discourse.
Descriptions of the proposal ranged from a “dystopian nightmare” to fears of a gateway to “digital control.”
Not long after Labour’s announcement, a petition was created on the official UK Government and Petitions website.
|
![]() |
It quickly gathered enough signatures to qualify for parliamentary debate, a 100,000-signature benchmark, and within days surged past two million.
Despite reaching over 2.7 million signatures, the government issued a formal response rejecting the petition and restating its commitment to the scheme.
According to the response, published by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the new ID system is part of Labour’s wider aim to modernize public services.
“We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies. We will consult on details soon,” the government wrote.
Although a formal consultation process is expected in the coming weeks, involving employers, unions, and civil society organizations, the government made it clear that legislation to support the digital ID system is on the way.
Over time, it is expected to serve as a single access point for government services like benefits, tax records, and other official interactions, potentially eliminating the need for physical documents or multiple logins.
The government’s decision to push ahead with a national digital ID comes in the shadow of the recently enacted Online Safety Act, which has already laid the groundwork for sweeping identity checks across the internet.
That law, marketed as a way to protect children from harmful content, gave regulators broad authority to demand age verification for accessing a wide range of online services.
The result is an emerging digital framework where proving who you are, even just to browse or communicate, is becoming a condition of access.
|
Business
Carney government refuses to make tough decisions to avoid larger deficit

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
In a recent news conference, Prime Minister Carney said this year’s federal budget deficit will be larger than last year’s deficit of $48.3 billion. While the prime minister was quick to pull out a laundry list of reasons why, he left out one critical reason—his government refuses to make the tough decisions necessary to avoid more red ink.
It’s been clear for months the government plans to run a larger deficit than last year, it’s simply taken this long for the government to say the words out loud. In fact, Carney’s election platform in April outlined a deficit of $62.3 billion this year, and since then his government has promised billions more in new spending.
To justify the large deficit, the prime minister points to U.S. tariffs, Canada’s response to the tariffs, increased “investments” and higher defence spending. Of course, these factors will help drive up the deficit this year—for example, new defence spending will total $9.3 billion this year. But even making the generous assumption that all the new spending is necessary (which is assuredly not the case), the Carney government could still lower spending elsewhere to avoid plunging deeper into the red.
For example, the Carney government inherited record-high levels of federal spending, including in areas of provincial responsibility and/or where government shouldn’t be involved in the first place (e.g. national pharmacare, national dental care, national daycare). There are also many examples of federal programs that are inefficient and not achieving their stated objectives—in other words, low-hanging fruit for any government looking to reduce wasteful spending and move towards budget balance.
Over the summer, the government did launch a half-hearted attempt to find savings over the next three years—which has led the prime minister to describe the upcoming budget as one of “austerity”—but this spending review will likely fall well short of actual austerity. Why? Because the government is excluding large swathes of the budget from the review, and basing its savings targets on projected levels of spending that are higher than today’s spending levels. Consequently, the review will simply slow the pace of spending increases rather than actually cut spending.
Actual austerity requires a decrease in year-over-year spending, smaller deficits and a reasonable path back to budget balance. Despite the rhetoric, the government’s upcoming budget on Nov. 4 will deliver the opposite—higher spending, larger deficits and more debt accumulation. And future generations of Canadians with face higher taxes, fewer services or some combination of both to pay for this profligate spending. Ignore the fresh new spin and promises of a different approach; the Carney government is on track to deliver a budget no different from what Canadians could expect from the Trudeau government.
Prime Minister Carney’s recent confirmation that his government will run a larger deficit this year than in 2024 surprised no one familiar with federal finances. Like his predecessor, Carney refuses to make the tough decisions to meaningfully cut spending. And Canadians will pay the price.
Automotive
Canada’s EV subsidies are wracking up billions in losses for taxpayers, and not just in the auto industry

By Dan McTeague
To anyone who thought that the Liberals’ decision to postpone enforcement of their Electric Vehicle (EV) mandate by one year was part of a well-thought-out plan to get that disastrous program back on track, well, every day brings with it news that you were wrong. In fact, the whole project seems to be coming apart at the seams.
Here’s the latest crisis Mark Carney and his carnival of ideologues are having to deal with. Late last year, the Liberal party instituted a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs. The idea was to protect the Canadian EV industry from China dumping their vehicles into our country, at prices far lower than Canadian companies can afford due to their massive state subsidies. This has been a major problem in the EU, which is also attempting to force a transition to EVs.
But Beijing wasn’t going to take that lying down. Taking advantage of Western environmentalist sentiment is an important part of their economic plans — see, for instance, how they’ve cornered the global solar panel market, though the factories making them are powered by massive amounts of coal. So they retaliated with a 75% duty on Canadian canola seed and a 100% tariff on canola oil and canola meal.
This was big enough to really hurt Canadian farmers, and Ottawa was forced to respond with more than $300 million in new relief programs for canola producers. Even so, our farmers have warned that short-term relief from the government will do little if the tariffs are here for the long-term.
With pressure on Carney mounting, his Industry Minister Melanie Joly announced that the government was “looking at” dropping tariffs on Chinese EVs in the hope that China would ease off on their canola tariffs.
That may be good news for canola producers, but how about the automotive companies? They’ve grown increasingly unhappy with the EV mandate, as Canadian consumers have been slow to embrace them, and they’ve been confronted with the prospect of paying significant fines unless they raise prices on the gas-and-diesel driven vehicles which consumers actually want to make the EVs that they don’t really want more attractive.
That’s the context for Brian Kingston, CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, saying that dropping these tariffs “would be a disaster.”
“China has engaged in state-supported industrial policy to create massive overcapacity in EV production, and that plan is coming to fruition now,” Kingston said. “When you combine that with weak labour and environmental standards, Chinese manufacturers are not competing with Canadian, American, or Mexican manufacturers on a level playing field. We simply cannot allow those vehicles to be dumped into the Canadian market.”
The auto manufacturers Kingston represents are understandably upset about suddenly having to compete with underpriced Chinese EVs. After all, with the government forcing everyone to buy a product they really don’t want, are most people going to patriotically pay more for that product, or will they just grab whichever one is cheaper? I know which one I think is more likely.
And then there’s a related problem — the federal and provincial governments have “invested” somewhere in the neighborhood of $52.5 billion to make Canada a cog in the global EV supply chain. In response to Joly’s announcement, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who has gone “all in” on EVs, wrote an open letter to the prime minister saying that canceling the tariffs would mean losing out on that “investment,” and put 157,000 Canadian automotive jobs at risk.
Now, it’s worth noting that automakers all over Ontario have already been cutting jobs while scaling back their EV pledges. So even with the tariffs, this “investment” hasn’t been paying out particularly well. Keeping them in place just to save Doug Ford’s bacon seems like the worst of all options.
But it seems to me that the key to untangling this whole mess has been the option I’ve been advocating from the beginning: repeal the EV mandate. That makes Canada less of a mark for China. It benefits the taxpayers by not incentivizing our provincial and federal governments to throw good money after bad, attempting to subsidize companies to protect a shrinking number of EV manufacturing jobs.
The heart of this trade war is an entirely artificial demand for EVs. Removing the mandate from the equation would lower the stakes.
In the end, the best policy is to trust Canadians to make their own decisions. Let the market decide.
Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!
Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.
-
Business2 days ago
Bill C-8 would allow minister to secretly cut off phone, Internet service
-
Business1 day ago
Canada’s health-care system is not ‘free’—and we’re not getting good value for our money
-
International1 day ago
Pope Leo hails Trump’s Gaza peace plan: “I hope Hamas will accept it”
-
Alberta2 days ago
Halfway River First Nation makes history with Montney natural gas development deal
-
Alberta1 day ago
In Federal vs Provincial Battles, Ontario In No Longer A Great Ally For Alberta
-
Economy2 days ago
Reconciliation means clearing the way for Indigenous leadership
-
Alberta15 hours ago
Alberta’s E3 Lithium delivers first battery-grade lithium carbonate
-
Crime2 days ago
Drug trafficker says Trump battle with the cartels is making an impact