Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
The independent Electoral Commission said it was needed for security.
No objection to voting ID so long as there's a plethora of ID available easily. What's not acceptable is having one form of ID acceptable for one demographic but not another, that isn't OK.
Agreed. All IDs that are obtained in the same way should be treated the same. The tweet is very misleading in this aspect because it does not describe the significant differences required in obtaining those two cards. For one you just send your name and a photo.
F*** me! A couple of days ago I was lynched by PB Tories for daring to confirm my approval of national identity cards, and here we are, PB Tories discussing what identity cards should be made available so older voters can vote Tory.
Just try recommending free school meals - actually it's been very interesting to hear the distinct change of tone on that in recent weeks on PB.
On Topic - I remember when we were having a discussion about voting irregularities on PB. Many people took the line that this didn't happen
Literally while the discussion was happening, the news of the case (in Birmingham IIRC) where several councillor were arrested while supervising a literal vote forging factory came in.
The line then changed to "of course local elections are corrupt, we were talking about *national* elections"
Given the experience of a friend who tried to report his vote stolen in Tower Hamlets (for a national election, among others), I wonder how much suppression of reporting of voting irregularities is going on.
Incidentally, the changes bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.
The problem with voter fraud is that it is not like financial fraud where you may notice your finances being depleted. So detection of voter fraud requires the person being defrauded to be informed and aware. I definitely know of a case of voter fraud that was undetected, and I am sure others will also be aware. That is not to say that it is a bit problem but am fundamentally disagree with the measure Mike has used repeatedly, which is detected cases. That for me is a tip of the iceberg kind of measure - who know the size of the problem below the water.
Was the voting fraud by postal vote or by impersonation at a polling station?
My money would be on the latter being much lower than the first, yet it is in person voting being targeted.
My friend had his polling card diverted to a different address.
I wonder how many people, if they vote in person, and the polling card doesn't show up, shrug and get on with the rest of life?
Yes, but don't you agree that most cases of systemic voter fraud have been via postal and proxy voting?
That have been identified - but using crime stats to find crime has an interesting history.
Note that in NI, widespread voter fraud was nearly never found via police investigation.
Would you support everyone applying for a postal vote, or proxy vote, to submit a form of photo identification, and for this to be required to be repeated at every election?
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
“Tax burden unlikely to go back to pre-Covid levels in 'next few decades' We’re in a “new era” of higher taxation and higher spending as a fraction of national income as a bigger state.”
“The British people “just got a lot poorer”, a leading thinktank has warned, after a series of “economic own goals” that have made a recovery much harder than it might have been.
In his verdict on the chancellor’s autumn statement, Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said the government was “reaping the costs of a long-term failure to grow the economy”, along with an ageing population and high levels of historic borrowing.”
Ultimately how much of this is the ageing society catching up with us? Old people get sick, need care in hospital and at home and this is expensive. Personally I think we need to be more restictive around what healthcare is free and what is available if paid for. We are having a baby in the new year via IVF, which has cost around 11K (two cycles). Not funded by the NHS. Some people do get the option of at least one attempt on the NHS. Then there are the hugely expensive cancer treatments that might get you a few more months on Earth. I am sure most of us would want the drugs if we were in that situation, but should that be paid for by the taxes of the working poor who can't afford to heat their homes?
Perhaps if less was given for free to rich pensioners, more health insurance would get taken up? Cradle to the grave care was very different in 1945 to 2023 in terms of what can be done. An example from TV last week. An elderly chap (mid to late 80's, can't recall the exact age) was offered open heart surgery to try to correct an issue that would probably kill him at some point (but not sure when). He died on the operating table. Should that surgery have been attempted? How much did it cost?
I don't have the answers, but there are a lot of questions.
A few weeks back I heard an interesting interview on the radio. I can't remember the full details, but the interviewee said that there would be waves of protests roughly forty days apart, as there is an Islamic rite that is performed twenty days after a funeral. So someone gets killed at a protest and is then buried, and a little over a month later all their family and friends get together for the rite... which can become, or be interpreted as, a protest.
What a truck looks like after it has been nearby a HIMARs missile loaded with tungsten balls. From a distance it looks fine but the entirety of it is full of small holes and unusable.
Most of our problems come from multiple failures accruing over two decades - nothing to do with Brexit. And also global events have created horrible headwinds
So what do we do? What can we do? We must have done something wrong and we need to reverse it. Brexit is the problem! Reverse Brexit!
Brexit will get the blame for everything. Unfairly. But it’s a nice irony as the EU got the blame for everything preBrexit
Public opinion shifted hugely against EU membership, from 1975 to 1985. As the economic situation improved, so people warmed more to membership. Unlike its anti-nuclear stance, Labour's anti-EU position was popular.
Ironically, our economic situation in the Seventies was a lot better than people thought at the time. The exception was 1974-5, which was a severe recession combined with inflation peaking at 27%. It came at a time too, when Portugese Africa and IndoChina fell to the Communists. Again with hindsight, we can see that was Communism's high water mark.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
Yes, it's quite striking the way - even with the eyes of the world upon them - they aren't covering up behaviour which the rest of the world might disapprove of. My inference is that they are so disconnected from the outside world that they absolutely don't see why the rest of the world might look askance at this. See also the goons stopping the Danish TV crew from filming.
People bang on about woke.
But here is a real difference - in many countries, there isn't a narrative of "our evil ancestors did X". They are in the Ra Ra We Are The Bestest mode. They see nothing in their past or present to be ashamed of.
In addition, since they have nothing to be ashamed of, their culture and religion is, of course, The Best In The World. Meaning that everyone else is somewhere between a poor, benighted, uncultured rube and an actual Heretic.
Having been the best in the world at colonialism we are now the best in the world at admitting it was wrong? That's a nice thought but I'm not sure it's true. Not the 2nd bit anyway.
It's not about being best at admitting the past. Even acknowledging it is a start.
Haven't you actually listened to some locals when you've travelled?
It is quite interesting to hear people from cultures where They Have No Doubt. And they see The Doubt in the West as pathetic and evidence of our manifest decline. Rather than a mature response to the past.
I can't say I've noticed that particularly. Are we sure this isn't a view gleaned from the 'muscular right' commentariat masquerading as personal experience?
The BBC has broadcast folksongs that glorify attacks on Jews and call for bloodshed, the JC can reveal.
A BBC presenter can be seen in the studio, nodding and filming the bloodthirsty performance on his phone, which was aired on the BBC Xtra series to mark “Nakba Day” in May.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Things have definitely changed at Twitter under Dark Elon. Last night I gave a female Tory MP an intense beasting. Really nasty, unpleasant stuff. The tweets were deleted but I didn't get my customary 12 or 24 hours in Twitter borstal. I might have a crack at Natalie Elphicke tonight.
The BBC has broadcast folksongs that glorify attacks on Jews and call for bloodshed, the JC can reveal.
A BBC presenter can be seen in the studio, nodding and filming the bloodthirsty performance on his phone, which was aired on the BBC Xtra series to mark “Nakba Day” in May.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Reading further:
"Expired photographic identification will also be accepted if the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder."
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, Truss and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
O/T It seems that Lauren Boebert has held on by 500 or so votes. There will be a recount, but it would be almost unheard for such a majority to be overturned.
The BBC has broadcast folksongs that glorify attacks on Jews and call for bloodshed, the JC can reveal.
A BBC presenter can be seen in the studio, nodding and filming the bloodthirsty performance on his phone, which was aired on the BBC Xtra series to mark “Nakba Day” in May.
Sounds like the Middle Eastern version of Tim Westwood old show.
There is a small but noticeable subgenre of Corbynites/tankies/Marxist-lefties who are.... on the side of the Islamic regime in Tehran, and against the protestors. That is to say, they are AGAINST the brave young people fighting a nasty, brutal, quasi-Fascist theocracy
The French Revolution has, indeed, unfolded in ways no one could have predicted
What a truck looks like after it has been nearby a HIMARs missile loaded with tungsten balls. From a distance it looks fine but the entirety of it is full of small holes and unusable.
$150k missile to destroy a $10k truck. It's Iraq all over again.
Buddy was obviously not happy at being told to fix that. Blyat.
Except in Iraq there was little sense of national unity, there was no existing legitimate government to hand over to, and the country was filled with a religious culture that tends to disdain Western liberalism. None of those are true in Ukraine.
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
PS My hunch is that Sunak and Hunt will not be loved by right, if they do lead the Tories to defeat, they will be discredited (Truss will be a distant memory) and there will be a movement to return to true Tory values and to hold the nerve this time.
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
It's a bit politically morbid, but he's anyone run the rule over what a much smaller Parliamentary Conservative Party might look like? Albeit tricky to do when we don't know who will stand where.
Are the safest 100-200 Conservative MPs more or less right wing / ERGey / bonkers than the rest?
Tories questioning election validity and placing hurdles to voting are going down a Trumpian path. Not good.
Im always amazed why people are so anti voter id. You need id to collect a parcel from the post office, or to go in most pubs on a Saturday night in a town centre, why not for voting.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
"Finally, we should move to a system where voters are required to produce identification at polling stations. We gathered substantial evidence during our review that the lack of a requirement for ID is both an actual and a perceived weakness in the system. "
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
So after promising alcohol zones to get international football fans to turn up, I see the Qataris have waited until three days before the tournament to reverse that. A classic con artist move. Obviously nowhere near as bad as their awful abuse of migrant laborers, but it's symbolic of what a corrupt and criminal country Qatar is, and how corrupt and criminal FIFA is. Can we just rally us, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Brazil and Argentina to withdraw and form their own international football association? It would destroy FIFA.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Perhaps if Iran joined the EU everything would be better.
Because the Iranian police would find it easier to buy electric cattle prods?
From Leon's link. The house of Rouhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic and the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has been torched by protesters in the city of Khomeyn, according to videos obtained by @IranIntl
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Reading further:
"Expired photographic identification will also be accepted if the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder."
While I don't agree with the law, it would have been silly to only accept in date passports to vote when an expired passport is acceptable proof of the right to work in the UK.
A lot of employers don't seem to know this or don't want to accept them so I'm concerned some polling station officials will incorrectly turn people away for the same reason.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
British demography *is* better than European peers, though, because immigration.
Perhaps if Iran joined the EU everything would be better.
Because the Iranian police would find it easier to buy electric cattle prods?
From Leon's link. The house of Rouhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic and the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has been torched by protesters in the city of Khomeyn, according to videos obtained by @IranIntl
They've also burned down the seminary in Qom (that's a big thing, Qom is the sacred city) and they are shooting back at police
"Qom seminary school was also set on fire. "Holy" city of Qom is the epicenter of Shi'a Islam. Seeing people of Qom setting the seminary school on fire was unfathomable"
Tories questioning election validity and placing hurdles to voting are going down a Trumpian path. Not good.
Im always amazed why people are so anti voter id. You need id to collect a parcel from the post office, or to go in most pubs on a Saturday night in a town centre, why not for voting.
Of course, all these programmed tax rises and still long standing social care reform has been kicked even further down the road as no politician wants to actually take a tough decision on that one.
Things have definitely changed at Twitter under Dark Elon. Last night I gave a female Tory MP an intense beasting. Really nasty, unpleasant stuff. The tweets were deleted but I didn't get my customary 12 or 24 hours in Twitter borstal. I might have a crack at Natalie Elphicke tonight.
I should not completely rule out the possibility that party HQs routinely monitor, download and archive PB.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
I'm not sure that's true: the developed countries with the best dependency ratios and healthiest looking population pyramids (Australia, Canada, and to a lesser extent the UK) have the highest levels of immigration.
Conversely, those countries with the worst dependency ratios and the scariest looks population pyramids (Japan and Italy) have the lowest levels of immigration.
Tories questioning election validity and placing hurdles to voting are going down a Trumpian path. Not good.
Im always amazed why people are so anti voter id. You need id to collect a parcel from the post office, or to go in most pubs on a Saturday night in a town centre, why not for voting.
How old are you if you need ID to go into a pub?!
I remember as a youth i never got ID when i was underage, then when i was about 20, the same places i had drank in for 4 years started to id me...
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, Truss and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
Wise not to go there? Isn't that turning a blind eye to something that even the electoral commission says is a perceived and actual issue?
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
It's not proto-Trumpian.
It's a way of allaying concerns about the voting system, and ensuring everyone knows that it is fair, without discouraging the turnout of younger voters or those who don't regularly carry ID.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
British demography *is* better than European peers, though, because immigration.
Only partially. A big part of it is the native birth rate is higher. But the maths speaks for itself. You only need to do some small number crunching to realise you need net immigration in the seven figures to make up for a 0.2 point decline in the fertility rate.
Tories questioning election validity and placing hurdles to voting are going down a Trumpian path. Not good.
Im always amazed why people are so anti voter id. You need id to collect a parcel from the post office, or to go in most pubs on a Saturday night in a town centre, why not for voting.
How old are you if you need ID to go into a pub?!
Its only partly to do with age, its also in case of any fighting etc so they have details of who is there. Pubs work together so if someone causes trouble in one pub, the details are communicated to other pubs.
Perhaps if Iran joined the EU everything would be better.
Because the Iranian police would find it easier to buy electric cattle prods?
From Leon's link. The house of Rouhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic and the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has been torched by protesters in the city of Khomeyn, according to videos obtained by @IranIntl
They've also burned down the seminary in Qom (that's a big thing, Qom is the sacred city) and they are shooting back at police
"Qom seminary school was also set on fire. "Holy" city of Qom is the epicenter of Shi'a Islam. Seeing people of Qom setting the seminary school on fire was unfathomable"
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
PS My hunch is that Sunak and Hunt will not be loved by right, if they do lead the Tories to defeat, they will be discredited (Truss will be a distant memory) and there will be a movement to return to true Tory values and to hold the nerve this time.
My hunch is that Hunt will be one of the first to break ranks and say the unsayable and declare Brexit an irredeemable pile of pants. Everyone knows he campaigned against it and that gives him first seat on the lifeboat.
He doesn't look comfortable working alongside Sunak -who would-and he knows that if he breaks the partnership the whole edifice goes leaving Hunt the only one who can lead a revival. "As an entrepreneur" I'm sure this hasn't escaped his notice
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
British demography *is* better than European peers, though, because immigration.
Only partially. A big part of it is the native birth rate is higher. But the maths speaks for itself. You only need to do some small number crunching to realise you need net immigration in the seven figures to make up for a 0.2 point decline in the fertility rate.
Eh?
The UK fertility rate is about 1.55 and results in 690,000 births per year.
If the UK fertility rate dropped by 0.2, it would mean there were 578,000 births in the year. To make up for a drop of 0.2 in the fertility rate would mean an increase in annual immigration of 112,000.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
Wise not to go there? Isn't that turning a blind eye to something that even the electoral commission says is a perceived and actual issue?
The report says there is no widespread fraud. They are dealing with perceptions. These perceptions are now commonly generated, exaggerated, and manipulated for partisan ends. We see that in the US. That is a huge risk that the report does not deal with. It is important not to overreact.
Sometimes in life the cure is worse than the problem. That I fear is what we will see with these proposals. They will deny more valid voters than stop actual fraud.
Tories questioning election validity and placing hurdles to voting are going down a Trumpian path. Not good.
Im always amazed why people are so anti voter id. You need id to collect a parcel from the post office, or to go in most pubs on a Saturday night in a town centre, why not for voting.
How old are you if you need ID to go into a pub?!
I've needed it since turning 40. It's not about age verification.
O/T It seems that Lauren Boebert has held on by 500 or so votes. There will be a recount, but it would be almost unheard for such a majority to be overturned.
I'm sure the near loss will lead to sincere reflection and humility.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
It's a stupid and unnecessary resolution to a problem that only existed in the minds of ERG gammon.
Tories questioning election validity and placing hurdles to voting are going down a Trumpian path. Not good.
Im always amazed why people are so anti voter id. You need id to collect a parcel from the post office, or to go in most pubs on a Saturday night in a town centre, why not for voting.
How old are you if you need ID to go into a pub?!
Its only partly to do with age, its also in case of any fighting etc so they have details of who is there. Pubs work together so if someone causes trouble in one pub, the details are communicated to other pubs.
Thanks, I had no idea (don't go out on a Saturday night normally).
The other problem with using immigration to address demographic issues is that the high skill immigrants that are net contributors tend to have few kids. The ones with the high fertility rates are Afghans and Somalis who, on average, net costs. So they don't solve the "pay for pensions" issue at all. It's also why the countries with most immigration over the long term tend to be most unequal.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
Wise not to go there? Isn't that turning a blind eye to something that even the electoral commission says is a perceived and actual issue?
The report says there is no widespread fraud. They are dealing with perceptions. These perceptions are now commonly generated, exaggerated, and manipulated for partisan ends. We see that in the US.
Sometimes in life the cure is worse than the problem. That I fear is what we will see with these proposals. They will deny more valid voters than stop actual fraud.
Personally I would favour a bank holiday and compulsory turn-up, but that is a whole other story.
So localised fraud is OK, it's only when it is widespread you will start thinking about doing something about it?
They say in the report it is both an actual and perceived weakness of the current system. Of course it is hard to get firm numbers on it, but they do report how in NI there has not been a single claim of personation since the measures were introduced.
They also reported that there was no reduction in participation due to these measures in NI. That is always massively overblown as a potential problem.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
It's a stupid and unnecessary resolution to a problem that only existed in the minds of ERG gammon.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
It's not proto-Trumpian.
It's a way of allaying concerns about the voting system, and ensuring everyone knows that it is fair, without discouraging the turnout of younger voters or those who don't regularly carry ID.
I think its disproportionate action and unnecessary. But people do overreact on anything to do with elections, even treating what might be common practice around the globe in fair societies as inherently crooked.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
It's a stupid and unnecessary resolution to a problem that only existed in the minds of ERG gammon.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
It's a stupid and unnecessary resolution to a problem that only existed in the minds of ERG gammon.
The other problem with using immigration to address demographic issues is that the high skill immigrants that are net contributors tend to have few kids. The ones with the high fertility rates are Afghans and Somalis who, on average, net costs. So they don't solve the "pay for pensions" issue at all. It's also why the countries with most immigration over the long term tend to be most unequal.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
It's a stupid and unnecessary resolution to a problem that only existed in the minds of ERG gammon.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
It's not proto-Trumpian.
It's a way of allaying concerns about the voting system, and ensuring everyone knows that it is fair, without discouraging the turnout of younger voters or those who don't regularly carry ID.
I think its disproportionate action and unnecessary. But people do overreact on anything to do with elections, even treating what might be common practice around the globe in fair societies as inherently crooked.
If this rule had existed for 50 years, nobody would be proposing to abolish it.
Nobody is proposing to abolish it in Northern Ireland AFAIK.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
British demography *is* better than European peers, though, because immigration.
Only partially. A big part of it is the native birth rate is higher. But the maths speaks for itself. You only need to do some small number crunching to realise you need net immigration in the seven figures to make up for a 0.2 point decline in the fertility rate.
Eh?
The UK fertility rate is about 1.55 and results in 690,000 births per year.
If the UK fertility rate dropped by 0.2, it would mean there were 578,000 births in the year. To make up for a drop of 0.2 in the fertility rate would mean an increase in annual immigration of 112,000.
Fans will not be allowed to buy alcohol around World Cup stadiums, Sky News understands.
The U-turn comes ahead of the tournament's opening game in Qatar on Sunday.
LOL. Your turn FIFA - postpone the first match?
Sequels are rarely better than the original, but the sequel to Fyre Festival is really shaping up to be a humdinger.
I was going to say that Qatar could use the World Cup to announce themselves to the world, welcome everyone with open arms, and have their own massive Glastonbury Festival in the desert - much as I’ve witnessed from the UAE in the past couple of decades.
But instead, it looks like the mullahs are still in charge, and we’ll be instead watching the Fyre Festival.
I was wined and dined by a Qatari firm in London back in 2017 about a job opportunity. Spectacular pay, and the lifestyle presented was extraordinarily appealing - hard work, but a stunning home, exquisite hotel bars, and a job where my skills would be really valued.
I was all ready to sign on the dotted line, then the UAE diplomatic crisis kicked off, the Qatari stock market crashed and the job offer fell through. I would have signed in a heartbeat back in 2017 - but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't go out there for double the money.
This is a PR disaster for Qatar, and it hasn't even started yet.
That little diplomatic spat caused huge problems for Qatar. Many of the expats working there were employed by UAE companies, because no-one wanted to be on a Qatari visa where your employer basically owns you, and the wives wanted to live in Dubai. That stopped overnight, with thousands of contractors being withdrawn, and construction sites suspended for over a year. The World Cup sites eventually got going again, with massive wages having to be paid to the senior contractors. Thousands of construction managers will now be enjoying retirement in their 40s, having built the WC stadia and hotels.
Yup. The money they were offering to move out there was spectacular - retirement in a decade kind of money.
One red flag, however, was when I was searching on Qatari real estate websites for a place to live. I put in my price bracket (massive, obvs) but in amongst the glittering penthouses were several uh... other properties in the same price bracket. Turns out for the same amount of money pcm, I could rent a bunkhouse fitting up to 40 "workers". Pictures were included. Slave galleys sprung to mind.
Sometimes I wonder why it's all so visible - then I realise - it's because they genuinely don't see anything wrong with this kind of socioeconomic model.
And that is why the world cup is going to be such a disaster. Most tinpot countries build potemkin villages because they *know* how to present themselves to the outside world. Qatar presents itself as it is, and is proud of what it is.
Chaos will ensue.
Yes, it's quite striking the way - even with the eyes of the world upon them - they aren't covering up behaviour which the rest of the world might disapprove of. My inference is that they are so disconnected from the outside world that they absolutely don't see why the rest of the world might look askance at this. See also the goons stopping the Danish TV crew from filming.
People bang on about woke.
But here is a real difference - in many countries, there isn't a narrative of "our evil ancestors did X". They are in the Ra Ra We Are The Bestest mode. They see nothing in their past or present to be ashamed of.
In addition, since they have nothing to be ashamed of, their culture and religion is, of course, The Best In The World. Meaning that everyone else is somewhere between a poor, benighted, uncultured rube and an actual Heretic.
Having been the best in the world at colonialism we are now the best in the world at admitting it was wrong? That's a nice thought but I'm not sure it's true. Not the 2nd bit anyway.
It's not about being best at admitting the past. Even acknowledging it is a start.
Haven't you actually listened to some locals when you've travelled?
It is quite interesting to hear people from cultures where They Have No Doubt. And they see The Doubt in the West as pathetic and evidence of our manifest decline. Rather than a mature response to the past.
I can't say I've noticed that particularly. Are we sure this isn't a view gleaned from the 'muscular right' commentariat masquerading as personal experience?
Try talking to people in Saudi Arabia, for example. Lots of “Our current leaders have made mistakes” - but absolutely no idea of being responsible for anything bad in the past. Colonialism was only done to them etc.
It’s not that they have changed - we have. Progressed that is. Many countries live in their public discourse at about the stage when Churchill wrote of the funeral of Queen Victoria - “…the old world in it’s glory, fair to see”
They see themselves as the unambiguously Good Guys.
That’s the thing about progress. It means leaving the old world behind. Progressing to a new one. A better one, we hope.
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
It's a stupid and unnecessary resolution to a problem that only existed in the minds of ERG gammon.
The Electoral Commission are "ERG gammon"?
Tasked by the (ERG gammon) Government to resolve the issue of voter fraud.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
Wise not to go there? Isn't that turning a blind eye to something that even the electoral commission says is a perceived and actual issue?
The report says there is no widespread fraud. They are dealing with perceptions. These perceptions are now commonly generated, exaggerated, and manipulated for partisan ends. We see that in the US.
Sometimes in life the cure is worse than the problem. That I fear is what we will see with these proposals. They will deny more valid voters than stop actual fraud.
Personally I would favour a bank holiday and compulsory turn-up, but that is a whole other story.
So localised fraud is OK, it's only when it is widespread you will start thinking about doing something about it?
They say in the report it is both an actual and perceived weakness of the current system. Of course it is hard to get firm numbers on it, but they do report how in NI there has not been a single claim of personation since the measures were introduced.
They also reported that there was no reduction in participation due to these measures in NI. That is always massively overblown as a potential problem.
Of course local fraud is not ok, but as the report says it has been "detected and punished". Good!
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
British demography *is* better than European peers, though, because immigration.
Only partially. A big part of it is the native birth rate is higher. But the maths speaks for itself. You only need to do some small number crunching to realise you need net immigration in the seven figures to make up for a 0.2 point decline in the fertility rate.
Eh?
The UK fertility rate is about 1.55 and results in 690,000 births per year.
If the UK fertility rate dropped by 0.2, it would mean there were 578,000 births in the year. To make up for a drop of 0.2 in the fertility rate would mean an increase in annual immigration of 112,000.
Sorry I should have specified every decade.
Also, you haven't factored in that new births are 25-35 years younger than the average migrants
Mr. Romford, there were, in the pilot, literally dozens of acceptable forms of ID, including driving licences and passports, so most people would have them already.
The portrayal of this as being something that 'the young' inherently do not have and will struggle to acquire is nonsense. Most will have a valid type of ID already and acquiring one if not will be free of charge. This is neither difficult nor costly.
Again:
WHY DO WE NEED VOTER ID?
To suppress non-Conservative younger voters. Do keep up!
And to suppress non-Conservative older and middle-aged voters. There was some discussion after Boris's red wall breakthrough as to whether voter ID would shoot Conservatives in the foot if it cost them their new, less affluent voters.
For the last seven years of his life my late father had his driving licence revoked for poor eyesight and didn't travel abroad so his passport expired, oh and he didn't use the bus. Answers on a postcard...
Voter Authority Certificate?
Well he didn't need one because they took his word he was the name on the polling card.
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
What do you mean he didn't need one? The requirement isn't there yet. In any case, he can either use this, or his expired photographic ID.
It's a stupid and unnecessary resolution to a problem that only existed in the minds of ERG gammon.
And the electoral commission, apparently.
You missed out "independent".
What's that got to do with it? They are the regulator in charge of elections, and I would expect their opinion to carry at least some weight.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
British demography *is* better than European peers, though, because immigration.
Only partially. A big part of it is the native birth rate is higher. But the maths speaks for itself. You only need to do some small number crunching to realise you need net immigration in the seven figures to make up for a 0.2 point decline in the fertility rate.
Thankfully @rcs1000 is here to show you up for the gibberish merchant you are.
Stop blaming migrants.
It is a deflection from the core issues behind poor British growth, which in essence - across public and private sectors - is a bias toward rentierism and a bias against investment.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
Wise not to go there? Isn't that turning a blind eye to something that even the electoral commission says is a perceived and actual issue?
The report says there is no widespread fraud. They are dealing with perceptions. These perceptions are now commonly generated, exaggerated, and manipulated for partisan ends. We see that in the US.
Sometimes in life the cure is worse than the problem. That I fear is what we will see with these proposals. They will deny more valid voters than stop actual fraud.
Personally I would favour a bank holiday and compulsory turn-up, but that is a whole other story.
So localised fraud is OK, it's only when it is widespread you will start thinking about doing something about it?
They say in the report it is both an actual and perceived weakness of the current system. Of course it is hard to get firm numbers on it, but they do report how in NI there has not been a single claim of personation since the measures were introduced.
They also reported that there was no reduction in participation due to these measures in NI. That is always massively overblown as a potential problem.
Of course local fraud is not ok, but as the report says it has been "detected and punished". Good!
Good, the detected cases are punished. It doesn't say that all cases are detected, does it?
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
PS My hunch is that Sunak and Hunt will not be loved by right, if they do lead the Tories to defeat, they will be discredited (Truss will be a distant memory) and there will be a movement to return to true Tory values and to hold the nerve this time.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
I think we do know the extent of it. What people are probably not aware of is parties can appoint 'polling agents' to oversee the polling. One of the main reasons for doing this is if you believe your opponent is carrying out personation. I am aware of this because we did this where we thought it was going on. We compiled the data beforehand of people we thought would not vote as they are the ones you want to impersonate (wont get caught). We only needed to challenge 2. One was genuine, the other did a runner. It was well known this was a rogue ward with a corrupt party organisation. It is only really effective in a local election and even then the numbers are very very small because each person can only try it on once (they will be recognized if they come back again) so you need a big team of people willing to go to prison. If you try and vote for someone who is going to vote you are going to get caught also (either the crook or the genuine voter) so it is a big risk.
This is a near nonexistent crime. Nearly everywhere it is not happening. Where it does it will be 1 or 2 votes only.
Now putting nonexistent electors on the register and voting by post that is another thing and that did happen in the same ward many years later.
Tories questioning election validity and placing hurdles to voting are going down a Trumpian path. Not good.
Im always amazed why people are so anti voter id. You need id to collect a parcel from the post office, or to go in most pubs on a Saturday night in a town centre, why not for voting.
True, which is why outrage can be a bit overdone, but I still think better not to exclude unless its shown as a significant issue
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
British demography *is* better than European peers, though, because immigration.
Only partially. A big part of it is the native birth rate is higher. But the maths speaks for itself. You only need to do some small number crunching to realise you need net immigration in the seven figures to make up for a 0.2 point decline in the fertility rate.
Eh?
The UK fertility rate is about 1.55 and results in 690,000 births per year.
If the UK fertility rate dropped by 0.2, it would mean there were 578,000 births in the year. To make up for a drop of 0.2 in the fertility rate would mean an increase in annual immigration of 112,000.
Sorry I should have specified every decade.
Also, you haven't factored in that new births are 25-35 years younger than the average migrants
Agreed: a British new birth adds cost of education and typically takes mothers out of the workforce. They are therefore much worse for the dependency ratio than bringing in someone at 25 years of age. (Plus, you might get lucky and they return home before they get old.)
The Oyster card 60+ or u60 issue is a complete and utter red herring. Maybe it makes a good tweet?
The 60+ card requires extra ID to get in the first place, because it shows entitlement to unlimited travel, subject to certain restrictions, for £10 per year. (That's the accurate way of putting it. It's not free.)
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
Wise not to go there? Isn't that turning a blind eye to something that even the electoral commission says is a perceived and actual issue?
The report says there is no widespread fraud. They are dealing with perceptions. These perceptions are now commonly generated, exaggerated, and manipulated for partisan ends. We see that in the US.
Sometimes in life the cure is worse than the problem. That I fear is what we will see with these proposals. They will deny more valid voters than stop actual fraud.
Personally I would favour a bank holiday and compulsory turn-up, but that is a whole other story.
So localised fraud is OK, it's only when it is widespread you will start thinking about doing something about it?
They say in the report it is both an actual and perceived weakness of the current system. Of course it is hard to get firm numbers on it, but they do report how in NI there has not been a single claim of personation since the measures were introduced.
They also reported that there was no reduction in participation due to these measures in NI. That is always massively overblown as a potential problem.
Of course local fraud is not ok, but as the report says it has been "detected and punished". Good!
Good, the detected cases are punished. It doesn't say that all cases are detected, does it?
Of courses, but it also said there is no evidence there is a widespread problem. This is good news! Cases are detected and punished and it's not a widespread problem.
You can’t bitch about an ageing demographic on one hand, and immigration on the other.
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”. My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Yes, you absolutely can, because, unless immigration is on a ridiculous scale (i.e. multiples of current mass immigration levels), it barely dents the age profile of the organization. Certainly compared with fairly tiny changes in the fertility rate.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
I'm not sure that's true: the developed countries with the best dependency ratios and healthiest looking population pyramids (Australia, Canada, and to a lesser extent the UK) have the highest levels of immigration.
Conversely, those countries with the worst dependency ratios and the scariest looks population pyramids (Japan and Italy) have the lowest levels of immigration.
The level, and the skill, of the immigration, needs to be with the consent of the people - not something that the people think is imposed on them against their wishes.
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
PS My hunch is that Sunak and Hunt will not be loved by right, if they do lead the Tories to defeat, they will be discredited (Truss will be a distant memory) and there will be a movement to return to true Tory values and to hold the nerve this time.
Agreed. They'll go for broke.
They made us broke last time, so it should work again.
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
What problem are these reforms trying to solve? Are they claiming widespread voter fraud? Sounds familiar.
They are trying to solve the issue of personation.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
Why do we need to change a system that has produced widely accepted fair election results for years?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
Wise not to go there? Isn't that turning a blind eye to something that even the electoral commission says is a perceived and actual issue?
The report says there is no widespread fraud. They are dealing with perceptions. These perceptions are now commonly generated, exaggerated, and manipulated for partisan ends. We see that in the US.
Sometimes in life the cure is worse than the problem. That I fear is what we will see with these proposals. They will deny more valid voters than stop actual fraud.
Personally I would favour a bank holiday and compulsory turn-up, but that is a whole other story.
So localised fraud is OK, it's only when it is widespread you will start thinking about doing something about it?
They say in the report it is both an actual and perceived weakness of the current system. Of course it is hard to get firm numbers on it, but they do report how in NI there has not been a single claim of personation since the measures were introduced.
They also reported that there was no reduction in participation due to these measures in NI. That is always massively overblown as a potential problem.
Of course local fraud is not ok, but as the report says it has been "detected and punished". Good!
Good, the detected cases are punished. It doesn't say that all cases are detected, does it?
Of courses, but it also said there is no evidence there is a widespread problem. This is good news! Cases are detected and punished and it's not a widespread problem.
Some cases are detected and punished. They would be going on about how it is a real weakness of the system if they weren't convinced it was happening, even at a low level.
In my opinion voter fraud shouldn't be tolerated at any level.
Comments
Reflecting on Hunt's autumn statement it was needed and pulled no punches
The economic impact of covid, war in Ukraine, and brexit made it inevitable and it is difficult to see anything other than Starmer as next PM
However, I am relieved we have the Sunak/ Hunt combination leading the country at present as they seem responsible enough to put the well being of the economy before party politics and the ERG
It must be hoped that an election defeat in 2024 will see some if not most of the ERG dinosaurs voted from office , and a one nation conservative party rise from the defeat
As far as brexit is concerned a closer relationship with the EU is desirable but for those who pine for full membership I just do not see it happening for years, and it certainly seems that Starmer has accepted that it is not a realistic proposition
I do not support the triple lock but then it was initiated by Cameron and Clegg and seems the mindset of all the parties so it is unlikely to be changed anytime soon
Perhaps if less was given for free to rich pensioners, more health insurance would get taken up? Cradle to the grave care was very different in 1945 to 2023 in terms of what can be done. An example from TV last week. An elderly chap (mid to late 80's, can't recall the exact age) was offered open heart surgery to try to correct an issue that would probably kill him at some point (but not sure when). He died on the operating table. Should that surgery have been attempted? How much did it cost?
I don't have the answers, but there are a lot of questions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40th_Day_after_death
Kherson was won by degrading Russian logistics.
Ironically, our economic situation in the Seventies was a lot better than people thought at the time. The exception was 1974-5, which was a severe recession combined with inflation peaking at 27%. It came at a time too, when Portugese Africa and IndoChina fell to the Communists. Again with hindsight, we can see that was Communism's high water mark.
A BBC presenter can be seen in the studio, nodding and filming the bloodthirsty performance on his phone, which was aired on the BBC Xtra series to mark “Nakba Day” in May.
https://www.thejc.com/news/news/bbc-broadcasts-folksongs-that-glorify-attacks-on-jews-6wJhXGiv3rhgfazyMN9cAS?reloadTime=1668690273985&s=08
Sounds like the Middle Eastern version of Tim Westwood old show.
"Expired photographic identification will also be accepted if the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder."
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/voter-identification-faqs
The French Revolution has, indeed, unfolded in ways no one could have predicted
This is a very easy problem to solve. If you turn up at the polling station without ID, they take a Polaroid photo of you and you sign the back of it.
After the election, there is a spot check of Polaroid signers. (10% or so should do it.)
I don't reckon many people will wish to get their photo taken (and to sign it) committing the crime of personation.
Edit to add: because 10% of ballots will be subject to spot-checking, we'll also get a very good idea of the scale of any personation issue.
Are the safest 100-200 Conservative MPs more or less right wing / ERGey / bonkers than the rest?
This is Dick Dastardly voter suppression, but probably not as well thought through as Wacky Races chicanery.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf
"Finally, we should move to a system where voters are required to produce
identification at polling stations. We gathered substantial evidence during our review that the lack of a requirement for ID is both an actual and a perceived weakness in the system. "
No, really:
https://twitter.com/fifamedia/status/1593563414596657158?s=20&t=wR_WP4-9B9UeGidrZbZgEA
Well you can, but you’re effectively abandoning any growth strategy whatsoever.
The last refuge of Brexiters like @Sandpit is that “it was migration to blame”, while he literally posts from a territory developed, staffed and managed by expats.
And please don’t give me “low skill”.
My first British job was opening envelopes in a mail room. My last job was running a tech start-up with $250m revenue.
Now, we don't know how big an issue it is. It might be almost unknown. Or it might simply be that people rarely get caught.
My suggestion is (a) cheap, (b) easy to implement, (c) deters personation, (d) allows the amount of personation to be determined, and (e) doesn't discourage voters without ID.
The house of Rouhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic and the leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has been torched by protesters in the city of Khomeyn, according to videos obtained by @IranIntl
Imagine the conspiracy theories that will spring up if people have to be photographed before casting their vote...
Does Iran become another Syria, or will the regime fall ?
The implication is that something is broken. What is it? It’s proto-Trumpian. Wise not to go there.
And yes the skill level is incredibly relevant if you want to impact growth in per capita income. Using cherry picked anecdotes and pretending they are at all representative is sheer intellectual dishonesty. My grandmother smoked and lived until she was 93. Does that mean smoking doesn't affect life expectancy?
A lot of employers don't seem to know this or don't want to accept them so I'm concerned some polling station officials will incorrectly turn people away for the same reason.
"Qom seminary school was also set on fire. "Holy" city of Qom is the epicenter of Shi'a Islam. Seeing people of Qom setting the seminary school on fire was unfathomable"
https://twitter.com/cloutiness/status/1593506876528160768?s=20&t=wR_WP4-9B9UeGidrZbZgEA
Conversely, those countries with the worst dependency ratios and the scariest looks population pyramids (Japan and Italy) have the lowest levels of immigration.
It's a way of allaying concerns about the voting system, and ensuring everyone knows that it is fair, without discouraging the turnout of younger voters or those who don't regularly carry ID.
He doesn't look comfortable working alongside Sunak -who would-and he knows that if he breaks the partnership the whole edifice goes leaving Hunt the only one who can lead a revival. "As an entrepreneur" I'm sure this hasn't escaped his notice
The UK fertility rate is about 1.55 and results in 690,000 births per year.
If the UK fertility rate dropped by 0.2, it would mean there were 578,000 births in the year. To make up for a drop of 0.2 in the fertility rate would mean an increase in annual immigration of 112,000.
Sometimes in life the cure is worse than the problem. That I fear is what we will see with these proposals. They will deny more valid voters than stop actual fraud.
@rcs1000 offers a decent compromise.
Personally I would favour a bank holiday and compulsory turn-up, but that is a whole other story.
They say in the report it is both an actual and perceived weakness of the current system. Of course it is hard to get firm numbers on it, but they do report how in NI there has not been a single claim of personation since the measures were introduced.
They also reported that there was no reduction in participation due to these measures in NI. That is always massively overblown as a potential problem.
The developed countries with the highest net migration rate are:
Luxembourg
Singapore
Switzerland
Norway
Australia
I don't think any of them particularly suffers from terrible inequality*, but I'm happy to be schooled if I'm wrong.
* Except possibly Singapore
Nobody is proposing to abolish it in Northern Ireland AFAIK.
It’s not that they have changed - we have. Progressed that is. Many countries live in their public discourse at about the stage when Churchill wrote of the funeral of Queen Victoria - “…the old world in it’s glory, fair to see”
They see themselves as the unambiguously Good Guys.
That’s the thing about progress. It means leaving the old world behind. Progressing to a new one. A better one, we hope.
Stop blaming migrants.
It is a deflection from the core issues behind poor British growth, which in essence - across public and private sectors - is a bias toward rentierism and a bias against investment.
The point is that this has gone beyond protests. It's probably not a big step to civil war.
This is a near nonexistent crime. Nearly everywhere it is not happening. Where it does it will be 1 or 2 votes only.
Now putting nonexistent electors on the register and voting by post that is another thing and that did happen in the same ward many years later.
We do not need to import Trumpism into the UK.
They are therefore much worse for the dependency ratio than bringing in someone at 25 years of age. (Plus, you might get lucky and they return home before they get old.)
The 60+ card requires extra ID to get in the first place, because it shows entitlement to unlimited travel, subject to certain restrictions, for £10 per year. (That's the accurate way of putting it. It's not free.)
In my opinion voter fraud shouldn't be tolerated at any level.