Conversion therapy (including for trans) ban back on once again. Bill to be introduced.
It’s going to be complicated:
The legislation must not, through a lack of clarity, harm the growing number of children and young adults experiencing gender related distress, through inadvertently criminalising or chilling legitimate conversations parents or clinicians may have with their children.
Is “affirmative care” (sic) “care” or “conversion therapy”?
Stonewall and their acolytes (including the ScotGov report on this) argue the former. Critics argue the latter, “transing the gay away”.
I think the Swedish approach of watchful waiting and no drugs for under 18s except in exceptional cases, and pushing neither transition nor status quo the best approach.
There also is no definition of therapist. It isn't a regulated profession.
I asked an actual psychiatrist about this - they are very concerned that there is no definition of where boundaries are. Apparently tons of people think they are trans relative to the number that are - they often have other, recognised sexual/body image issues. So they have to tell people they are probably not trans…
For that matter there is no real objective evidence of gender dysphoria, it is a subjective inner experience. People have it if they say they do, like many other aspects of sexuality.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
It's an interesting one in that instinctively this feels like an odd issue to go to war over. If the SNP pick a fight over bread and butter issues, they're defending Scottish farmers or teachers or nurses or whatever it is. But a fairer deal for tartan transsexuals feels like at best a niche issue and does rather invite the allegation of playing politics rather than tackling issues that matter more to more people.
However, Sturgeon has historically seemed to be good at judging the mood so I'm nervous about saying she's got this one wrong... it just feels risky.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
You don't need to prove your right to vote with ID, just prove who you are. Something that only requires a signature for postal votes.
If there is systemic multiple voting, then I think it far more likely with postal and proxy voting than in person. What we have is a solution looking for a problem, and a form of voter suppression.
I think the @RCS1000 idea of photographing people without ID a better solution.
Yes, I didn't mean right to vote. I’d settle for either the polling card, or you prove who you are. I don’t believe it’s about voter suppression, but maybe I’m not cynical enough. Many western democracies require voter ID - are they all suppressing the votes of the poor?
Is it required in countries without national ID cards?
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Terminology aside, I'm sure the Court will only consider the dry, technical legal position, as they have in other such cases. And I am sure the SNP will relish the outcome, whatever it is, on a political level. But I do actually think they genuinely believe in what has been proposed and passed, which is not purely supported by them of course. Yes they would love a fight focused on legal competencies of the Scottish Parliament, but I'm sure they could have found something else if that is all they wanted.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
You don't need to prove your right to vote with ID, just prove who you are. Something that only requires a signature for postal votes.
If there is systemic multiple voting, then I think it far more likely with postal and proxy voting than in person. What we have is a solution looking for a problem, and a form of voter suppression.
I think the @RCS1000 idea of photographing people without ID a better solution.
Yes, I didn't mean right to vote. I’d settle for either the polling card, or you prove who you are. I don’t believe it’s about voter suppression, but maybe I’m not cynical enough. Many western democracies require voter ID - are they all suppressing the votes of the poor?
Is it required in countries without national ID cards?
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
You don't need to prove your right to vote with ID, just prove who you are. Something that only requires a signature for postal votes.
If there is systemic multiple voting, then I think it far more likely with postal and proxy voting than in person. What we have is a solution looking for a problem, and a form of voter suppression.
I think the @RCS1000 idea of photographing people without ID a better solution.
Yes, I didn't mean right to vote. I’d settle for either the polling card, or you prove who you are. I don’t believe it’s about voter suppression, but maybe I’m not cynical enough. Many western democracies require voter ID - are they all suppressing the votes of the poor?
Is it required in countries without national ID cards?
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
You don't need to prove your right to vote with ID, just prove who you are. Something that only requires a signature for postal votes.
If there is systemic multiple voting, then I think it far more likely with postal and proxy voting than in person. What we have is a solution looking for a problem, and a form of voter suppression.
I think the @RCS1000 idea of photographing people without ID a better solution.
Yes, I didn't mean right to vote. I’d settle for either the polling card, or you prove who you are. I don’t believe it’s about voter suppression, but maybe I’m not cynical enough. Many western democracies require voter ID - are they all suppressing the votes of the poor?
I don't think it is about voter suppression. It's a measure many places have, as you note, and alternative options have been provided. I do think it is motivated by a disproportionate assessment of the current risks and practicalities, waved away by implying it is a torrid hellscape of impersonation. As OnlyLivingBoy suggests, if the problem is, it appears, marginal, then making any such change, even if not outrageous in itself, is probably unnecessary.
For what it is worth, given people make the comparison a lot, my post office have not bothered to check my ID the last half dozen times I've picked something up. I hope polling clerks are more rigorous.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
Korea's push to export nuclear reactors gains new momentum
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/01/120_343737.html Korea's campaign to export nuclear reactors and related facilities is gaining fresh momentum on the occasion of President Yoon Suk Yeol's state visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as the two countries agreed to cooperate for additional nuclear projects in either the UAE or third countries, such as the U.K.
Yoon will wrap up his state visit to the UAE on Tuesday afternoon (local time), after fruitful summit diplomacy, including securing the UAE's commitment to invest $30 billion in Korean companies guaranteed through a joint declaration and a total of 48 memoranda of understanding (MOUs) signed between the two countries.
Nuclear energy is one of the areas that is expected to facilitate bilateral cooperation.
While promising an astonishing amount of investment, UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan said his country decided to do so in recognition of the successful construction and operation of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, which was built by Korean companies.
During the leaders' visit to the nuclear plant on Monday, Yoon noted, "Now is the time for both Korea and the UAE to join hands to create additional nuclear power partnerships in the UAE and other countries."...
Yep, the Koreans did a bloody good job on the four-reactor Barakah nuclear plant, the first of its type operational.
Dare I say it, but the Koreans are going to be more reliable partners than the Chinese. Or the French.
They do seem to be usurping our traditional role as arms exporter and provider of nuclear engineering. I see their next generation combat aircraft made its first supersonic flight today. Probably a more realistic program than our hazy joint venture with the Japanese.
In South East Asia over the last 20 years there’s been an interesting shift in perception. 20 years ago the best stuff was from the USA, or at a pinch, Japan. Now it’s clearly Korea, from washing machines to pop to cosmetics to food.
I am reading “How Asia Works”, which I think was an FT Best Books winner last year.
Quite fascinating, in that it suggests the key behind Korea’s success was breaking up land ownership to create small landholders in (I think) the 1950s.
This created a large “middle class” of people who were incented to work for their own prosperity and allowed them to create surplus for entrepreneurial investment.
I keep wondering if there are lessons for the UK, which has managed to gear itself into a machine for rentiers to make money.
Modern Korea is very much a machine for rentiers to make money, too.
I think one of the factors behind the Korean economic miracle was the willingness (perhaps semi-coerced) of a generation of Korean workers essentially to sacrifice themselves for the national project.
It's a complex and contested topic.
Read the book! I think his argument falls into necessary but not sufficient. He highlights Sth Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China as having made the right land reforms at the right time to start a process of industrialisation.
Inter alia, he dismisses Singapore because they follow a model (ie a financial entrepot) which doesn’t scale beyond a single city state.
Something to think about for those aspiring to a “Singapore on Thames”.
It's surprising really that Syngman Rhee would have made such reforms. South Korea was poorer than the North until well into the 1960's, when the economy took off, just as the North's faltered.
There was a Cambridge "economist" who, as recently as the late 70s or early 80s, confidently predicted that the richer, more successful North would inevitably subsume the South.
You are probably referring to Joan Robinson…
who, in 1965, published a paper entitled Korean Miracle, in which she described North Korea as a stunning success story. After reciting a long list of official production figures, Robinson claimed:
“All the economic miracles of the postwar world are put in the shade by these achievements”.
The country’s social achievements were, in her account, even more impressive:
“There is already universal education […] There are numerous nursery schools and creches, all without charge. There is a complete system of social security […] The medical service is free. […] Workers receive holidays with pay”.
Nor was North Korea a dictatorship – it just looked like one:
“The outward signs of a “cult” are very marked – photographs, street names, toddlers in the nursery singing hymns to the beloved leader. But Prime Minister Kim II Sung seems to function as a messiah rather than a dictator”.
It is unsurprising, then, that South Korea must go to great lengths to stop people from emigrating to the North:
“[G]reat pains are taken to keep the Southerners in the dark. The demarcation line is manned exclusively by American troops […] with an empty stretch of territory behind. No Southern eye can be allowed a peep into the North”.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
I'm another. So that's two on here already.
No ID card for your school job? I’m astonished.
Nope. I got an enhanced DBS via an expired passport. We sign in and get photographed every day. School ID doesn't count btw. Which is a frankly ludicrous oversight. We literally have to have it hanging round our neck every day. I've just noticed an expired passport counts. Which removes some of my objections given that a renewal would take about twice as long as a GE campaign!
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
I'm another. So that's two on here already.
No ID card for your school job? I’m astonished.
Nope. I got an enhanced DBS via an expired passport. We sign in and get photographed every day. I've just noticed an expired passport counts. Which removes some of my objections given that a renewal would take about twice as long as a GE campaign!
Photographed every day? What for? (I’m imagining a photo montage as you get dragged down by the horror of the job…)
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
I'm another. So that's two on here already.
No ID card for your school job? I’m astonished.
Nope. I got an enhanced DBS via an expired passport. We sign in and get photographed every day. I've just noticed an expired passport counts. Which removes some of my objections given that a renewal would take about twice as long as a GE campaign!
Photographed every day? What for?
ID is issued every day. Presumably so you just couldn't pass your lanyard onto someone similar looking. Or have it stolen. More practically, it forces you to sign in first thing. So they know when you've arrived. Since you can't get through any doors without it. (Apart from the broken ones).
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You require ID for things where the consequences of not requiring it are more serious than of requiring it.
So presumably the Royal Mail find there is a real problem of valuable packages not reaching their intended recipient where ID isn't required, people travelling under false names is demonstrably a real problem, and so on.
With voter ID, supporters fail at the fundamental level of showing that they are addressing a material problem with personation, so the benefits appear at best unquantified and seemingly negligible. The disadvantages of requiring ID - the sheer cost and risk it reduces propensity to vote particularly amongst groups simply appear to have more evidence for them.
None of it is helped by the very strong suggestion that the reduced propensity to vote appears focused on groups less likely to vote Conservative. So the suspicion is that the Government (and its MPs) inappropriately weigh that in the balance.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You require ID for things where the consequences of not requiring it are more serious than of requiring it.
So presumably the Royal Mail find there is a real problem of valuable packages not reaching their intended recipient where ID isn't required, people travelling under false names is demonstrably a real problem, and so on.
With voter ID, supporters fail at the fundamental level of showing that they are addressing a material problem with personation, so the benefits appear at best unquantified and seemingly negligible. The disadvantages of requiring ID - the sheer cost and risk it reduces propensity to vote particularly amongst groups simply appear to have more evidence for them.
None of it is helped by the very strong suggestion that the reduced propensity to vote appears focused on groups less likely to vote Conservative. So the suspicion is that the Government (and its MPs) inappropriately weigh that in the balance.
I suspect that it might suppress Tory voters more, particularly older working class Tories in Brexity type places that historically had low turnout. In which case the schadenfreude would be sweet.
Mostly though voter ID is the sort of pointless bureaucracy that clogs the country up.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
He would know someone had stolen his vote, and so would the election workers, yet there are very few reported incidents of personation (perhaps because personation is very hard to organise on the scale needed to swing an election).
I find it interesting just how many people think it is a bad idea to have to prove your right to vote. Are they of the no ID card persuasion? Or is it because they thinks it a vote suppressing trick? Or just not needed?
For me it's because the right to vote is a fundamental right that people have died for. Everyone has the right to vote even (especially) those at the margins of society, those who lead busy or chaotic lives, or those who think that voting is barely worth it. For that reason, the state shouldn't put any unnecessary barriers between voters and the ballot box. Since personation is an absolutely marginal problem (unlike postal voting fraud which is a big problem) requiring photographic ID to vote is an unnecessary barrier to voting. We know it's a barrier because trials have shown it stops some people from voting. And we know it's unnecessary because personation is a marginal problem. And we also know that the poor are fundamentally less likely to have photo ID, which should be troubling for anyone who supports equal voting rights, especially as the poor are already less likely to vote. If personation were a major problem I would support requiring photo ID, but only if photo ID became free and mandatory for all citizens to ensure that absolutely everyone had it.
Fine, and I think I prefer the model of poling card OR ID. However I have little time for the arguments about voter suppression. I would be interested to know how many eligible voters have nothing that meats the requirements.
I'm another. So that's two on here already.
No ID card for your school job? I’m astonished.
Nope. I got an enhanced DBS via an expired passport. We sign in and get photographed every day. I've just noticed an expired passport counts. Which removes some of my objections given that a renewal would take about twice as long as a GE campaign!
Photographed every day? What for?
ID is issued every day. Presumably so you just couldn't pass your lanyard onto someone similar looking. Or have it stolen. More practically, it forces you to sign in first thing. So they know when you've arrived. Since you can't get through any doors without it. (Apart from the broken ones).
To supply that is. Which is almost the majority these days.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
Only amongst the diehards, most people are sensible irrespective of party affiliation.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
Korea's push to export nuclear reactors gains new momentum
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2023/01/120_343737.html Korea's campaign to export nuclear reactors and related facilities is gaining fresh momentum on the occasion of President Yoon Suk Yeol's state visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), as the two countries agreed to cooperate for additional nuclear projects in either the UAE or third countries, such as the U.K.
Yoon will wrap up his state visit to the UAE on Tuesday afternoon (local time), after fruitful summit diplomacy, including securing the UAE's commitment to invest $30 billion in Korean companies guaranteed through a joint declaration and a total of 48 memoranda of understanding (MOUs) signed between the two countries.
Nuclear energy is one of the areas that is expected to facilitate bilateral cooperation.
While promising an astonishing amount of investment, UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan said his country decided to do so in recognition of the successful construction and operation of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant, which was built by Korean companies.
During the leaders' visit to the nuclear plant on Monday, Yoon noted, "Now is the time for both Korea and the UAE to join hands to create additional nuclear power partnerships in the UAE and other countries."...
Yep, the Koreans did a bloody good job on the four-reactor Barakah nuclear plant, the first of its type operational.
Dare I say it, but the Koreans are going to be more reliable partners than the Chinese. Or the French.
They do seem to be usurping our traditional role as arms exporter and provider of nuclear engineering. I see their next generation combat aircraft made its first supersonic flight today. Probably a more realistic program than our hazy joint venture with the Japanese.
In South East Asia over the last 20 years there’s been an interesting shift in perception. 20 years ago the best stuff was from the USA, or at a pinch, Japan. Now it’s clearly Korea, from washing machines to pop to cosmetics to food.
I am reading “How Asia Works”, which I think was an FT Best Books winner last year.
Quite fascinating, in that it suggests the key behind Korea’s success was breaking up land ownership to create small landholders in (I think) the 1950s.
This created a large “middle class” of people who were incented to work for their own prosperity and allowed them to create surplus for entrepreneurial investment.
I keep wondering if there are lessons for the UK, which has managed to gear itself into a machine for rentiers to make money.
Modern Korea is very much a machine for rentiers to make money, too.
I think one of the factors behind the Korean economic miracle was the willingness (perhaps semi-coerced) of a generation of Korean workers essentially to sacrifice themselves for the national project.
It's a complex and contested topic.
Read the book! I think his argument falls into necessary but not sufficient. He highlights Sth Korea, Taiwan, Japan and China as having made the right land reforms at the right time to start a process of industrialisation.
Inter alia, he dismisses Singapore because they follow a model (ie a financial entrepot) which doesn’t scale beyond a single city state.
Something to think about for those aspiring to a “Singapore on Thames”.
It's surprising really that Syngman Rhee would have made such reforms. South Korea was poorer than the North until well into the 1960's, when the economy took off, just as the North's faltered.
There was a Cambridge "economist" who, as recently as the late 70s or early 80s, confidently predicted that the richer, more successful North would inevitably subsume the South.
On the contrary, I think at some point in the next decade NK will collapse, and while reunification will be problematic, it will largely solve SK demographics.
There is an interesting line of argument that it was the Vietnam war that jump-started the SK economy. The USA wanted troops and paid for SK troops to go in quite substantial numbers and these men were paid at decent rates. As well as this there was direct economic aid to SK. 350 000 Koreans served in Vietnam.
Not only did this expose Koreans to US consumer goods, it gave them enough cash and education to better themselves. It turns out that a well paid peasantry does a lot for ground level economic development.
No, no, I think you'll find that it led to an inflationary wage spiral.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You require ID for things where the consequences of not requiring it are more serious than of requiring it.
So presumably the Royal Mail find there is a real problem of valuable packages not reaching their intended recipient where ID isn't required, people travelling under false names is demonstrably a real problem, and so on.
With voter ID, supporters fail at the fundamental level of showing that they are addressing a material problem with personation, so the benefits appear at best unquantified and seemingly negligible. The disadvantages of requiring ID - the sheer cost and risk it reduces propensity to vote particularly amongst groups simply appear to have more evidence for them.
None of it is helped by the very strong suggestion that the reduced propensity to vote appears focused on groups less likely to vote Conservative. So the suspicion is that the Government (and its MPs) inappropriately weigh that in the balance.
I suspect that it might suppress Tory voters more, particularly older working class Tories in Brexity type places that historically had low turnout. In which case the schadenfreude would be sweet.
Mostly though voter ID is the sort of pointless bureaucracy that clogs the country up.
Can't shake the feeling that a large chunk of the modern Conservative Party would be much happier if they had been born in the USA. Whether Brexit is a cause of that or a consequence, I don't know. But a lot of the foolish things the government has introduced since 2010, from city TV to mucking around with voting, seem to have their roots Stateside.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You require ID for things where the consequences of not requiring it are more serious than of requiring it.
So presumably the Royal Mail find there is a real problem of valuable packages not reaching their intended recipient where ID isn't required, people travelling under false names is demonstrably a real problem, and so on.
With voter ID, supporters fail at the fundamental level of showing that they are addressing a material problem with personation, so the benefits appear at best unquantified and seemingly negligible. The disadvantages of requiring ID - the sheer cost and risk it reduces propensity to vote particularly amongst groups simply appear to have more evidence for them.
None of it is helped by the very strong suggestion that the reduced propensity to vote appears focused on groups less likely to vote Conservative. So the suspicion is that the Government (and its MPs) inappropriately weigh that in the balance.
I suspect that it might suppress Tory voters more, particularly older working class Tories in Brexity type places that historically had low turnout. In which case the schadenfreude would be sweet.
Mostly though voter ID is the sort of pointless bureaucracy that clogs the country up.
Can't shake the feeling that a large chunk of the modern Conservative Party would be much happier if they had been born in the USA. Whether Brexit is a cause of that or a consequence, I don't know. But a lot of the foolish things the government has introduced since 2010, from city TV to mucking around with voting, seem to have their roots Stateside.
I would say Meloni's Italy rather than Biden's USA at the moment actually
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
I thought the BoE was in profit after the activity of buying/selling to shore up the market?
Yes, but cost me and many others on our mortgages.
Surely that’s interest rates though? Historic levels for 15 years and now adjusting back to more normal levels, and mainly driven by external factors.
Interest rates are increasing in the vast majority of economies and look likely to continue to do so.
Long term mortgage rates did shoot up under the Truss era but have been coming down since. Still higher than they were but with interest rates going up that is to be expected.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
I thought the BoE was in profit after the activity of buying/selling to shore up the market?
Yes, but cost me and many others on our mortgages.
Surely that’s interest rates though? Historic levels for 15 years and now adjusting back to more normal levels, and mainly driven by external factors.
Interest rates are increasing in the vast majority of economies and look likely to continue to do so.
Long term mortgage rates did shoot up under the Truss era but have been coming down since. Still higher than they were but with interest rates going up that is to be expected.
Most people either have no mortgage or are on fixed deals. We fixed at 2.78 % for 10 years. It’s a gamble but I think it was the right choice.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You require ID for things where the consequences of not requiring it are more serious than of requiring it.
So presumably the Royal Mail find there is a real problem of valuable packages not reaching their intended recipient where ID isn't required, people travelling under false names is demonstrably a real problem, and so on.
With voter ID, supporters fail at the fundamental level of showing that they are addressing a material problem with personation, so the benefits appear at best unquantified and seemingly negligible. The disadvantages of requiring ID - the sheer cost and risk it reduces propensity to vote particularly amongst groups simply appear to have more evidence for them.
None of it is helped by the very strong suggestion that the reduced propensity to vote appears focused on groups less likely to vote Conservative. So the suspicion is that the Government (and its MPs) inappropriately weigh that in the balance.
I suspect that it might suppress Tory voters more, particularly older working class Tories in Brexity type places that historically had low turnout. In which case the schadenfreude would be sweet.
Mostly though voter ID is the sort of pointless bureaucracy that clogs the country up.
Can't shake the feeling that a large chunk of the modern Conservative Party would be much happier if they had been born in the USA. Whether Brexit is a cause of that or a consequence, I don't know. But a lot of the foolish things the government has introduced since 2010, from city TV to mucking around with voting, seem to have their roots Stateside.
True, though I fear you can say the same for Labour, and certainly could have done in the New Labour years: everyone off to university (or college as they call it); health privatisation; neocon wars; supreme court.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
Not seen it and after this law passes I’m less likely to.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
My great uncle Jim was at Dunkirk, on one of the Isle of Man ferries that went. About 1 in 14 of all the men who came back from Dunkirk were rescued by the Isle of Man Steam Packet. There's a memorial on the island with quite an interesting story.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
People who live in big cities might not realise that it's still fairly unusual to carry a photo ID around with you in the rest of the country, unless you're going to an airport of ferry terminal. I've noticed that a lot of young people in big cities seem to have adopted the American custom of carrying a photo ID around with them. Maybe it's because you need one to do things these days, whereas 20 years ago you didn't.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
I mean, it was totally historically inaccurate that Harry Styles was there.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
What on earth was going on with those match of the day noises for the fa cup
Sex noises on prime time BBC1.
Mary Whitehouse must be spinning in her grave.
Finding things to get outraged about, and getting near prurient enjoyment from condemning things one ostensibly objects to, is quite modern, perhaps she would have secretly been a fan of such an event?
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
Yet it hasn't hit their support yet. So even though that might suggest they should be worried about a fight over this issue, since the intent didn't harm their support before why would it now?
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Preposterous. If you are micro targeting legislation like that it feels like a bad sign.
To be fair, as is usually the case with Twitter, the detail beneath the headline (which 99% of people won't read) is important.
It's about the fact Organised Crime Groups are increasingly using social media to facilitate migrant crossings, so it looks to target propaganda put out by them, and reference Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person, including through recruitment, with a view to their exploitation.
That said the drafting of the clause will be important as such things can be read more broadly than intended.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
And apparently Clarkson has been dumped by Amazon Prime.
He has stuffed himself big time, thought he was a smart arse but finds out he is just an arse.
Not sure that’s true. If you watch the first episode of The Grand Tour, there is a montage of his sacking and it leads into a joyous new era. I suspect the same will happen again. It’s not as if the BBC and Amazon are the only options.
It’s being reported that their contract will not be renewed when it expires in a couple of years’ time, much more to do with falling audiences, especially in the US, than any more recent ‘incidents’.
It is worth noting that the shine had rather come off Top Gear UK when they had their falling out.
I do wonder if Clarkson has managed to make this about "woke" rather than declining viewership.
Jeremy Clarkson is 62. He’ll be 64 when his contract expires. Very few TV stars go beyond their late 60s. Woke or non Woke, his TV career is near its end
He’ll be writing irascible and sometimes funny newspaper columns into his mid 70s, however
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
And apparently Clarkson has been dumped by Amazon Prime.
He has stuffed himself big time, thought he was a smart arse but finds out he is just an arse.
Not sure that’s true. If you watch the first episode of The Grand Tour, there is a montage of his sacking and it leads into a joyous new era. I suspect the same will happen again. It’s not as if the BBC and Amazon are the only options.
It’s being reported that their contract will not be renewed when it expires in a couple of years’ time, much more to do with falling audiences, especially in the US, than any more recent ‘incidents’.
It is worth noting that the shine had rather come off Top Gear UK when they had their falling out.
I do wonder if Clarkson has managed to make this about "woke" rather than declining viewership.
Jeremy Clarkson is 62. He’ll be 64 when his contract expires. Very few TV stars go beyond their late 60s. Woke or non Woke, his TV career is near its end
He’ll be writing irascible and sometimes funny newspaper columns into his mid 70s, however
For the last couple of years, the Grand Tour three have all looked like old men, even Hammond.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You probably live in a big city where nobody trusts anyone.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
People who live in big cities might not realise that it's still fairly unusual to carry a photo ID around with you in the rest of the country, unless you're going to an airport of ferry terminal. I've noticed that a lot of young people in big cities seem to have adopted the American custom of carrying a photo ID around with them. Maybe it's because you need one to do things these days, whereas 20 years ago you didn't.
In the last couple of years the number of bus passengers wearing lanyards with work, college and even secondary school IDs has rocketed.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
Also, let's not forget that 71% of housewives in East Lancashire and 81% in Hertfordshire expressed an interest in the concept of exotic ice-creams. Only 8% in Hertfordshire and 14% in Lancashire expressed positive hostility, whilst 5% expressed latent hostility. In Hertfordshire, 96% of the 50% who formed 20% of consumer spending were in favour. 0.6% told us where we could put our exotic ice creams.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
People who live in big cities might not realise that it's still fairly unusual to carry a photo ID around with you in the rest of the country, unless you're going to an airport of ferry terminal. I've noticed that a lot of young people in big cities seem to have adopted the American custom of carrying a photo ID around with them. Maybe it's because you need one to do things these days, whereas 20 years ago you didn't.
Forms of ID were always required in some circumstances*, but I think the specificity of so many things being much more difficult without a passport or photo ID - taking employment, getting a bank account and so forth - has jumped even over the last few years and it's not too be welcomed in all cases. Especially with bills and proofs of addresses going progressively online rather than paper. Voter ID could easily be seen as part of that general trend, and it does tend to be exclusionary to the marginalized in society.
Indeed, the Windrush scandal has behind it the effect of making it difficult for those who never held the correct forms of ID.
For my part, I last moved house in the late 90s and retain a paper driving license, and that is becoming increasingly untenable.
* Remember an old Bill Bailey sketch writing this - Turkish border, 5 to midnight, PASSPORT, erm gas bill?
He’ll be writing irascible and sometimes funny newspaper columns into his mid 70s, however
I thought AI was going to be writing them for him..?
Leon might have other views on this, but editing and ghostwriting feel like the sort of thing that will sucumb to AI pretty early on. OK, they're not identical, but they both lie on the "retell this story in a way that other people will want to read it" spectrum.
Which leads to a couple of questions; 1 What were Jezza's editors thinking when they published that screed? Even knowing that everyone hates Meghan, it was going too far. 2 Willl Boris be sensible enough to take thorough editing for his memoirs? If not, there's reasonable evidence (72 Virgins, Churchill Factor) that they'll be awful.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
EXCLUSIVE: Just 30% of voters say they are aware of new law requiring photo ID at polling stations, meaning millions risk being turned away from polls in May.
Only one-in-ten say they've received info from local authorities about the new requirements."
No matter how much is done a lot of people will still have no idea.
Now, people do tend to overreact to the idea of requiring photo ID at polling stations, acting like it is the most terrible thing imaginable even when many decently run countries have such things (arguments over generalised provision of IDs), but given the major potential issues around voting does not appear to have been personation, it was in my view probably not necessary.
I have to give ID to pick up post, yet can turn up at a polling booth, say I’m John Smith (in reality my neighbour) and steal his vote. I have zero objection to proving who I am to vote. It’s an important part of life. My only stipulation is that forms of proof must be easy to obtain.
That's true. Except Royal Mail does not require photo ID to collect your post, and your neighbour will discover you have voted on his behalf when he turns up to vote; even if you have locked him in your cellar, a single vote is unlikely to change the result of an election in any constituency.
We do ID for lots of stuff in everyday life. I don’t know why we don’t for such an important thing as voting. It’s not really about personation, it’s about respecting the importance of the vote, for me at least. Plus my neighbours vote would be stolen and he wouldn’t know it was me. How would he?
You probably live in a big city where nobody trusts anyone.
The same Tory MPs who want ID for voting objected vehemently to ID cards.
It's pure and simple SNP strategy to pick a fight with a (weak) Govt. I hope the Law Lords see it for what it is and enforce the law.
Playing the Tories at their own game and she wins regardless .
At the end of the day Westminster stepped in and blocked a Bill which was passed by Scottish MSPs .
Regardless of what the court finds it’s job done for Sturgeon . Good luck to her . She knocks spots off most politicians south of the border .
When even most SNP voters oppose her bill, I doubt it
It’s irrelevant how popular the bill is amongst Scottish voters . They chose their MSPs and they passed the legislation. If they poll Scottish voters I think a clear majority will be outraged that Westminster has stepped in and blocked the Bill , even if people hate the legislation the bigger principle which won’t go unmissed is Westminster can step in anytime it likes and block legislation passed by the Scottish people’s democratically elected representatives.
59% of SNP voters and 77% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose removing a doctor's diagnosis for gender dysphoria and 63% of SNP voters and 89% of Scottish Conservative voters oppose reducing the minimum age a gender recognition certificate can be applied for from 18 to 16.
Also, let's not forget that 71% of housewives in East Lancashire and 81% in Hertfordshire expressed an interest in the concept of exotic ice-creams. Only 8% in Hertfordshire and 14% in Lancashire expressed positive hostility, whilst 5% expressed latent hostility. In Hertfordshire, 96% of the 50% who formed 20% of consumer spending were in favour. 0.6% told us where we could put our exotic ice creams.
You are Reggie Perrin and I claim my free Sunshine Dessert.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
Well that's the film Dunkirk permanently banned in the UK.
Quite right too. Dunkirk was a great film as art, but as history it was bunk. Not enough troops on the beaches; Spitfires running on fumes; the whole French subplot was ludicrous given we were evacuating French soldiers as equals.
The Timothy Dalton narrated Dunkirk docudrama c.2003 was my favourite, I think.
It is not on iplayer but the John Mills version of Dunkirk is there for 19 days.
Comments
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/gender-dysphoria/symptoms-causes/syc-20475255
However, Sturgeon has historically seemed to be good at judging the mood so I'm nervous about saying she's got this one wrong... it just feels risky.
For what it is worth, given people make the comparison a lot, my post office have not bothered to check my ID the last half dozen times I've picked something up. I hope polling clerks are more rigorous.
who, in 1965, published a paper entitled Korean Miracle, in which she described North Korea as a stunning success story. After reciting a long list of official production figures, Robinson claimed:
“All the economic miracles of the postwar world are put in the shade by these achievements”.
The country’s social achievements were, in her account, even more impressive:
“There is already universal education […] There are numerous nursery schools and creches, all without charge. There is a complete system of social security […] The medical service is free. […] Workers receive holidays with pay”.
Nor was North Korea a dictatorship – it just looked like one:
“The outward signs of a “cult” are very marked – photographs, street names, toddlers in the nursery singing hymns to the beloved leader. But Prime Minister Kim II Sung seems to function as a messiah rather than a dictator”.
It is unsurprising, then, that South Korea must go to great lengths to stop people from emigrating to the North:
“[G]reat pains are taken to keep the Southerners in the dark. The demarcation line is manned exclusively by American troops […] with an empty stretch of territory behind. No Southern eye can be allowed a peep into the North”.
https://iea.org.uk/north-koreas-western-fellow-travellers/
We sign in and get photographed every day.
School ID doesn't count btw. Which is a frankly ludicrous oversight. We literally have to have it hanging round our neck every day.
I've just noticed an expired passport counts. Which removes some of my objections given that a renewal would take about twice as long as a GE campaign!
(I’m imagining a photo montage as you get dragged down by the horror of the job…)
Presumably so you just couldn't pass your lanyard onto someone similar looking. Or have it stolen.
More practically, it forces you to sign in first thing. So they know when you've arrived. Since you can't get through any doors without it. (Apart from the broken ones).
So presumably the Royal Mail find there is a real problem of valuable packages not reaching their intended recipient where ID isn't required, people travelling under false names is demonstrably a real problem, and so on.
With voter ID, supporters fail at the fundamental level of showing that they are addressing a material problem with personation, so the benefits appear at best unquantified and seemingly negligible. The disadvantages of requiring ID - the sheer cost and risk it reduces propensity to vote particularly amongst groups simply appear to have more evidence for them.
None of it is helped by the very strong suggestion that the reduced propensity to vote appears focused on groups less likely to vote Conservative. So the suspicion is that the Government (and its MPs) inappropriately weigh that in the balance.
Mostly though voter ID is the sort of pointless bureaucracy that clogs the country up.
Which is almost the majority these days.
Mary Whitehouse must be spinning in her grave.
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1615435956290551810
I would therefore suggest Sturgeon and Stephen Flynn should be more worried about pushing this too hard than Sunak and Douglas Ross will be
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/plh4depnh8/Times_Scot_Gender_221209.pdf
Because I'm not sure this an estoppel by convention you want to start.
A trial into a tweet by Elon Musk alleging that he would take Tesla private in a $72bn (£58.7bn) buyout is set to begin on Tuesday.
Mr Musk is being sued by Tesla shareholders, who say that he manipulated the share price of the company.
In 2018, he tweeted that he had "funding secured" to take the carmaker private.
However the funding was not secured - and Tesla was not taken private.
Shareholders argued that they lost billions of dollars due to the tweet after the share price plummeted.
The Tesla CEO, however, argued that he believed he had secured funding from Saudi Arabia's Investment Fund, and did not commit securities fraud.
If a San Francisco jury rules in the shareholder's favour, Mr Musk may be ordered to pay billions of dollars in damages.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64293744
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23024454.poll-51-scots-indyref2-2023/
No insider trading took place, I am sure...
https://twitter.com/rfborthwick/status/1615434806765969423?s=61&t=Vwkj2PS4qWW9-7-zUWE9Eg
Interest rates were going up anyway. As they are all over the world.
They are still incredibly low by any historical comparison.
It is also good news for savers.
It was the hypocrisy of Charles and his sycophants that has put me in a Cromwellian mood,
Long term mortgage rates did shoot up under the Truss era but have been coming down since. Still higher than they were but with interest rates going up that is to be expected.
Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content
https://twitter.com/davidleighx/status/1615424550019207191
So that's The Longest Day, Saving Private Ryan et al also banned.
https://twitter.com/pengelaw/status/1615444778413350920
There's a memorial on the island with quite an interesting story.
It's about the fact Organised Crime Groups are increasingly using social media to facilitate migrant crossings, so it looks to target propaganda put out by them, and reference Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act makes it an offence to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person, including through recruitment, with a view to their exploitation.
That said the drafting of the clause will be important as such things can be read more broadly than intended.
And any supposedly romantic film about Charles II running for his life, ditto James VII and II.
https://www.salon.com/2023/01/17/i-am-the-maga-king-nm-loser-cried-fraud-charged-in-targeting-dems/
Quite how the GOP thought a guy who did 7 years was a suitable candidate isn't explained.
He’ll be writing irascible and sometimes funny newspaper columns into his mid 70s, however
Susan Jebb believes bringing sugary treats into work should be seen as being as socially unacceptable as passive smoking" (£)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/times-health-commission-office-cake-sugar-passive-smoking-5s3bzb3dn
Indeed, the Windrush scandal has behind it the effect of making it difficult for those who never held the correct forms of ID.
For my part, I last moved house in the late 90s and retain a paper driving license, and that is becoming increasingly untenable.
* Remember an old Bill Bailey sketch writing this - Turkish border, 5 to midnight, PASSPORT, erm gas bill?
Which leads to a couple of questions;
1 What were Jezza's editors thinking when they published that screed? Even knowing that everyone hates Meghan, it was going too far.
2 Willl Boris be sensible enough to take thorough editing for his memoirs? If not, there's reasonable evidence (72 Virgins, Churchill Factor) that they'll be awful.