I've mentioned on here before that I've been receiving treatment for depression for a while, and during that period, about a year of which was spent in Scotland, I wasn't seen by a single doctor in person - all my consultations were over the phone.
In one of these consultations I mentioned that I'd been uncharacteristically tired, sleeping during the day, and I thought it might be a post-Covid symptom, but it was brushed off as a typical symptom of depression, though my depression had never presented in that way before.
I've recently moved to Ireland, which I'd always thought had an even worse health system than Britain, and had an appointment with a GP, in person, recently for a repeat prescription. They decided to order some blood tests, and the result of these tests is that I am severely iron-deficient, and the resulting anaemia would explain my extreme tiredness and lethargy, which hasn't helped to deal with my depression.
With iron supplements I should start to feel more energetic relatively quickly, but under the care of the NHS this would have remained undiagnosed.
My wife moved from Ireland to live with me in 2009, and her experience was the main reason I thought the Irish health system was worse than the NHS, but she says it is clear that it has deteriorated severely since then.
It's obvious to a lot of people in Britain that the NHS is struggling, but you don't know the half of it until you experience health care in another modern European country. It is so much worse then you realise. You deserve better.
+1
But is it not just because Ireland is much wealthier these days and therefore invests properly in public services?
You wouldn't think so from listening to the news on RTÉ. A shortage of 2000 GPs is often mentioned, among other defects.
Perhaps I was unlucky in the GP surgery we used in Edinburgh. My wife has pointed out that one of the doctors at the surgery we're now registered at lives just minutes away, and another is the sister-in-law of our sister-in-law, so community size may help. No-one has trouble spelling my wife's Irish surname that I adopted as my own here, either.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Property basis. Closed boroughs. Extra votes for graduates of Oxford, Fenland, Durham and the four old Scottish universities. I'm sure there must be lots of exciting possibilities if one can only think of them.
If you want to understand Gen Z, there is a Twitch steamer called f1nn5ter who likes to dress up like a stereotypical woman whilst streaming - but he’s not trans, he uses he/him pronouns and likes to talk about being alpha. He’s also just been banned for showing too much boob.
The future ladies and gents
That was just a noise.
It’s sometimes hard to understand the Geordie………..people.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Well that would damage Labour and the Tories, the Tories because their traditional voters are less likely to have degrees as the number of older voters who went to university is vastly lower and Labour because their traditional voters rarely have an IQ over 110.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Yes. I'd limit it to PhD and above (Cambridge not to count). But, baby steps.
Seriously I would be much happier with a move away from democracy than further towards it. Can you imagine a referendum on the death penalty?
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
I expect that too. And I expect the people noisily complaining they were "turned away" will turn out to be activists for opposition parties.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Yes. I'd limit it to PhD and above (Cambridge not to count). But, baby steps.
Seriously I would be much happier with a move away from democracy than further towards it. Can you imagine a referendum on the death penalty?
I'd definitely exclude all voters from Sheffield Hallam for life
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
A serving Metropolitan Police officer has appeared in court charged with rape and assault of one alleged victim.
PC Jorden Brown, 40, allegedly carried out the attacks between November 2018 and February 2019.
Barkingside magistrates’ court was told that Brown, of Dagenham, east London, was charged with one count of rape and three counts of actual bodily harm against one woman by postal requisition last month. He appeared in the dock and spoke only to confirm his name and address.
I'm actually going to defend the Met (and other organisations) a little here. The Met employs >30k officers.
My rule of thumb is that 1% of people are potential angels, and 1% are potential devils. That means that in the Met, there will 300 officers who could be seen as devils. And the problem is that you often cannot tell who they are until they commit a crime.
Therefore the important thing becomes detecting, and reacting. In the case above, how long was there between the crime realistically becoming detectable by the authorities and the officer's suspension/ prosecution?
That's where the Met utterly failed in the Couzens case: there were many warning signs that had been picked up. But if your organisation has more than (say) 200 people, there will be wrong 'un's amongst them. Maybe not rapists, but thugs. Or fraudsters. Or whatever.
This is where culture plays into it: if you have a culture where: "Hey, he chatted that member of the public up" is okay, then you might have a problem. If you have a culture where it's okay to refer to another employee as 'the rapist', then you have a problem for multiple reasons.
Most of that 1% devils can be diverted from devilry by a culture that frowns on devilry. If your culture excuses it, or worse condones it, then you have major issues.
I'm just listening to Paul McCartney's 'Pipes of Peace' album for the first time in three decades.
God, it's good. My sister had a copy on tape that I used to listen to, and I'd forgotten how good it is.
What's brought that on?
Melancholy. Events in Turkey have rather upset me, and for various reasons it's not a good time of year for me, mood-wise.
So it's good to listen to some songs that take you back to a better time and place. And in this case, last week YouTube recommended the title song from the album. I loved it so much I bought the album as a CD.
A serving Metropolitan Police officer has appeared in court charged with rape and assault of one alleged victim.
PC Jorden Brown, 40, allegedly carried out the attacks between November 2018 and February 2019.
Barkingside magistrates’ court was told that Brown, of Dagenham, east London, was charged with one count of rape and three counts of actual bodily harm against one woman by postal requisition last month. He appeared in the dock and spoke only to confirm his name and address.
I'm actually going to defend the Met (and other organisations) a little here. The Met employs >30k officers.
My rule of thumb is that 1% of people are potential angels, and 1% are potential devils. That means that in the Met, there will 300 officers who could be seen as devils. And the problem is that you often cannot tell who they are until they commit a crime.
Therefore the important thing becomes detecting, and reacting. In the case above, how long was there between the crime realistically becoming detectable by the authorities and the officer's suspension/ prosecution?
That's where the Met utterly failed in the Couzens case: there were many warning signs that had been picked up. But if your organisation has more than (say) 200 people, there will be wrong 'un's amongst them. Maybe not rapists, but thugs. Or fraudsters. Or whatever.
This is where culture plays into it: if you have a culture where: "Hey, he chatted that member of the public up" is okay, then you might have a problem. If you have a culture where it's okay to refer to another employee as 'the rapist', then you have a problem for multiple reasons.
Most of that 1% devils can be diverted from devilry by a culture that frowns on devilry. If your culture excuses it, or worse condones it, then you have major issues.
Yes and no. Because of their role, police officers may be subjected to more accusations than the average person.
Accusations are not the problem, as long as they are adequately investigated in a manner fair to both accused and complainant. So I'd argue that the number is essentially irrelevant to this conversation, as long as the accusations are speedily and fairly investigated. What matters are the numbers who actually commit crimes - and that will be less than those accused of crimes. (though I'd argue three times that number would be too high).
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Property basis. Closed boroughs. Extra votes for graduates of Oxford, Fenland, Durham and the four old Scottish universities. I'm sure there must be lots of exciting possibilities if one can only think of them.
Don't forget the potwallopers. They plus the 40 shilling freeholders plus male Cambridge MAs plus return of university seats and rotten boroughs should see us right. If we had a sensible franchise like that Jared O'Mara wouldn't be in prison because he wouldn't have been an MP and A.P. Herbert would still be in full flow.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
The Electoral Commission is a Tory front organisation. It is not really independent. No public body is any more.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Well that would damage Labour and the Tories, the Tories because their traditional voters are less likely to have degrees as the number of older voters who went to university is vastly lower and Labour because their traditional voters rarely have an IQ over 110.
Ahem.....
'Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated'[1]
Full abstract "Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores."
Yes, yes what exactly is 'conservatism' who exactly are 'traditional voters' etc etc. But much like age, wealth and having a big house in the home counties improve you propensity to vote for a Johnson, we can probably add: being a bit thicker than average.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Only somebody who makes an awesomely subtle pun on PB to be allowed to vote.
That would of course disenfranchise TSE, but omelettes and eggs.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Well that would damage Labour and the Tories, the Tories because their traditional voters are less likely to have degrees as the number of older voters who went to university is vastly lower and Labour because their traditional voters rarely have an IQ over 110.
Ahem.....
'Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated'[1]
Full abstract "Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores."
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
The Electoral Commission is a Tory front organisation. It is not really independent. No public body is any more.
Oh, dear. An organisation stuffed to the gunwhales with Lib Dems is "a Tory front organisation"? Dear, oh dear.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Well that would damage Labour and the Tories, the Tories because their traditional voters are less likely to have degrees as the number of older voters who went to university is vastly lower and Labour because their traditional voters rarely have an IQ over 110.
Ahem.....
'Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated'[1]
Full abstract "Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores."
Well, duh, that's because the more intelligent conservatives have the sense to present as liberal when seeking entry to US universities. Failure to see that flaw in the study is a pretty good IQ indicator in itself.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
LOL. Let's have a guess.
"I mean, they all look exactly the same, so it could be just the same one going round and round and nobody would know."
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Whereas a state that's basically broke spending money with the effect of making the results of elections less reflective of the electorate strikes me as a bad plan.
I'd much rather governments engaged with reality over perception.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
LOL. Let's have a guess.
"I mean, they all look exactly the same, so it could be just the same one going round and round and nobody would know."
That's a bit too overt to be likely.
I suspect it is more that some in politics talk up the possibility of fraud so much that a lot of people assume it is happening, plus they can see in theory it would be easy to do on an individual basis and assume others are less honest than they.
It's a silly cycle though - say there are problems, and even if you cannot prove it that leads to public concern about the system, therefore you introduce changes.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
Does anyone have any statistics on which age groups, if any, make disproportionate use of postal voting?
If it's used largely by old people to avoid having to trudge on arthritic limbs to polling stations, then it will stay.
If it's used largely by young people who are run ragged with crapjobs, kiddie care or both to travel to polling stations, then it will go.
Most of the fraud associated with voting in this country is to do with postal voting. So what do they do? Bring in ID for voting in person, which is almost never a problem.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
Most of the fraud associated with voting in this country is to do with postal voting. So what do they do? Bring in ID for voting in person, which is almost never a problem.
Proof positive that this new voter ID law is designed to disproportionately effect those who don’t vote Tory .
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
I have no problem with ID cards and this should have been done years ago. It’s not controversial in other European countries . An issue in the UK is the lack of confidence in the government protecting your personal details .
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
I have been an agent or candidate in quite a few elections, general and local. After examining many "spoilt ballots" I conclude there already is an intelligence test for voting. It is following the instructions on the ballot paper.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
It is secure - at least as far as in person voting is concerned.
And it is seen to be secure by all but a partisan few who are trying to defend the indefensible actions of a Government seeking to pervert the voting process in their own favour.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
There are potential issues with security of voting and past cases have demonstrated them. They concern postal voting and ex-pat voting. They do NOT concern in-person voting.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is simply incorrect - whether out of ignorance or corruption depends on the individual.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
I have no problem with ID cards and this should have been done years ago. It’s not controversial in other European countries . An issue in the UK is the lack of confidence in the government protecting your personal details .
And a fear that Government agencies will use ID cards for reasons other than those claimed. As has been the case with various other systems in the recent past. RIPA springs to mind straight away.
Most of the fraud associated with voting in this country is to do with postal voting. So what do they do? Bring in ID for voting in person, which is almost never a problem.
Postal voting fraud benefits the Tories. Nursing/care home votes go blue by the barrow load on postal vote opening day.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
It is secure - at least as far as in person voting is concerned.
And it is seen to be secure by all but a partisan few who are trying to defend the indefensible actions of a Government seeking to pervert the voting process in their own favour.
Once again, this move was recommended by the Electoral Commission. If the only people telling them they had concerns about the security of the voting process were Tory activists, d'ya really think they would have recommended it?
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
I have no problem with ID cards and this should have been done years ago. It’s not controversial in other European countries . An issue in the UK is the lack of confidence in the government protecting your personal details .
And a fear that Government agencies will use ID cards for reasons other than those claimed. As has been the case with various other systems in the recent past. RIPA springs to mind straight away.
Yes I can understand why the public might be suspicious . Governments don’t have a good track record!
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
Most of us no longer trust the neutrality of the EC on this.
A glorious lunch time in East London so I thought I'd take the benefit and help out Mrs Stodge by getting her laest parcel away to her mother in NZ.
No chance - apparently there has been a "cyber incident" which means Royal Mail is unable to send anything other than a letter abroad. This incident occurred in early January and is still affecting the service so I can't walk into a Post Office and send a parcel anywhere outside the UK.
Well, I can but I have to use Parcelforce and pay £53 for the privilege - I was offered another service but still £41 to send a £20 parcel and delays to delivery.
I could set out on some generalised rant about the decline of the country but what would be the point - 49% of us apparently would leave if we could, about the same proportion opting to vote Labour. I'd better not use terms like Remainers and Leavers as that'll get some on here over-excited even after nearly seven years.
I’ve used Evri (Hermes as was) for a couple of USA packages and they’ve been fine, on schedule and cheaper than the Royal Mail equivalent service.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
Most of us no longer trust the neutrality of the EC on this.
If you don't trust the neutrality of the EC on this then you can't trust the neutrality of the EC on anything.
Most of the fraud associated with voting in this country is to do with postal voting. So what do they do? Bring in ID for voting in person, which is almost never a problem.
Postal voting fraud benefits the Tories. Nursing/care home votes go blue by the barrow load on postal vote opening day.
Surely that is postal voting benefiting the Tories? PV *fraud* happens mainly in the lab voting Muslim community (according to the electoral commission anywsy)
There are potential issues with security of voting and past cases have demonstrated them. They concern postal voting and ex-pat voting. They do NOT concern in-person voting.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is simply incorrect - whether out of ignorance or corruption depends on the individual.
You are telling us that the offence of personation has never been committed? Ever?
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
Most of us no longer trust the neutrality of the EC on this.
If you don't trust the neutrality of the EC on this then you can't trust the neutrality of the EC on anything.
And then we have bigger problems.
We most certainly do. I no longer trust the good faith of any public institution. If we no longer trust our public bodies, then our society is indeed broken. And whose fault is that? The fault lies entirely with the gang of chancers, criminals and incompetents who have taken over our government, to use it for their own selfish ends.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Only somebody who makes an awesomely subtle pun on PB to be allowed to vote.
That would of course disenfranchise TSE, but omelettes and eggs.
I should go easy over those suggestions if I were you.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
Most of us no longer trust the neutrality of the EC on this.
If you don't trust the neutrality of the EC on this then you can't trust the neutrality of the EC on anything.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
Most of us no longer trust the neutrality of the EC on this.
If you don't trust the neutrality of the EC on this then you can't trust the neutrality of the EC on anything.
And then we have bigger problems.
Yes. And your point is?
That I don't expect Labour to change this when they get in - and after a few years everyone will be used to it.
Why is photo ID needed? What issue is it solving beyond disenfranchising voters?
I’ve seen this as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of large scale voter fraud.
One stolen vote is one too many if it's your vote.
Sledgehammer and nut.
How many people claim their vote was stolen at the last GE? How many people are going to have their vote effectively stolen by these measures?
I could argue that one night-time house burglary was one too many. How about we introduce a blanket night curfew to stop them?
Don't know about the first one, but the second is zero.
No it's not going to be zero, is it?
There are going to be lots of people who, despite everything, fail to realise they need ID to vote, and therefore fail to secure it, and therefore lose their vote.
I fully expect it to top the news on 4 May.
Quasi-Darwinian filter excluding the dim, apathetic and ill informed. What a shame.
Why stop there? IQ of 110+ to vote? Graduates-only?
Only somebody who makes an awesomely subtle pun on PB to be allowed to vote.
That would of course disenfranchise TSE, but omelettes and eggs.
I should go easy over those suggestions if I were you.
Well, it would scramble things, but it might poach a win for Labour.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
Most of us no longer trust the neutrality of the EC on this.
If you don't trust the neutrality of the EC on this then you can't trust the neutrality of the EC on anything.
And then we have bigger problems.
Yes. And your point is?
That I don't expect Labour to change this when they get in - and after a few years everyone will be used to it.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
SFAICS this awful plan secures an already pretty secure polling booth, while leaving wide open possible fraud by the insecure postal vote.
It could be a preemptive prelude to restricting postal votes (which would be welcome).
If so, it's a stupid one. Why not just restrict postal votes?
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
I have no problem with ID cards and this should have been done years ago. It’s not controversial in other European countries . An issue in the UK is the lack of confidence in the government protecting your personal details .
Well, yes.
And it is a well founded lack of confidence.
If we had the Estonian system I would be fully in favour of ID cards but we won't because our lot would never countenance it. So I'm against them.
Hope you all caught the Kemi interview. Confirmed my suspicions.
Ladies and gentlemen we have the new Liz Truss.
Missed it. Do explain.
This one I presume. AfaIcs Kemi’s ‘not Liz Truss’ rep rests largely on her not looking or sounding glaikit while spouting the same reality avoiding ideology driven guff.
Hope you all caught the Kemi interview. Confirmed my suspicions.
Ladies and gentlemen we have the new Liz Truss.
No idea, but the old Liz Truss remembered the bit about cutting taxes for the well off, but forgot the bit about cutting expenditure.
Like most sane (?) people I have abandoned the possibility of voting Tory for now.
The Tory who could make a few million people look once more would have a holistic and costed plan on:
What government (therefore state expenditure) will and will not do how to balance the books how to cut expenditure and tax how to pay off the debt what % of GDP should be spent on NHS and social care actually achieve a balanced social care funding reform how to make housing realistically priced how to achieve a sensible trading relationship with our nearest neighbours - the EU.
You must be feeling very flush to just give money away like that.
He’s probably running, and you never know.
If Trump were to be committed to a mental institution, and it was a fairly tight run thing between 17 or 18 different Republicans, then 100-1 would be appropriate odds.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
Exactly so - the electoral system needs to be not only secure, but needs to be seen to be secure.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
Can I be candid?
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
Look, if the government was introducing this against the recommendation of the EC, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. And there isn't any evidence at all that there would be a partisan effect, as far as I can see - lots of assumptions, but no actual evidence. If the EC makes a recommendation and the government ignores it, why do we have the EC in the first place?
Most of us no longer trust the neutrality of the EC on this.
If you don't trust the neutrality of the EC on this then you can't trust the neutrality of the EC on anything.
And then we have bigger problems.
Yes. And your point is?
That I don't expect Labour to change this when they get in - and after a few years everyone will be used to it.
That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
Maybe not, but it does mean that it's not partisan.
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
The Electoral Commission is a Tory front organisation. It is not really independent. No public body is any more.
Oh, dear. An organisation stuffed to the gunwhales with Lib Dems is "a Tory front organisation"? Dear, oh dear.
Do you have any evidence to back your rude Tory guffawing?
In fact, if the Electoral Commission were full of Lib Dems, it would not be so bad, because Lib Dems believe in fair play and respecting the rule of law. The Conservatives used to too but that was a long time ago....
You must be feeling very flush to just give money away like that.
He’s probably running, and you never know.
If Trump were to be committed to a mental institution, and it was a fairly tight run thing between 17 or 18 different Republicans, then 100-1 would be appropriate odds.
If she is the next LotO, maybe the Starmers should be thinking of getting some nice robust carpets for No 10, ones that will last a decade or more.
Has she got Leon providing her with lines ? … "I think that that is actually what I would call a 'fake conversation'. It's like asking people who just got married: 'where's the baby, where's the baby?'..
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
The Electoral Commission is a Tory front organisation. It is not really independent. No public body is any more.
Oh, dear. An organisation stuffed to the gunwhales with Lib Dems is "a Tory front organisation"? Dear, oh dear.
Do you have any evidence to back your rude Tory guffawing?
In fact, if the Electoral Commission were full of Lib Dems, it would not be so bad, because Lib Dems believe in fair play and respecting the rule of law. The Conservatives used to too but that was a long time ago....
Chris Huhne for one respected the shit out of the Rule of Law. As did dear old Michael Brown. And the party sure played fair with all those students.
Or, they are as bad as the rest but with an added layer of smuggery.
If she is the next LotO, maybe the Starmers should be thinking of getting some nice robust carpets for No 10, ones that will last a decade or more.
Has she got Leon providing her with lines ? … "I think that that is actually what I would call a 'fake conversation'. It's like asking people who just got married: 'where's the baby, where's the baby?'..
We’ve had all manner of excuses from the Vote Leave Tories .
It’s the wrong sort of Brexit , it will take decades to see the results , we need to de-regulate first , you know lower your rights and have a low tax , even crappier services state and now we have it’s a married couple who shouldn’t be rushed into having a baby , the Brexit Baby ! Or as the case maybe Rosemary’s Baby which would be fitting !
Hope you all caught the Kemi interview. Confirmed my suspicions.
Ladies and gentlemen we have the new Liz Truss.
I like Kemi a lot. She seems to be being wheeled in as the Great White Hope of the Sunakites. Hopefully she has the good sense to drop them like a hot brick when she's got where she needs to be.
That's classic Mode. Strong synth baseline with Violator album vibes to it.
It's also deeply moving. You can see how affected they are by the death of Andy Fletcher, and how this is a homage to him.
Oh absolutely! Bodes well for the upcoming album "Memento Mori", thought the latter seems to have been pushed back a week to March 24th (pretty certain I read it had been March 17th).
The 20th century city surely isn't quite as bad as this article makes out.
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century Simon Kuper"
Hope you all caught the Kemi interview. Confirmed my suspicions.
Ladies and gentlemen we have the new Liz Truss.
Missed it. Do explain.
This one I presume. AfaIcs Kemi’s ‘not Liz Truss’ rep rests largely on her not looking or sounding glaikit while spouting the same reality avoiding ideology driven guff.
Trade has gone up 2022 vs. 2021 according to the official stats. I think for a gotcha moment the question would have to be less general. He could have said since 2016 (which is what he meant I presume).
Over all the many elections of 2019, 1 conviction and 1 caution for using someone else's vote. And both cases involving a relative, curiously enough.
Which given the risk of either claiming the vote of somebody who was voted, or a voter turning up wanting to use their vote later, is probably a fair measure of the scale of the problem.
The government's plans are a bad solution looking for a problem.
Then why did the Electoral Commission recommend it?
The Electoral Commission is a Tory front organisation. It is not really independent. No public body is any more.
Oh, dear. An organisation stuffed to the gunwhales with Lib Dems is "a Tory front organisation"? Dear, oh dear.
Do you have any evidence to back your rude Tory guffawing?
In fact, if the Electoral Commission were full of Lib Dems, it would not be so bad, because Lib Dems believe in fair play and respecting the rule of law. The Conservatives used to too but that was a long time ago....
I'm not sure there are enough Lib Dems to fill the Electoral Commission.
Hope you all caught the Kemi interview. Confirmed my suspicions.
Ladies and gentlemen we have the new Liz Truss.
Missed it. Do explain.
This one I presume. AfaIcs Kemi’s ‘not Liz Truss’ rep rests largely on her not looking or sounding glaikit while spouting the same reality avoiding ideology driven guff.
Biden got quite lucky with the timing of the EV transition, and he’s managing to combine good policy with good politics.
Contrast that to our limp-wristed bullshit.
I’m due to be putting out a blog on the old corporate website on this topic next week. I’m tempted to call it “contrast that to our limp wristed bullshit”.
Comments
Perhaps I was unlucky in the GP surgery we used in Edinburgh. My wife has pointed out that one of the doctors at the surgery we're now registered at lives just minutes away, and another is the sister-in-law of our sister-in-law, so community size may help. No-one has trouble spelling my wife's Irish surname that I adopted as my own here, either.
It’s sometimes hard to understand the Geordie………..people.
Seriously I would be much happier with a move away from democracy than further towards it. Can you imagine a referendum on the death penalty?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-64293158.amp
So by your rule of thumb, the Met is positively selecting for the wrong uns.
So it's good to listen to some songs that take you back to a better time and place. And in this case, last week YouTube recommended the title song from the album. I loved it so much I bought the album as a CD.
Accusations are not the problem, as long as they are adequately investigated in a manner fair to both accused and complainant. So I'd argue that the number is essentially irrelevant to this conversation, as long as the accusations are speedily and fairly investigated. What matters are the numbers who actually commit crimes - and that will be less than those accused of crimes. (though I'd argue three times that number would be too high).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potwalloper
Edit: I forgot the socmen. They should get a vote too.
I assume for some reason this won't be inflationary, eh @HYUFD?
'Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated'[1]
1. L Stankov
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.12.007
Full abstract
"Conservatism and cognitive ability are negatively correlated. The evidence is based on 1254 community college students and 1600 foreign students seeking entry to United States' universities. At the individual level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores. At the national level of analysis, conservatism scores correlate negatively with measures of education (e.g., gross enrollment at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels) and performance on mathematics and reading assessments from the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) project. They also correlate with components of the Failed States Index and several other measures of economic and political development of nations. Conservatism scores have higher correlations with economic and political measures than estimated IQ scores."
Yes, yes what exactly is 'conservatism' who exactly are 'traditional voters' etc etc. But much like age, wealth and having a big house in the home counties improve you propensity to vote for a Johnson, we can probably add: being a bit thicker than average.
That would of course disenfranchise TSE, but omelettes and eggs.
https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10229386931718901&set=a.10208265394173663
Oh, dear. An organisation stuffed to the gunwhales with Lib Dems is "a Tory front organisation"? Dear, oh dear.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/id-needed-polling-stations-recommends-independent-watchdog
Quoting from the press release,
Evidence collected by the Commission in its review of electoral fraud revealed that fraud is not widespread in the UK but, despite this, a significant proportion of the public remain concerned that it is taking place.
I mean, the politicians could say to the people "your concerns are misplaced, so we're going to ignore you", which historically has tended to be not particularly successful.
"I mean, they all look exactly the same, so it could be just the same one going round and round and nobody would know."
I'd much rather governments engaged with reality over perception.
I suspect it is more that some in politics talk up the possibility of fraud so much that a lot of people assume it is happening, plus they can see in theory it would be easy to do on an individual basis and assume others are less honest than they.
It's a silly cycle though - say there are problems, and even if you cannot prove it that leads to public concern about the system, therefore you introduce changes.
If it's used largely by old people to avoid having to trudge on arthritic limbs to polling stations, then it will stay.
If it's used largely by young people who are run ragged with crapjobs, kiddie care or both to travel to polling stations, then it will go.
I would have said it's more likely a prelude to introducing formal ID cards.
Respect to her for going back as a nurse during Covid, but otherwise she hasn't been an asset to national life.
Your attitude sickens me.
There are things we could do that would completely eliminate personation, while not raising the burden of voting. (Such as taking polaroids of people who don't have ID. Or putting aside the votes of people without, and they can be checked later in the event the result was close.)
But a blanket requirement for ID imposes no burden on one group of people (those who drive and have a driving license), while imposing a significant burden on those who don't.
Claims that "oh filling in this form isn't very difficult" are completely beside the point. They increase the burden on voting for people who are younger and poorer to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
It stinks, frankly, not of some attempt to secure the voting system, but of an attempt to play it for partisan advantage.
And, look, I'm right of center. But the democratic system is so much more important than winning. Once you start making changes for partisan reasons to restrict the ability of people who might vote a certain way, well, you're on a long and slippery slope.
After examining many "spoilt ballots" I conclude there already is an intelligence test for voting.
It is following the instructions on the ballot paper.
And it is seen to be secure by all but a partisan few who are trying to defend the indefensible actions of a Government seeking to pervert the voting process in their own favour.
Anyone suggesting otherwise is simply incorrect - whether out of ignorance or corruption depends on the individual.
And then we have bigger problems.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Understanding-Electoral-Fraud-Jan-2015.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiSj7_tn4n9AhVSOMAKHfZJAOAQFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0FK04vGBG0X0Dj_0o5cIbl
Sadly I don’t think the Tories will do anything about that.
‘Sorry, Ron, you're No. 2’: Sununu says he’s the top dog among conservative governors
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/09/new-hampshire-sununu-desantis-conservative-00082032
“So Bad”, which is effectively a Smokey Robinson pastiche, is…er…so good.
Ladies and gentlemen we have the new Liz Truss.
Do explain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIyrLRixMs8
And it is a well founded lack of confidence.
If we had the Estonian system I would be fully in favour of ID cards but we won't because our lot would never countenance it. So I'm against them.
They deserve to be utterly destroyed at the next election. Osborne was right with his reported comments when the referendum result became clear;
“I’m fucked, Dave’s fucked, the country’s fucked.”
Indeed.
https://news.sky.com/story/kemi-badenoch-criticises-fake-conversation-of-brexit-damage-as-uk-italy-trade-partnership-signed-12806110
If she is the next LotO, maybe the Starmers should be thinking of getting some nice robust carpets for No 10, ones that will last a decade or more.
AfaIcs Kemi’s ‘not Liz Truss’ rep rests largely on her not looking or sounding glaikit while spouting the same reality avoiding ideology driven guff.
https://twitter.com/haggis_uk/status/1623644620423933953?s=61&t=dONW3y-dC_bT_QOE9yYyMQ
Like most sane (?) people I have abandoned the possibility of voting Tory for now.
The Tory who could make a few million people look once more would have a holistic and costed plan on:
What government (therefore state expenditure) will and will not do
how to balance the books
how to cut expenditure and tax
how to pay off the debt
what % of GDP should be spent on NHS and social care
actually achieve a balanced social care funding reform
how to make housing realistically priced
how to achieve a sensible trading relationship with our nearest neighbours - the EU.
https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/MPs#PartyConservative
Oh, you mean voluntarily standing down?
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3851596-biden-administration-announces-2b-loan-for-electric-vehicle-battery-manufacturing/
… Lombardo joins other Republican governors who have celebrated climate-friendly manufacturing coming to their home state despite the party’s continued support for fossil fuels. ..
Biden got quite lucky with the timing of the EV transition, and he’s managing to combine good policy with good politics.
In fact, if the Electoral Commission were full of Lib Dems, it would not be so bad, because Lib Dems believe in fair play and respecting the rule of law. The Conservatives used to too but that was a long time ago....
… "I think that that is actually what I would call a 'fake conversation'. It's like asking people who just got married: 'where's the baby, where's the baby?'..
Or, they are as bad as the rest but with an added layer of smuggery.
It’s the wrong sort of Brexit , it will take decades to see the results , we need to de-regulate first , you know lower your rights and have a low tax , even crappier services state and now we have it’s a married couple who shouldn’t be rushed into having a baby , the Brexit Baby ! Or as the case maybe Rosemary’s Baby which would be fitting !
It's also deeply moving. You can see how affected they are by the death of Andy Fletcher, and how this is a homage to him.
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1623724042921426944?s=46&t=rZ9LWrAehYCnRyhtpz7kpA
"The urban ideal is a 19th-century city with 21st-century enhancements
We now realise that cars, concrete and commuting ruined cities in the 20th century
Simon Kuper"
https://www.ft.com/content/aab18912-9b07-478f-a6a4-d09f9532f8b4
This journalist v. politician "gotcha" moment thing is rather tiresome, and explains why I don't watch political interviews anymore.
tempted to call it “contrast that to our limp wristed bullshit”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_United_Kingdom_general_election
15 Tories have announced that they are baling out voluntarily in the last 5 months. None from Labour since 5th September.