Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
If I am mistaken, has not the government, in one or other of its incarnations since the 2015 elections already started to 'Putinise' the electoral system?
You are mistaken. Unless you can provide any evidence, which doesn't include "bringing the electoral system in Great Britain in line with Northern Ireland" or "removing systemic imbalance in the constituency boundaries"?
Changes in registration policy - changes in ID requirements - changes in funding rules - undercutting of the independent overseers of elections - unilateral changes of electoral systems.
Need I go on...
I think you fail to understand the Conservative Cult. Any changes which makes it harder to vote for any other party are OK by the Cult.
Only their supporters should be allowed to vote. Apparently....
The proposed changes to bring GB in line with NI don't make it harder for legitimate voters to vote for whichever party they want. It's absurd that I need to take a passport or driving licence to collect a parcel from the sorting office yet there are no ID checks at all on voting - a far more important process.
Why should GB have a less secure voting system than NI?
It's a non issue. ID requirements are common across European democracies.
Which have universal ID cards.
Tony Blair introduced photo ID in Northern Ireland, with photo ID available for elections for those who lacked alternatives. He also abolished head of household registration there.
If its good enough for NI, why is it not good enough for GB? The changes being made aren't novel, they're expanding to GB that which Blair introduced twenty years ago already.
NI had a problem with personation but GB doesn't. Why put barriers in the way of voting, which we know will deter the poor from exercising their rights, and create additional costs for taxpayers to solve a problem that doesn't exist? More spending, more restrictions, more big brother surveillance - an odd policy choice for a self proclaimed libertarian.
What barriers? Issuing a free photo ID as part of the electoral registration process for those who need it? Do you really see "the poor" as too thick to be able to cope with that?
They rolled it out in test areas and significant numbers of people were prevented from voting. I'm surprised that doesn't bother you.
Nearly everyone in these pilots who went to their polling station to vote was able to show ID without difficulty, as in 2018. Out of all those who went to their polling station, the proportion who couldn’t show ID and who did not return to vote ranged from 0.03% to 0.7%.
Some groups of people may find it harder than others to show ID, particularly photo ID. This includes people with accessibility challenges as well as other less frequent voters who did not attempt to vote on 2 May but are more likely to do so at a UK general election.
"Went to the polling station and got turned away" would be a subset of the people who were prevented from voting. The other part you need is what proportion would have gone, but didn't bother because they weren't confident they'd got ID on them that they'd need to vote when they got there.
"Across all models the main reason cited for not voting was lack of time: 20% in the poll card model, 13% in the mixed model, and 20% in the photographic model. Very few stated a reason related to not having the correct ID (34 out of 1,749 who said they did not vote, or 2%), a similar proportion to 2018 pilots"
Turnout unaffected, so not all liars.
2% is 2%. 2% were disenfranchised. I want turnout to be as high as possible.
That's 2% of those who didn't vote? Am I right? So less than 1% of the electorate? A bit of support could help there.
Since lack of time was the bigger issue - what about moving to weekend voting?
I am all for weekend voting.
Fraud is uncommon in GB voting. We should be vigilant about cases, but our focus should not be on stopping people voting, it should be on increasing our poor levels of turnout.
The best way to do that is make voting worthwhile. But neither party seems particularly interested in doing that
National ID cards would be an answer to a range of problems .
The difference being that you are legally required to have one. The issue with the new voter ID rules is that some people don’t have passports or driving licenses .
Which would be a valid objection if those were the only forms of ID that could be used.
You do know that NI has had a somewhat different political context to GB, don’t you? Several thousand dead from an ethnographic-nationalist conflict. Remember that? It’s patent nonsense to equate the GB situation with the NI one.
You are right, of course, but it's also patent nonsense to claim that extending the requirement for photo ID to the rest of the country is some kind of unprecedented assault on democracy; it's a perfectly normal thing in every other country in Europe. It may not be something worth doing, but it's hardly some great affront to civilisation.
Something doesn’t have to be a great affront to civilisation to be worth opposing.
Most European countries have ID cards. We don’t in the UK. That’s something many Conservatives, many with a libertarian bent, are proud of. Yet suddenly they all do a 180 for this issue. Could that possibly be to do with how we know such a system disproportionately discourages some groups from voting?
QTWAIN.
There is no issue with having ID for certain things, we already have that throughout life. We need ID already to travel, to drive, to purchase paracetamol and other substances if you look under young, etc
The objection to ID cards is not just for the cards themselves, but for what comes with them, ie a national database that everything is linked too. The whole set of secondary "benefits" as @eek put it that comes with national ID cards - those "benefits" are the problem.
Having one more of the many forms of ID that we have, that isn't a national database for everything to be linked to, isn't as problematic.
You do know that NI has had a somewhat different political context to GB, don’t you? Several thousand dead from an ethnographic-nationalist conflict. Remember that? It’s patent nonsense to equate the GB situation with the NI one.
You are right, of course, but it's also patent nonsense to claim that extending the requirement for photo ID to the rest of the country is some kind of unprecedented assault on democracy; it's a perfectly normal thing in every other country in Europe. It may not be something worth doing, but it's hardly some great affront to civilisation.
Precisely this. So left-wingers devoting so much energy to fighting against this makes me (a) doubt their motives and (b) take their other complaints less seriously.
Ironic
Not really. I support the change, but I wouldn't be fussed if it weren't introduced - provided the reason for not introducing it is valid (and nobody has yet come up with such a reason - "our voters are too stupid to get free ID" is not a valid reason).
Actually plenty of people can't easily get a free ID - the homeless, vulnerable elderly people, people with substance abuse or mental health problems, people with poor English, people working 100 hour weeks for whom this is a long way down their list of priorities. These people should all be able to vote, and already face significant barriers to exercising that right. Many will be Tory voters BTW.
Who they normally vote for is irrelevant to me, that's the point.
But anyone who can register to vote can get a free ID as part of the registration process.
If the registration process needs to be made easier, that's a different question.
I think the political history of this crisis really needs to focus on (and begin with) the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader. The tories reacted by ditching sensible and pursuing various incarnations of fantasy and nutty in the belief they could get away with it and take the voters with them, ever since.
It ended in what is basically a solvency crisis, having drained the treasury.
They got drunk on power.
This time, there really is no money left.
Yes, this crisis is all Labour's fault. LoL
Margaret Beckett’s fault, to be specific.
The trail of damage that she has caused puts her up there with…well, you can imagine.
No - Harriet Harman should carry the can for Corbyn's election in 2015.
Eric Joyce.
...a Scotsman flaps his wings in the Strangers' Bar...
On the other hand, that takes matters back to Dennis Canavan in 2000 resigning his MP's seat as a matter of principle when he thumpingly won the equivalent Holyrood constituency as an Independent, Labour HQ having deselected him. Hence Mr Joyce winning the by-election ...
You do know that NI has had a somewhat different political context to GB, don’t you? Several thousand dead from an ethnographic-nationalist conflict. Remember that? It’s patent nonsense to equate the GB situation with the NI one.
You are right, of course, but it's also patent nonsense to claim that extending the requirement for photo ID to the rest of the country is some kind of unprecedented assault on democracy; it's a perfectly normal thing in every other country in Europe. It may not be something worth doing, but it's hardly some great affront to civilisation.
Precisely this. So left-wingers devoting so much energy to fighting against this makes me (a) doubt their motives and (b) take their other complaints less seriously.
Ironic
Not really. I support the change, but I wouldn't be fussed if it weren't introduced - provided the reason for not introducing it is valid (and nobody has yet come up with such a reason - "our voters are too stupid to get free ID" is not a valid reason).
Actually plenty of people can't easily get a free ID - the homeless, vulnerable elderly people, people with substance abuse or mental health problems, people with poor English, people working 100 hour weeks for whom this is a long way down their list of priorities. These people should all be able to vote, and already face significant barriers to exercising that right. Many will be Tory voters BTW.
Who they normally vote for is irrelevant to me, that's the point.
But anyone who can register to vote can get a free ID as part of the registration process.
If the registration process needs to be made easier, that's a different question.
The registration process for voter id currently doesn't exist.
The existing process to register to vote (a different issue) is based on people having computer access first with paper forms costing money to return (again a potential issue).
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
We were out of power for 13 years from 1997 to 2010, I have seen it before. Labour have been out of power for 12 years already and were out for 18 years from 1979 to 1997.
Once you lose power you are normally out for a decade or more unless the Government can't deliver on the economy as in 1970, 1974 or 1979.
I would note on today's Yougov though Braverman has a higher net favourability rating than Truss and Hunt, even if still less than Rishi and Penny
In May 1979 - despite the Winter of Discontent earlier - the economy was in better shape than when Labour took office in March 1974. The Balance of Payments was ok - there was not a recession - and inflation at 10% was a fair bit lower than the 13% inherited in March 1974 from Heath. Throughout 1978 inflation had been circa 8% - lower than what we have today and also lower than the 9.7% passed on by Thatcher to Major in November 1990.
Labour Party 507 seats Scottish National Party 52 seats Conservative & Unionist Party 48 seats Liberal Democrats 19 seats Plaid Cymru 4 seats Greens 1 seat NI 18 seats Speaker 1 seat
Opinium's MRP poll gives the SNP 37 seats with Labour taking 15 seats in Scotland.
Perhaps they should pilot voter ID in Tower Hamlets? See what happens. Is there a problem? Is it a load of fuss about nothing?
When anyone says "There is no problem with X, in voting", I think back to my old flat mate who had his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets.
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime - Told him not to waste time on it - Eventually took a statement - Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff. - Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
You do know that NI has had a somewhat different political context to GB, don’t you? Several thousand dead from an ethnographic-nationalist conflict. Remember that? It’s patent nonsense to equate the GB situation with the NI one.
You are right, of course, but it's also patent nonsense to claim that extending the requirement for photo ID to the rest of the country is some kind of unprecedented assault on democracy; it's a perfectly normal thing in every other country in Europe. It may not be something worth doing, but it's hardly some great affront to civilisation.
Something doesn’t have to be a great affront to civilisation to be worth opposing.
Most European countries have ID cards. We don’t in the UK. That’s something many Conservatives, many with a libertarian bent, are proud of. Yet suddenly they all do a 180 for this issue. Could that possibly be to do with how we know such a system disproportionately discourages some groups from voting?
QTWAIN.
There is no issue with having ID for certain things, we already have that throughout life. We need ID already to travel, to drive, to purchase paracetamol and other substances if you look under young, etc
The objection to ID cards is not just for the cards themselves, but for what comes with them, ie a national database that everything is linked too. The whole set of secondary "benefits" as @eek put it that comes with national ID cards - those "benefits" are the problem.
Having one more of the many forms of ID that we have, that isn't a national database for everything to be linked to, isn't as problematic.
You do know that the main benefit of an ID card is to me a very easy means of confirming someone has the right to work in the UK.
For years both me and @NickPalmer disliked ID cards but it's not so much the card thing that's the problem it was the other data the government wished to attach behind it. After working abroad for years doing complex things regarding id checks it became clear to me and Nick (from memory) that our lack of an ID card is creating problems for us not removing them.
As an aside I've just had to point out to someone that the approach they thought was correct to check right to work is wrong post October 1st. The worrying thing is that was a large bank who should know the rules...
You do know that NI has had a somewhat different political context to GB, don’t you? Several thousand dead from an ethnographic-nationalist conflict. Remember that? It’s patent nonsense to equate the GB situation with the NI one.
You are right, of course, but it's also patent nonsense to claim that extending the requirement for photo ID to the rest of the country is some kind of unprecedented assault on democracy; it's a perfectly normal thing in every other country in Europe. It may not be something worth doing, but it's hardly some great affront to civilisation.
Precisely this. So left-wingers devoting so much energy to fighting against this makes me (a) doubt their motives and (b) take their other complaints less seriously.
Ironic
Not really. I support the change, but I wouldn't be fussed if it weren't introduced - provided the reason for not introducing it is valid (and nobody has yet come up with such a reason - "our voters are too stupid to get free ID" is not a valid reason).
Actually plenty of people can't easily get a free ID - the homeless, vulnerable elderly people, people with substance abuse or mental health problems, people with poor English, people working 100 hour weeks for whom this is a long way down their list of priorities. These people should all be able to vote, and already face significant barriers to exercising that right. Many will be Tory voters BTW.
Who they normally vote for is irrelevant to me, that's the point.
But anyone who can register to vote can get a free ID as part of the registration process.
If the registration process needs to be made easier, that's a different question.
The registration process for voter id currently doesn't exist.
The existing process to register to vote (a different issue) is based on people having computer access first with paper forms costing money to return (again a potential issue).
It does exist, in Northern Ireland, where the system exists.
It didn't exist before then, but introducing the system introduced the process.
Rolling out the NI system nationwide means you need to include the system to get ID as part of it, not just the requirement for ID.
If its not good enough a system, then why's it good enough for NI?
Why it makes sense to put Mordaunt in the top job.
Mordaunt is on -17%.
So Sir Keir beats all of them, just Mordaunt and Sunak save a few Tory MPs seats
You have the choice HY, choose sensibly and perhaps (not guaranteed) lose the next election. 15 years is, after all a long time in power.
Or choose Braverman who goes crazy-ape-bonkers populist. Hanging, flogging, routinely arming the police to shoot down Dartford Crossing protesters and strafing Avon inflatables in the Channel so they sink. You might well win handsomely in 2024, but it won't be what the people want once they experience it, and you will be consigned to oblivion (unless you Putinise the electoral system- something not beyond the wit of Braverman, I daresay).
If I am mistaken, has not the government, in one or other of its incarnations since the 2015 elections already started to 'Putinise' the electoral system?
You are mistaken. Unless you can provide any evidence, which doesn't include "bringing the electoral system in Great Britain in line with Northern Ireland" or "removing systemic imbalance in the constituency boundaries"?
Changes in registration policy - changes in ID requirements - changes in funding rules - undercutting of the independent overseers of elections - unilateral changes of electoral systems.
Need I go on...
I think you fail to understand the Conservative Cult. Any changes which makes it harder to vote for any other party are OK by the Cult.
Only their supporters should be allowed to vote. Apparently....
The proposed changes to bring GB in line with NI don't make it harder for legitimate voters to vote for whichever party they want. It's absurd that I need to take a passport or driving licence to collect a parcel from the sorting office yet there are no ID checks at all on voting - a far more important process.
Why should GB have a less secure voting system than NI?
It's a non issue. ID requirements are common across European democracies.
Which have universal ID cards.
Tony Blair introduced photo ID in Northern Ireland, with photo ID available for elections for those who lacked alternatives. He also abolished head of household registration there.
If its good enough for NI, why is it not good enough for GB? The changes being made aren't novel, they're expanding to GB that which Blair introduced twenty years ago already.
NI had a problem with personation but GB doesn't. Why put barriers in the way of voting, which we know will deter the poor from exercising their rights, and create additional costs for taxpayers to solve a problem that doesn't exist? More spending, more restrictions, more big brother surveillance - an odd policy choice for a self proclaimed libertarian.
What barriers? Issuing a free photo ID as part of the electoral registration process for those who need it? Do you really see "the poor" as too thick to be able to cope with that?
They rolled it out in test areas and significant numbers of people were prevented from voting. I'm surprised that doesn't bother you.
The Electoral Commission didn't think so, but certainly there were a few high profile cases of left-wing activists performatively "being denied their right to vote" for the cameras and newspapers.
From there they say just taking your voting card in may be enough
Any ID requirement should ensure accessibility for all voters
Alternatively, it could involve allowing voters to use their poll card – on the current model or a different model – as the primary or secondary route to proving identity, depending on the level of security required.
There's no technical reason AFAIK why a photo can't be added to the registration database at the registration stage and then printed on the polling card.
Congratulations - you've just added a few £0million for something we don't need.
If we need an ID card for voting issue national ID cards. If we don't need a national ID card then we don't need voter Id when voting.
True.
The far bigger issues in the UK are the millions who should be entitled to vote but aren't because they aren't on the electoral register. And the low turnout even amongst those who are on it. It would be much better to put some effort into tackling those issues, than introducing contentious extra complications which "solve" a problem that doesn't exist.
I’ve spend time with both Labour and the Treasury on tax and regulation policy in recent months and there is a clear credibility gap between what Labour is starting to develop and the incoherent mess that HMT have had to deal with from this government.
The country badly needs infrastructure investment, a coherent policy on public services (including meaningful spending increases) that avoids us descending into a spiral of ill health and further educational apartheid, and a corporate tax system that targets capital spending. Labour shadow ministers are having grown up conversations about this stuff. All we’ve heard from Tory ministers since 2019 is pure sound bites.
I think, noting the comments above, that we are seeing where the floor of Tory support is. No matter how badly they actually govern, despite actual provable damage to livelihoods and public services, some will always have the reflexive instinct that a hypothetical Labour government would always be worse despite pretty clear evidence to the contrary from 1997 to 2010 even during a global financial crisis.
I say this as a Lib Dem member with no innate love of Labour, who have a history of bullying and ridiculing us as a party. The fact is it’s time for a change, and Starmer’s party will do a better job than the clown show of the last 6 years. The bar is pretty low.
To a large degree it doesn't really matter what the labour party policy is. Of course Starmer is doing a really good job, that is not in doubt. But to understand the labour party and how they would govern, you need to look at their membership and their MPs. To me it seems Starmer does not have the same grip and dominance that Blair did. It is fine to say yes, they are going to invest in infrastructure. But how do they respond to the demands for pay increases from the public sector and manage the 'crises' in all areas of public services; whilst acting within the constraints on financial spending imposed by the markets?
I am not absolutely sure that I will vote Conservative in the next election. I always see these decisions in the context of choosing between 'least worst options'. But this is what I am looking at, in the labour party, and I imagine others will too when genuinely confronted with the choice. If the tories get rid of Truss and put in a competent successor and stay on track, then I would say the next election will be closer than you think.
The Labour Party will continue to be the Party of the Public Sector. They will probably improve the public sector marginally, but the return on investment will be poor as it was under the last Labour administration. Expect to see and even bigger gap between private sector pensions and public sector ones, with public "servants" gloating about their ability to retire in their 50s and some of them at the top end retiring on monthly pensions that many working people can only dream of having as salary.
You really don't understand how most public sector pensions work nowadays do you?
Nor do you grasp that public sector pay after 12 years of Government is now in many cases dire. HMRC are giving their workers 3% and wondering why the vaguely good ones are leaving to go to the private sector (the good ones left years ago by the way when the Government merged offices and any good in a closed office went to the private sector)
Please show me the average public sector pension v private of those due to retire in the next ten years? Please also explain the pension availability for police service? The gold-plated pensions for hospital doctors, GPs and NHS senior managers and many civil servants. As mentioned, these give pension provision, at the tax payers expense, that are vastly over what many people will ever receive as monthly salary. Pretending they don't exist show that you clearly don't understand the cost to the country. The country cannot afford these pensions, but nothing will be done about their fundamental unfairness and the greed of those that demand them because the politicians benefit from them themselves. I guess you are someone that is looking forward to drawing on one yourself. Or perhaps you think you have a "right" to a pension that is massively better than your fellow citizens in the private sector?
I worked for just over a decade in the public sector and now work in the private sector.
I'm now being paid twice as much in the private sector as I would be being paid if I'd stayed in the public sector, and the work is less complex and less demanding. The pension provision in my public sector job was a lot better, but not to the value of doubling my salary.
My Dad and Grandad did very well out of their public sector pensions, but they were some of the lucky few who ended their careers in senior positions, and so did best out of a final salary scheme. With the new career average pensions you won't get the same distortions for a small number of lucky recipients. I did pretty well to leave when I did as my pension entitlement is accruing more quickly with CPI uprating then it would have done from pay increases.
In the past a model of pay less now, pay more in pensions later made sense because growth was strong enough that it was cheaper to pay later than in advance. A lot of private sector companies did the same.
The demographic transition changes this calculus, because it unavoidably results in lower growth. This probably means it makes more sense to reduce the value of public sector pensions in exchange for better pay now, but making that transition is hard when you have to pay out the accrued pensions at the same time.
It's not some huge conspiracy to defraud taxpayers. I really don't know why you're so aggressive and unpleasant about it.
That is because he is an aggressive , unpleasant , nasty nasty person.
“Alexa, define irony”
"Alexa what does arsehole mean" , Alexa " that mealy mouthed cretin ronseal"
I think the political history of this crisis really needs to focus on (and begin with) the election of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader. The tories reacted by ditching sensible and pursuing various incarnations of fantasy and nutty in the belief they could get away with it and take the voters with them, ever since.
It ended in what is basically a solvency crisis, having drained the treasury.
They got drunk on power.
This time, there really is no money left.
Yes, this crisis is all Labour's fault. LoL
Margaret Beckett’s fault, to be specific.
The trail of damage that she has caused puts her up there with…well, you can imagine.
No - Harriet Harman should carry the can for Corbyn's election in 2015.
Eric Joyce.
...a Scotsman flaps his wings in the Strangers' Bar...
On the other hand, that takes matters back to Dennis Canavan in 2000 resigning his MP's seat as a matter of principle when he thumpingly won the equivalent Holyrood constituency as an Independent, Labour HQ having deselected him. Hence Mr Joyce winning the by-election ...
Canavan's passion for Scots independence was confirmed when Scotland beat England 2-1 at Wembley in 1977, a game he attended and in which he partook in the infamous pitch invasion.
The scorer of the winning goal that day? One Kenneth Dalglish...
So when the cuts come Labours message will be the country is now paying the price for the mini budget with public services cut to add to the misery of the mortgage hikes .
All roads lead back to Truss in the blame game.
Tory MPs are delusional if they think she can stay in post .
Haven't we decided that the current crisis is definitively down to Wilson's failure to devalue the pound in late 1964 or early 1965?
Comments
There is no issue with having ID for certain things, we already have that throughout life. We need ID already to travel, to drive, to purchase paracetamol and other substances if you look under young, etc
The objection to ID cards is not just for the cards themselves, but for what comes with them, ie a national database that everything is linked too. The whole set of secondary "benefits" as @eek put it that comes with national ID cards - those "benefits" are the problem.
Having one more of the many forms of ID that we have, that isn't a national database for everything to be linked to, isn't as problematic.
But anyone who can register to vote can get a free ID as part of the registration process.
If the registration process needs to be made easier, that's a different question.
The existing process to register to vote (a different issue) is based on people having computer access first with paper forms costing money to return (again a potential issue).
When he went to the police to report this
- They told him it wasn't a crime
- Told him not to waste time on it
- Eventually took a statement
- Got upset because he wouldn't sign the statement, since it was full of stuff he hadn't said. Including some rather extreme stuff.
- Eventually re-wrote the statement to match what had actually said and had happened.
It took him most of day to get a crime number.
Almost as if they were trying not to find electoral fraud, or something....
For years both me and @NickPalmer disliked ID cards but it's not so much the card thing that's the problem it was the other data the government wished to attach behind it. After working abroad for years doing complex things regarding id checks it became clear to me and Nick (from memory) that our lack of an ID card is creating problems for us not removing them.
As an aside I've just had to point out to someone that the approach they thought was correct to check right to work is wrong post October 1st. The worrying thing is that was a large bank who should know the rules...
It didn't exist before then, but introducing the system introduced the process.
Rolling out the NI system nationwide means you need to include the system to get ID as part of it, not just the requirement for ID.
If its not good enough a system, then why's it good enough for NI?
The far bigger issues in the UK are the millions who should be entitled to vote but aren't because they aren't on the electoral register. And the low turnout even amongst those who are on it. It would be much better to put some effort into tackling those issues, than introducing contentious extra complications which "solve" a problem that doesn't exist.
This is the danger. Remove Truss, potentially get Boris back.
The scorer of the winning goal that day? One Kenneth Dalglish...