> It has always received weirdly vitriolic push back.

Because, as the Home Secretary herself observed, it would fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.

> What really is the Government going to do with a digital ID service that they can't do already?

This gives the impression of having done no research into a topic of which you now opine opposition to be "weirdly vitriolic". We live in an age of search engines and GPTs, free encyclopaedias and entire lecture series online, and even libraries are still open and free, but you've done nothing to get past the very first thoughts you've had on the subject.

Was that weirdly vitriolic, or someone pointing out that an argument to undermine everyone's rights should have some effort behind it?