Bus passes will be fine for pensioners, even if they don't still have a driving licence or passport.
Most likely it will lead to a fall in turnout affecting all parties, if you turn up at the polling station for a local election and are turned away because you don't have photo ID then you most likely won't bother to go back and get it even if you do. When only around a third of voters vote in most local elections anyway that is hardly going to improve local democracy!
Personally I would have just had Photo ID for councils where electoral fraud has been an issue like Tower Hamlets, not imposed it nationwide
Hopefully anyone blocked from voting will engage in vocal protests and civil disobedience. Being blocked from voting on some petty technicality introduced for clearly partisan reasons is an outrage and nobody should tolerate it.
Or they could get something between now and the vote that proves who they are.
Many, many other nations require proof of ID when voting. I would rather accept either polling card or proof if the polling card isn't presented but for something as important as voting in a democracy, it shouldn't be just taken on trust that you are Joe Bloggs of 123 Fake St.
Countries with compulsory ID cards, to ensure there is no element of voter suppression.
There's actually a really wide variety of rules in different countries. Other countries without compulsory ID cards such as Australia and New Zealand don't require ID to vote AFAIK.
Germany has compulsory ID cards, but you do NOT need ID to vote at a polling station, unless you forget to bring your polling card that is posted to everyone a couple of weeks before the election.
Many countries that do require ID to vote also have alternative ways of allowing people to vote if they don't have ID with them at the polling station.
Not sure if there are many countries that have the new UK combination of strictly requiring photo ID, but don't have compulsory ID cards.
The new TikTok female face filter is scary as hell. It basically makes any woman look like a 9 or 10, and freaks them out when they see their own face.
I genuinely feel for teenagers exposed to this stuff, and it’s only going to get worse with advances in AI and image manipulation.
I now know what a THOT is. I did not need to know that
This is really messed up and will mess with young (and older) women's heads. And who knows, men's too. They will also be led to think that all men have these criteria on attractiveness - the most insecure women I know aspire to the after-filter kind of look; the happier ones are more like the before look (a generalisation, for sure, not universal - but the unhappiest are those who aspire unsuccessfully to the after look). I've always found the happier/more self confident ones more attractive (also, for me, the case for 2 out of 3 here, with not much preference either way for the other).
The show itself is also a bit disturbing, but not as much as the tiktok filter.
Its a bit like make-up too. I know women who won't leave the house "before they put their face on" and are permanently caked in make-up.
Whereas others more confident in themselves put a much lighter touch on.
As you say the more self-confident ones are more attractive typically there too.
I'm sure self-confidence works in reverse for males appearances too though.
With my scientist hat on, there is a question of causation there: does more self-confidence and possibly lighter touch makeup -> more attractive OR does more attractive -> more self-confidence and possibly lighter touch makeup?
People who are sufficiently interested in politics to vote in local elections will have I/D.
The problem in Tower Hamlets is above all voter intimidation which the police treat as “a cultural matter.”
On the first point, there is a chunk of people not very interested in following politics who do go along to vote as a chore that they ought to do, and some of them will be caught short. I doubt if it will be a huge number but enough to annoy everyone.
I must admit that I'm surprised that 50% of 69-year-olds don't renew their licences. Everyone in that age bracket who I know has renewed, with a slight sense of relief that they don't have to retake their tests and prove familiarity with all the Highway Code updates.
Way offtopic, but here in the sandpit one needs to do an eye test every 5 years, as a condition of renewing their driving licence. It can be done at any optician and costs £20.
I’ve recently needed reading glasses (the usual +1.5), aged 45, but it shows the speed at which eyesight can deteriorate.
Even if you don’t have glasses, book an eye test once a year.
Many places (Boots etc) do if for free.
Apart from detecting eyesight deterioration, there is a whole raft of illnesses they can detect by looking in the eye.
Oh, very much so.
The difference is that this is a pass/fail test, every 5 years. Fail, and you lose your licence until your sight can be corrected. The same thing doesn’t happen in the UK.
My father, who’s now 72, has specifically asked me to say to him that it’s time to stop driving, at the appropriate moment. He was an amateur rally driver back in the ‘70s, but has also seen a lot of elderly relatives injured in car crashes.
I don't think the possession of ID is the biggest problem. I've got loads of ID. But I rarely carry it with me. I've ditched a wallet for a phone, which I pay for stuff on. If an old git like me does that, how many younger people act similarly?
So, not a problem as long as I remember that I need to take my ID with me to vote. I'll do that, because I'm motivated. But how many folk will turn up at polling stations and go 'bugger, I've forgotten to bring my ID - only got my phone. Can't be arsed to go home and get it, though'. Quite a lot, I fear.
A query for any PB Google experts. I have a gmail account which I have linked to my main Yahoo mail which I keep mainly for ebay and yesterday I received a Critical Security Alert from Google saying someone knows my gmail password, however it was for my email with an added . in it (therefore not my actual address). My gmail account now seems to be locked and it's asking to go through the process of signing in and setting up a new password for the incorrect gmail account. Is this fishy (or phishy)?
Sounds phishy.
General rule of thumb is to never click on any links in such an email.
Go to gmail directly (or if its a banking email the banking page directly) on a website you know is legit, on a device you know is clean, and try to log in via that.
If its genuinely locked, then might be worth getting in touch with their support, not sure how that works with them.
Thanks. Unsurprisingly Google support is a labyrinth of faqs and guides without any guarantee of contacting a real person at the end of it. I'll persevere when I have a bit more time
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
The problem is, because of you and @Topping, I am now somewhat censoring myself on certain topics. In Topping's case, I think it's accidental. In your case, I believe it's deliberate.
You might also like to apply 'toy soldiering' to everything else we talk about on here, and ask what could be discussed if everyone took a similar attitude. The answer is, not much.
I don't categorise self censorship = thinking x2 about every "fact" to ponder as to its veracity or relevance as being a "problem".
Entirely off-topic. I ordered an ethernet adaptor from Starlink on Monday. £35 including shipping. It's just arrived, having been shipped from a Space X warehouse in LA.
Airfreight LAX > Leipzig > East Midlands > Aberdeen, then straight onto a van and delivered to me here. How much has that cost them?
Less than you’ll spend with them over the next year, if you have the adaptor.
It always amazes me that trying to send a document from Dubai to London costs £50 with a courier, yet the same courier delivers from Amazon a £20 widget on which £2 delivery has been paid.
This compulsory voting ID scheme is crass and unnecessary. It damages not only the electoral system, but also faith in the electoral system.
The obvious compromise is to require either your polling card or an ID that satisfies common sense, and if neither are available to be willing to be photographed. Large scale fraud at the polling booth itself is difficult and rare.
The important thing is to have proper checks on the postal vote instead, which is wide open to fraud and should be severely limited and monitored.
The current plan is one of the multitude of reasons why One Nation Tories are going to vote Labour this time.
A query for any PB Google experts. I have a gmail account which I have linked to my main Yahoo mail which I keep mainly for ebay and yesterday I received a Critical Security Alert from Google saying someone knows my gmail password, however it was for my email with an added . in it (therefore not my actual address). My gmail account now seems to be locked and it's asking to go through the process of signing in and setting up a new password for the incorrect gmail account. Is this fishy (or phishy)?
Sounds phishy.
General rule of thumb is to never click on any links in such an email.
Go to gmail directly (or if its a banking email the banking page directly) on a website you know is legit, on a device you know is clean, and try to log in via that.
If its genuinely locked, then might be worth getting in touch with their support, not sure how that works with them.
Thanks. Unsurprisingly Google support is a labyrinth of faqs and guides without any guarantee of contacting a real person at the end of it. I'll persevere when I have a bit more time
Google has spent a great deal of time and effort trying to make the Google Android space a less good choice than iOS.
Bit like Mail client implementers and Outlook. “Your opposition is *them*, and you still have trouble?!!”
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
The problem is, because of you and @Topping, I am now somewhat censoring myself on certain topics. In Topping's case, I think it's accidental. In your case, I believe it's deliberate.
You might also like to apply 'toy soldiering' to everything else we talk about on here, and ask what could be discussed if everyone took a similar attitude. The answer is, not much.
I don't categorise self censorship = thinking x2 about every "fact" to ponder as to its veracity or relevance as being a "problem".
But in the past, that's not what you've complained about with me. You also assume that I haven't pondered the veracity or relevance of information before I post. That doesn't mean I always get things right; but it's a bit silly of you to assume it's never done.
Also: again, this is a political betting website. Speculation about what may happen is sort-of what this website runs on. Look at the current debate on compulsory ID: no-one knows which party/ies it will advantage, but this is about the speculation.
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
You assume that I have "wargaming needs"; wrong (and I'd like to know why you think that). I don't play wargames; I have never played War Thunder, or the naval one, or anything like that.
I'd like to know your solutions to the Ukraine war which does not involve thousands of young men being sent to their deaths: unless your 'solution' is Ukraine submitting to Russia (and even then, the chances are there might be an Afghanistan-style insurgency). But sorry, this is probably straying on too speculative for you.
In fact, I've argued that giving Ukraine as much as possible, as early as possible. Doing otherwise prolongs the war, and increases deaths on both sides.
So yes, I am keen to see a Ukrainian 'victory' (however that is defined) ASAP, as a way of reducing deaths.
A query for any PB Google experts. I have a gmail account which I have linked to my main Yahoo mail which I keep mainly for ebay and yesterday I received a Critical Security Alert from Google saying someone knows my gmail password, however it was for my email with an added . in it (therefore not my actual address). My gmail account now seems to be locked and it's asking to go through the process of signing in and setting up a new password for the incorrect gmail account. Is this fishy (or phishy)?
A curiosity about gmail email addresses (not sure if it applies more widely) that my daughter taught me about (I'm getting old) is that gmail treats an email address of "t.u.d@gmail.com" as identical to "tud@gmail.com"
So I don't think the form of the email address is necessarily phishy. But I wouldn't know whether the process you're being asked to go through is legitimate.
Bus passes will be fine for pensioners, even if they don't still have a driving licence or passport.
Most likely it will lead to a fall in turnout affecting all parties, if you turn up at the polling station for a local election and are turned away because you don't have photo ID then you most likely won't bother to go back and get it even if you do. When only around a third of voters vote in most local elections anyway that is hardly going to improve local democracy!
Personally I would have just had Photo ID for councils where electoral fraud has been an issue like Tower Hamlets, not imposed it nationwide
I've liked because it is a very considered post, but worth pointing out that where voter fraud is an issue it isn't with impersonation at the polling station so the voter id won't help.
The government ignored the recommendations of their own Pickles review and went for the most restricted list of acceptable ID .
Anyone trying to spin the new rules as anything but voter disenfranchisement is avoiding the facts .
The fact that postal voting is now more open to fraud than at the voting centre highlights the Tories disgraceful attempts at ensuring their voter base can easily vote without giving a fig about fraud .
The Tories in here need to just accept the reality and stop trying to hide behind the electoral commission as a means to legitimize the blatant disenfranchisement.
The electoral commission said that the voting card sent via the royal mail to your home was enough to provide valid id.
You can’t use just a polling card to vote . You need to take ID with you . The thing you might be talking about is the voter registration certificate but you need to provide a host of documents. A postal vote just needs name and address and date of birth.
I am sure a Government Minister was defending not banning it very recently.
Perhaps the Government was planning to suck up to the Chinese, but then the Americans got on the phone and trumped them in the sucking up stakes.
I really doubt that. Parts of the government / bureaucracy have been cautious about Chinese companies for a few years, e.g. the Huawei telecoms ban, or the recently-abandoned £1bn Sawston campus for Huawei.
Not everything's down to America, you know.
(As it happens, we know some people who have worked with/for Huawei, and they'd have had a problem with recruitment for experienced staff as their reputation as employers is anecdotally pi*-poor.)
I am sure a Government Minister was defending not banning it very recently.
Perhaps the Government was planning to suck up to the Chinese, but then the Americans got on the phone and trumped them in the sucking up stakes.
I really doubt that. Parts of the government / bureaucracy have been cautious about Chinese companies for a few years, e.g. the Huawei telecoms ban, or the recently-abandoned £1bn Sawston campus for Huawei.
Not everything's down to America, you know.
(As it happens, we know some people who have worked with/for Huawei, and they'd have had a problem with recruitment for experienced staff as their reputation as employers is anecdotally pi*-poor.)
Indeed. Having worked with a Chinese laser cutter that insisted on sending all the DXF files yo a Chinese IP address*, it’s not hard to understand the issue.
*We fixed the problem with an assembly code hack that substituted the DXF files for ones from a list generated by running a downloaded movie through some code that made a DXF output of every frame.
The government ignored the recommendations of their own Pickles review and went for the most restricted list of acceptable ID .
Anyone trying to spin the new rules as anything but voter disenfranchisement is avoiding the facts .
The fact that postal voting is now more open to fraud than at the voting centre highlights the Tories disgraceful attempts at ensuring their voter base can easily vote without giving a fig about fraud .
The Tories in here need to just accept the reality and stop trying to hide behind the electoral commission as a means to legitimize the blatant disenfranchisement.
I am and proud to be so . Also like voter ID totally the norm here in Spain. All the faix outrage here is real boring. Nice to know that possible Tories are being checked up on for outing. The site is such an echo chamber these days no wonder it's full of natty posters!
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
Demonstrating this is a voter suppression measure, not pure but very simple.
I really, really hope the corrupt and malign party that you promote for some reason, gets cast into the cesspit of history.
Whatfuckingever.
Do you have any experience of working a campaign? Like I said, you identify your vote and get it out for your candidate. Explain to me how what I have said is not that.
The government ignored the recommendations of their own Pickles review and went for the most restricted list of acceptable ID .
Anyone trying to spin the new rules as anything but voter disenfranchisement is avoiding the facts .
The fact that postal voting is now more open to fraud than at the voting centre highlights the Tories disgraceful attempts at ensuring their voter base can easily vote without giving a fig about fraud .
The Tories in here need to just accept the reality and stop trying to hide behind the electoral commission as a means to legitimize the blatant disenfranchisement.
I am and proud to be so . Also like voter ID totally the norm here in Spain. All the faix outrage here is real boring. Nice to know that possible Tories are being checked up on for outing. The site is such an echo chamber these days no wonder it's full of natty posters!
Tbh I'm aware of very little evidence that PBers are well dressed.
I am sure a Government Minister was defending not banning it very recently.
Perhaps the Government was planning to suck up to the Chinese, but then the Americans got on the phone and trumped them in the sucking up stakes.
I really doubt that. Parts of the government / bureaucracy have been cautious about Chinese companies for a few years, e.g. the Huawei telecoms ban, or the recently-abandoned £1bn Sawston campus for Huawei.
Not everything's down to America, you know.
(As it happens, we know some people who have worked with/for Huawei, and they'd have had a problem with recruitment for experienced staff as their reputation as employers is anecdotally pi*-poor.)
Actually, I agree with the ban; if it was the Americans, it's a good thing. My point is that our Government is so supine that it must get confusing who to be supine to sometimes.
We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
Demonstrating this is a voter suppression measure, not pure but very simple.
I really, really hope the corrupt and malign party that you promote for some reason, gets cast into the cesspit of history.
Whatfuckingever.
Do you have any experience of working a campaign? Like I said, you identify your vote and get it out for your candidate. Explain to me how what I have said is not that.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
Demonstrating this is a voter suppression measure, not pure but very simple.
I really, really hope the corrupt and malign party that you promote for some reason, gets cast into the cesspit of history.
Whatfuckingever.
Do you have any experience of working a campaign? Like I said, you identify your vote and get it out for your candidate. Explain to me how what I have said is not that.
That the purpose of this measure is differential voter suppression. "Campaigns" shouldn't be determining voting rights , and don't in proper democracies (not your party obviously).
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
Entirely off-topic. I ordered an ethernet adaptor from Starlink on Monday. £35 including shipping. It's just arrived, having been shipped from a Space X warehouse in LA.
Airfreight LAX > Leipzig > East Midlands > Aberdeen, then straight onto a van and delivered to me here. How much has that cost them?
Less than you’ll spend with them over the next year, if you have the adaptor.
It always amazes me that trying to send a document from Dubai to London costs £50 with a courier, yet the same courier delivers from Amazon a £20 widget on which £2 delivery has been paid.
Its potty! As for Starlink, I am impressed. Am getting an average 40Mbps from my FTTC Sky broadband. And 10-60Mbps on 4G but it is very patchy. Starlink delivers a consistent 150+, with a fastest recorded of 298 which is bonkers.
Currently still got wires under doors, next bit of shopping is for plastic conduit to route the dish wire into the building (one external then one internal wall). Then run an ethernet cable through another pre-made hole (this former bank has wires *everywhere*) and across the dropped ceiling to terminate by my desk.
Off-topic again as I talk about the drop ceiling. When I bought the place there were big florescent lights which I had ripped out and replaced by LEDs. When I had my head through the tiles a few days back looking at cable runs I was gobsmacked to find big florescent lights attached to the actual ceiling.
So at some point they have installed a dropped ceiling. And literally installed the metal frame and then tiles over the top of the existing light fittings! Mentalism at its finest!
The government ignored the recommendations of their own Pickles review and went for the most restricted list of acceptable ID .
Anyone trying to spin the new rules as anything but voter disenfranchisement is avoiding the facts .
The fact that postal voting is now more open to fraud than at the voting centre highlights the Tories disgraceful attempts at ensuring their voter base can easily vote without giving a fig about fraud .
The Tories in here need to just accept the reality and stop trying to hide behind the electoral commission as a means to legitimize the blatant disenfranchisement.
I am and proud to be so . Also like voter ID totally the norm here in Spain. All the faix outrage here is real boring. Nice to know that possible Tories are being checked up on for outing. The site is such an echo chamber these days no wonder it's full of natty posters!
Tbh I'm aware of very little evidence that PBers are well dressed.
They could all be dans le style et la mode de Winnie l'Ourson for all we know. Except of course for TSE and his shoe photos.
The government ignored the recommendations of their own Pickles review and went for the most restricted list of acceptable ID .
Anyone trying to spin the new rules as anything but voter disenfranchisement is avoiding the facts .
The fact that postal voting is now more open to fraud than at the voting centre highlights the Tories disgraceful attempts at ensuring their voter base can easily vote without giving a fig about fraud .
The Tories in here need to just accept the reality and stop trying to hide behind the electoral commission as a means to legitimize the blatant disenfranchisement.
I am and proud to be so . Also like voter ID totally the norm here in Spain. All the faix outrage here is real boring. Nice to know that possible Tories are being checked up on for outing. The site is such an echo chamber these days no wonder it's full of natty posters!
Tbh I'm aware of very little evidence that PBers are well dressed.
I will hold my hand up as the unnattiest right now. Jeans, trainers, and a fleece which is absolutely covered in cat hair. And also a cat who has negotiated sitting on my knee as an acceptable place to be during a teams call. I don't know how supervillains ever managed to keep their suits so spick and span.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
"If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem."
Does that follow? It could equally be that people are put off from voting by the ID requirements, or they don't realise the changes, reducing turnout. Personsation is surely only one of the potential causes.
In the trials: "Around 2,000 people were initially turned away from the polling station for not having ID, with around 750 of them not returning to vote"
It will pass overwhelmingly despite the DUP and ERG
The vote is only on the pretend handbrake.
The vote is taken as a vote on the WF and will be enacted
Nope. It’s only a vote on the pretend handbrake. It will be enacted without a full vote on the whole WF.
The weakest facet is the pretend handbrake, so politically that’s the thing for Sunak to win big on, and say to DUP and ERG “be my guest, argue with the size I’ve won this vote in parliament.”
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
The government ignored the recommendations of their own Pickles review and went for the most restricted list of acceptable ID .
Anyone trying to spin the new rules as anything but voter disenfranchisement is avoiding the facts .
The fact that postal voting is now more open to fraud than at the voting centre highlights the Tories disgraceful attempts at ensuring their voter base can easily vote without giving a fig about fraud .
The Tories in here need to just accept the reality and stop trying to hide behind the electoral commission as a means to legitimize the blatant disenfranchisement.
I am and proud to be so . Also like voter ID totally the norm here in Spain. All the faix outrage here is real boring. Nice to know that possible Tories are being checked up on for outing. The site is such an echo chamber these days no wonder it's full of natty posters!
Tbh I'm aware of very little evidence that PBers are well dressed.
I will hold my hand up as the unnattiest right now. Jeans, trainers, and a fleece which is absolutely covered in cat hair. And also a cat who has negotiated sitting on my knee as an acceptable place to be during a teams call. I don't know how supervillains ever managed to keep their suits so spick and span.
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
I can get on board with making voter registration easier.
Big fat “no” in my book to anything approaching provisional votes (and personally I strongly disagree with votes at 16).
Bus passes will be fine for pensioners, even if they don't still have a driving licence or passport.
Most likely it will lead to a fall in turnout affecting all parties, if you turn up at the polling station for a local election and are turned away because you don't have photo ID then you most likely won't bother to go back and get it even if you do. When only around a third of voters vote in most local elections anyway that is hardly going to improve local democracy!
Personally I would have just had Photo ID for councils where electoral fraud has been an issue like Tower Hamlets, not imposed it nationwide
Hopefully anyone blocked from voting will engage in vocal protests and civil disobedience. Being blocked from voting on some petty technicality introduced for clearly partisan reasons is an outrage and nobody should tolerate it.
Not allowed, under the supposedly anti-Swampy laws so lauded by CR this morning as being clearly aimed at greenies.
If the government is elected through voter suppression then nobody is under any moral obligation to obey its laws.
And how will you prove that objectively?
Or are you just taking “not in my name” to the next level?
We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
Demonstrating this is a voter suppression measure, not pure but very simple.
I really, really hope the corrupt and malign party that you promote for some reason, gets cast into the cesspit of history.
Whatfuckingever.
Do you have any experience of working a campaign? Like I said, you identify your vote and get it out for your candidate. Explain to me how what I have said is not that.
“Andy Chamberlain, of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, said the biggest obstacles facing the self-employed had been ignored.
“The trade body estimates more than 700,000 people have been forced out of self-employment since 2020, following the pandemic a cost of living crisis and changes to complex freelancer tax rules which have taken the shine off "being your own boss" for many.”
Entirely off-topic. I ordered an ethernet adaptor from Starlink on Monday. £35 including shipping. It's just arrived, having been shipped from a Space X warehouse in LA.
Airfreight LAX > Leipzig > East Midlands > Aberdeen, then straight onto a van and delivered to me here. How much has that cost them?
Less than you’ll spend with them over the next year, if you have the adaptor.
It always amazes me that trying to send a document from Dubai to London costs £50 with a courier, yet the same courier delivers from Amazon a £20 widget on which £2 delivery has been paid.
Its potty! As for Starlink, I am impressed. Am getting an average 40Mbps from my FTTC Sky broadband. And 10-60Mbps on 4G but it is very patchy. Starlink delivers a consistent 150+, with a fastest recorded of 298 which is bonkers.
Currently still got wires under doors, next bit of shopping is for plastic conduit to route the dish wire into the building (one external then one internal wall). Then run an ethernet cable through another pre-made hole (this former bank has wires *everywhere*) and across the dropped ceiling to terminate by my desk.
Off-topic again as I talk about the drop ceiling. When I bought the place there were big florescent lights which I had ripped out and replaced by LEDs. When I had my head through the tiles a few days back looking at cable runs I was gobsmacked to find big florescent lights attached to the actual ceiling.
So at some point they have installed a dropped ceiling. And literally installed the metal frame and then tiles over the top of the existing light fittings! Mentalism at its finest!
Just to simplify that beyond the point of all usefulness - you're getting a better connection through some witchcraft which talks to things in the sky then you were through actual tangible wires?! Amazing if so.
Bus passes will be fine for pensioners, even if they don't still have a driving licence or passport.
Most likely it will lead to a fall in turnout affecting all parties, if you turn up at the polling station for a local election and are turned away because you don't have photo ID then you most likely won't bother to go back and get it even if you do. When only around a third of voters vote in most local elections anyway that is hardly going to improve local democracy!
Personally I would have just had Photo ID for councils where electoral fraud has been an issue like Tower Hamlets, not imposed it nationwide
Indeed – it's using a giant sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut. Or a solution looking for a problem (choose your own idiom).
It is, in any case, utter madness.
Bin it.
I fear it's one of those things railed against in opposition which nonetheless will be retained.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
Can you explain to me how someone’s right to vote is taken away by this?
Yes it might add inconvenience and an additional administrative burden, sure. Point me to the withdrawal of the right to vote?
The government ignored the recommendations of their own Pickles review and went for the most restricted list of acceptable ID .
Anyone trying to spin the new rules as anything but voter disenfranchisement is avoiding the facts .
The fact that postal voting is now more open to fraud than at the voting centre highlights the Tories disgraceful attempts at ensuring their voter base can easily vote without giving a fig about fraud .
The Tories in here need to just accept the reality and stop trying to hide behind the electoral commission as a means to legitimize the blatant disenfranchisement.
The electoral commission said that the voting card sent via the royal mail to your home was enough to provide valid id.
You can’t use just a polling card to vote . You need to take ID with you . The thing you might be talking about is the voter registration certificate but you need to provide a host of documents. A postal vote just needs name and address and date of birth.
I know that - why do you think I started my sentence with "The electoral commission said" because their viewpoint was that card would have been enough.
The Beast. Yours for £65k, at the time of posting.
Do you know what kind of mileage I can expect?
It has around 10,00 miles on it. If you mean fuel economy, it’s about 2mpg. Edit: so 1.5 of your American gallons.
This amused:
"This second-generation body is longer than the first, and as such, boasts impressive rear load space in which you could fit all kinds of things, like a small aircraft, or a limousine, or Hull."
“Andy Chamberlain, of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, said the biggest obstacles facing the self-employed had been ignored.
“The trade body estimates more than 700,000 people have been forced out of self-employment since 2020, following the pandemic a cost of living crisis and changes to complex freelancer tax rules which have taken the shine off "being your own boss" for many.”
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
Can you explain to me how someone’s right to vote is taken away by this?
Yes it might add inconvenience and an additional administrative burden, sure. Point me to the withdrawal of the right to vote?
Because lots of people have no idea that this is happening and will turn up to vote and discover they can't. Because some people have busy or chaotic lives and so there is a point when the additional administrative burdens do actually become a restriction on their rights. Or do you want us to become like the US, where poor and minority communities have to queue for hours to vote, too? Nobody is stopping them from voting, right? This is straight from the US Republican playbook. Politicians who worry the electorate won't choose them start trying to choose the electorate instead.
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
How many people live or die as the aid budget goes up or down?
It is fairly frequently suggested that deprivation kills X per year in this country. So the social security budget is people’s lives.
The NHS is obvious
Government kills people. A lot.
So I guess we shouldn’t discuss politics then. All a bit iky.
You've clearly not been keeping up with Jessop's demands – do everything we can to back Ukraine or words to that effect – is he backing compulsory conscription for all able bodied British males over the age of 16 (presumably with the exception of one Josias Jessop)?
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
You assume that I have "wargaming needs"; wrong (and I'd like to know why you think that). I don't play wargames; I have never played War Thunder, or the naval one, or anything like that.
I'd like to know your solutions to the Ukraine war which does not involve thousands of young men being sent to their deaths: unless your 'solution' is Ukraine submitting to Russia (and even then, the chances are there might be an Afghanistan-style insurgency). But sorry, this is probably straying on too speculative for you.
In fact, I've argued that giving Ukraine as much as possible, as early as possible. Doing otherwise prolongs the war, and increases deaths on both sides.
So yes, I am keen to see a Ukrainian 'victory' (however that is defined) ASAP, as a way of reducing deaths.
It's trite cliches like this you'd do well to avoid.
"as much as possible as early as possible"
Conscription for all able-bodied British males over 16 to fight on the Ukrainian front?
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
The problem is, because of you and @Topping, I am now somewhat censoring myself on certain topics. In Topping's case, I think it's accidental. In your case, I believe it's deliberate.
You might also like to apply 'toy soldiering' to everything else we talk about on here, and ask what could be discussed if everyone took a similar attitude. The answer is, not much.
Condemning "Toy Soldiering" is a euphemism for "throwing Ukraine under the bus."
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
How many people live or die as the aid budget goes up or down?
It is fairly frequently suggested that deprivation kills X per year in this country. So the social security budget is people’s lives.
The NHS is obvious
Government kills people. A lot.
So I guess we shouldn’t discuss politics then. All a bit iky.
You've clearly not been keeping up with Jessop's demands – do everything we can to back Ukraine or words to that effect – is he backing compulsory conscription for all able bodied British males over the age of 16 (presumably with the exception of one Josias Jessop)?
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
The problem is, because of you and @Topping, I am now somewhat censoring myself on certain topics. In Topping's case, I think it's accidental. In your case, I believe it's deliberate.
You might also like to apply 'toy soldiering' to everything else we talk about on here, and ask what could be discussed if everyone took a similar attitude. The answer is, not much.
Condemning "Toy Soldiering" is a euphemism for "throwing Ukraine under the bus."
We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
WTF!? Condemned out of your own mouth for deliberate voter suppression.
"reminding identified Con voters" - but not Labour, LD, Reform ...
This is politics....
The shamelessness astounds me. Really does.
You have disclaimed any right to make any moral judgement on PB ever again.
I'll remind any SNP voters I find then.
You can't accuse me of having an interest in the election, as any in Guz will have to have a postal vote anyway. But consider this.
A. Tory Gmt changes the rules. B. Tories on the ground tell only Tory voters.
See?
And presumably Labour will be telling Labour voters?
Based on what their activists here are saying, they're preparing to at best not do so, and at worst tell people to turn up without ID so they can "make a scene" and pretend that this equalisation of GB with NI is some great travesty so that next time they get in they have an excuse to explicitly rig the system.
Changes in electoral behaviour can lead to attempts to game the system backfiring.
Back in the early 2000's, Labour benefitted from making postal voting easier, but the big shift to the Conservatives among Baby Boomers and Generation X after 2010 meant the change came to benefit the Conservatives.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
Can you explain to me how someone’s right to vote is taken away by this?
Yes it might add inconvenience and an additional administrative burden, sure. Point me to the withdrawal of the right to vote?
Because lots of people have no idea that this is happening and will turn up to vote and discover they can't. Because some people have busy or chaotic lives and so there is a point when the additional administrative burdens do actually become a restriction on their rights. Or do you want us to become like the US, where poor and minority communities have to queue for hours to vote, too? Nobody is stopping them from voting, right? This is straight from the US Republican playbook. Politicians who worry the electorate won't choose them start trying to choose the electorate instead.
We are not the US. I would not support in any way the brazen and disproportionate attacks on the voting system that have been undertaken there for many, many years.
Do i think that democracies are entitled to introduce rules as they see fit to protect the integrity of the voting system? Yes I absolutely do. That doesn’t mean I support every change that is made, and does not mean that this gives governments a carte blanche to introduce egregiously unfair systems.
On these changes: as above, I don’t really have a significant problem with them. They should be better publicised and I remain unconvinced of the harm they are intended to cure.
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
"Boo! Labour are going to produce a balanced and fair system! All because we fiddled it!"
Changes in electoral behaviour can lead to attempts to game the system backfiring.
Back in the early 2000's, Labour benefitted from making postal voting easier, but the big shift to the Conservatives among Baby Boomers and Generation X after 2010 meant the change came to benefit the Conservatives.
That did at least *increase* the active voting population. The current proposal *decreases* it.
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
"Boo! Labour are going to produce a balanced and fair system! All because we fiddled it!"
Balanced and fair system? Letting people vote without registering, making it impossible to know on the day who has won?
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
"Boo! Labour are going to produce a balanced and fair system! All because we fiddled it!"
Balanced and fair system? Letting people vote without registering, making it impossible to know on the day who has won?
You see? You've completely abandoned any right to comment on the matter. You can now be ignored permanently. You've opened the floodgates on yourselves.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
You assume that I have "wargaming needs"; wrong (and I'd like to know why you think that). I don't play wargames; I have never played War Thunder, or the naval one, or anything like that.
I'd like to know your solutions to the Ukraine war which does not involve thousands of young men being sent to their deaths: unless your 'solution' is Ukraine submitting to Russia (and even then, the chances are there might be an Afghanistan-style insurgency). But sorry, this is probably straying on too speculative for you.
In fact, I've argued that giving Ukraine as much as possible, as early as possible. Doing otherwise prolongs the war, and increases deaths on both sides.
So yes, I am keen to see a Ukrainian 'victory' (however that is defined) ASAP, as a way of reducing deaths.
It's trite cliches like this you'd do well to avoid.
"as much as possible as early as possible"
Conscription for all able-bodied British males over 16 to fight on the Ukrainian front?
That would depend on how you interpret "as much as possible as early as possible".
What's not really in dispute - and doesn't require any military expertise - is the the pace and amount of military kit sent to Ukraine falls short of any reasonable definition of that formulation. The limiting factor on what's been sent has most often been getting the agreement of the more reluctant members of the NATO alliance.
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
How many people live or die as the aid budget goes up or down?
It is fairly frequently suggested that deprivation kills X per year in this country. So the social security budget is people’s lives.
The NHS is obvious
Government kills people. A lot.
So I guess we shouldn’t discuss politics then. All a bit iky.
You've clearly not been keeping up with Jessop's demands – do everything we can to back Ukraine or words to that effect – is he backing compulsory conscription for all able bodied British males over the age of 16 (presumably with the exception of one Josias Jessop)?
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
You assume that I have "wargaming needs"; wrong (and I'd like to know why you think that). I don't play wargames; I have never played War Thunder, or the naval one, or anything like that.
I'd like to know your solutions to the Ukraine war which does not involve thousands of young men being sent to their deaths: unless your 'solution' is Ukraine submitting to Russia (and even then, the chances are there might be an Afghanistan-style insurgency). But sorry, this is probably straying on too speculative for you.
In fact, I've argued that giving Ukraine as much as possible, as early as possible. Doing otherwise prolongs the war, and increases deaths on both sides.
So yes, I am keen to see a Ukrainian 'victory' (however that is defined) ASAP, as a way of reducing deaths.
It's trite cliches like this you'd do well to avoid.
"as much as possible as early as possible"
Conscription for all able-bodied British males over 16 to fight on the Ukrainian front?
Just because you're illiterate doesn't make Josias wrong.
Giving weaponry and munitions is not the same as sending our own people to fight. Nobody is discussing giving people to Ukraine and even if we sent our own forces there, we wouldn't be giving people to them either, the people would still be our people as opposed to giving weapons which makes the weapons now theirs to use.
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
Abd a potential push for a national identity scheme.
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
"Boo! Labour are going to produce a balanced and fair system! All because we fiddled it!"
Balanced and fair system? Letting people vote without registering, making it impossible to know on the day who has won?
You see? You've completely abandoned any right to comment on the matter. You can now be ignored permanently. You've opened the floodgates on yourselves.
I have opened the floodgates on whom? "Yourselves" implies a plural.
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
Abd a potential push for a national identity scheme.
Ah, they're going to do that anyway. They always do.
“Andy Chamberlain, of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, said the biggest obstacles facing the self-employed had been ignored.
“The trade body estimates more than 700,000 people have been forced out of self-employment since 2020, following the pandemic a cost of living crisis and changes to complex freelancer tax rules which have taken the shine off "being your own boss" for many.”
That was deliberate policy. It’s a choice.
What's the justification behind that choice?
That "contracting" has been abused in two ways.
By high rate earners in permanent jobs, reducing their tax. By employers of low income workers, forcing them to be contractors, so that they have less employment rights.
Changes in electoral behaviour can lead to attempts to game the system backfiring.
Back in the early 2000's, Labour benefitted from making postal voting easier, but the big shift to the Conservatives among Baby Boomers and Generation X after 2010 meant the change came to benefit the Conservatives.
That did at least *increase* the active voting population. The current proposal *decreases* it.
In some places, the voting population exceeded the number of those truly eligible to vote.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
So Labour are proudly going to rig the system: there it is in black and white.
"Boo! Labour are going to produce a balanced and fair system! All because we fiddled it!"
Balanced and fair system? Letting people vote without registering, making it impossible to know on the day who has won?
Letting children vote?
Balanced and fair system?
If one were to give extra votes to voters with children, presumably there would be nothing wrong in principle with reinstating extra votes for business ratepayers.
“Andy Chamberlain, of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, said the biggest obstacles facing the self-employed had been ignored.
“The trade body estimates more than 700,000 people have been forced out of self-employment since 2020, following the pandemic a cost of living crisis and changes to complex freelancer tax rules which have taken the shine off "being your own boss" for many.”
That was deliberate policy. It’s a choice.
What's the justification behind that choice?
That "contracting" has been abused in two ways.
By high rate earners in permanent jobs, reducing their tax. By employers of low income workers, forcing them to be contractors, so that they have less employment rights.
Comments
Germany has compulsory ID cards, but you do NOT need ID to vote at a polling station, unless you forget to bring your polling card that is posted to everyone a couple of weeks before the election.
Many countries that do require ID to vote also have alternative ways of allowing people to vote if they don't have ID with them at the polling station.
Not sure if there are many countries that have the new UK combination of strictly requiring photo ID, but don't have compulsory ID cards.
The difference is that this is a pass/fail test, every 5 years. Fail, and you lose your licence until your sight can be corrected. The same thing doesn’t happen in the UK.
My father, who’s now 72, has specifically asked me to say to him that it’s time to stop driving, at the appropriate moment. He was an amateur rally driver back in the ‘70s, but has also seen a lot of elderly relatives injured in car crashes.
It is fairly frequently suggested that deprivation kills X per year in this country. So the social security budget is people’s lives.
The NHS is obvious
Government kills people. A lot.
So I guess we shouldn’t discuss politics then. All a bit iky.
So, not a problem as long as I remember that I need to take my ID with me to vote. I'll do that, because I'm motivated. But how many folk will turn up at polling stations and go 'bugger, I've forgotten to bring my ID - only got my phone. Can't be arsed to go home and get it, though'. Quite a lot, I fear.
It always amazes me that trying to send a document from Dubai to London costs £50 with a courier, yet the same courier delivers from Amazon a £20 widget on which £2 delivery has been paid.
The important thing is to have proper checks on the postal vote instead, which is wide open to fraud and should be severely limited and monitored.
The current plan is one of the multitude of reasons why One Nation Tories are going to vote Labour this time.
Bit like Mail client implementers and Outlook. “Your opposition is *them*, and you still have trouble?!!”
https://www.carandclassic.com/auctions/1972-john-dodds-the-beast-8bEqL4#bidding-history
The Beast. Yours for £65k, at the time of posting.
https://www.bobpetersenengineering.co.uk/petersen-27-litre-meteor
Also: again, this is a political betting website. Speculation about what may happen is sort-of what this website runs on. Look at the current debate on compulsory ID: no-one knows which party/ies it will advantage, but this is about the speculation.
Perhaps the Government was planning to suck up to the Chinese, but then the Americans got on the phone and trumped them in the sucking up stakes.
I'd like to know your solutions to the Ukraine war which does not involve thousands of young men being sent to their deaths: unless your 'solution' is Ukraine submitting to Russia (and even then, the chances are there might be an Afghanistan-style insurgency). But sorry, this is probably straying on too speculative for you.
In fact, I've argued that giving Ukraine as much as possible, as early as possible. Doing otherwise prolongs the war, and increases deaths on both sides.
So yes, I am keen to see a Ukrainian 'victory' (however that is defined) ASAP, as a way of reducing deaths.
So I don't think the form of the email address is necessarily phishy. But I wouldn't know whether the process you're being asked to go through is legitimate.
I really, really hope the corrupt and malign party that you promote for some reason, gets cast into the cesspit of history.
Not everything's down to America, you know.
(As it happens, we know some people who have worked with/for Huawei, and they'd have had a problem with recruitment for experienced staff as their reputation as employers is anecdotally pi*-poor.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64975202
*We fixed the problem with an assembly code hack that substituted the DXF files for ones from a list generated by running a downloaded movie through some code that made a DXF output of every frame.
The Sarge from Airplane has relatives all over Russia.
chamber these days no wonder it's full of natty posters!
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
Do you have any experience of working a campaign? Like I said, you identify your vote and get it out for your candidate. Explain to me how what I have said is not that.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/15/a-disgrace-more-than-100-trees-cut-down-in-plymouth-despite-local-opposition
Looks like it was road / cycling / pedestrian improvements.
(Apols if this has already been posted)
edit: https://www.plymouth.gov.uk/learn-about-armada-way-regeneration-plans
Here’s Technology Minister Michelle Donelan extolling the Conservative virtue of personal choice for Government officials over Tiktok: https://www.politico.eu/article/tech-minister-tiktok-should-be-personal-choice-for-uk-officials/
If you don’t like the colour, we can do it in “le beige“
And we can throw in some new velour seat covers.
It will pass overwhelmingly despite the DUP and ERG
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
It would be ironic if a politically-motivated change to voting regulations turned out to harm the Conservatives rather than to aid them.
In practice though, the Conservatives will never allow any change to voting procedures to harm their chances. The 2023 local elections are a dry run. If it were politically expedient, the Conservatives would take the road to Damascus and scrap the change in 2024 or make major changes designed to help the Conservative-supporting segment of the electorate (such as for example allowing time-expired passports to be used.)
The other practical impact of this is that I would expect that in the first parliament of an incoming Labour or Labour-led government there will be a major bill to change the way elections are conducted. That was already on the cards ever since Labour was shafted with the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The voter ID legislation makes it inevitable. Labour are utterly fed up with repeated Conservative governments trying to game the system against them.
The Labour bill won't only cover voter ID. It can be expected to cover things like effective voter registration with provisions for automatic registration or a new residency system that makes it impossible not to register (see Germany for example), the ability to cast provisional votes and register to vote at the polling station subject to later verification (as in many US states), the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds with automatic registration of 15 year olds via school records, a reversal of the extension of voting rights to non-taxpaying ex pats of 15 years absence, and so on. If voter ID were to stay there would have to be a scheme where two non-photographic forms of ID were acceptable in the absence of photographic ID (eg. Arizona) one of which could be the polling card, or a new push for a national identity card pending which the scheme might be scrapped altogether. I think it's quite likely that all of the above could feature.
My own favourite would be a measure to ensure that politicians act in the interests of every citizen of the country, not just those of voting age. Surely that's consistent with democracy? So give parents the right to cast extra votes for each of their under age children if they live with their children. If there's a mother and a father the mother can vote for the girls and the father for the boys, otherwise a single parent votes for all of them.
- Macron pushing through pension reform this afternoon by presidential decree ( no vote - he'd lose )
- The Dutch are revolting against greenery and have elected a farmers' activist party as joint largest in the senate
BBC News - Brexit: MPs to vote on Windsor Framework next week
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-64971992
Currently still got wires under doors, next bit of shopping is for plastic conduit to route the dish wire into the building (one external then one internal wall). Then run an ethernet cable through another pre-made hole (this former bank has wires *everywhere*) and across the dropped ceiling to terminate by my desk.
Off-topic again as I talk about the drop ceiling. When I bought the place there were big florescent lights which I had ripped out and replaced by LEDs. When I had my head through the tiles a few days back looking at cable runs I was gobsmacked to find big florescent lights attached to the actual ceiling.
So at some point they have installed a dropped ceiling. And literally installed the metal frame and then tiles over the top of the existing light fittings! Mentalism at its finest!
I don't know how supervillains ever managed to keep their suits so spick and span.
Does that follow? It could equally be that people are put off from voting by the ID requirements, or they don't realise the changes, reducing turnout. Personsation is surely only one of the potential causes.
In the trials:
"Around 2,000 people were initially turned away from the polling station for not having ID, with around 750 of them not returning to vote"
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/five-things-we-have-learnt-about-englands-voter-id-trials-in-the-2019-local-elections/
The weakest facet is the pretend handbrake, so politically that’s the thing for Sunak to win big on, and say to DUP and ERG “be my guest, argue with the size I’ve won this vote in parliament.”
I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
Big fat “no” in my book to anything approaching provisional votes (and personally I strongly disagree with votes at 16).
Or are you just taking “not in my name” to the next level?
Yes it might add inconvenience and an additional administrative burden, sure. Point me to the withdrawal of the right to vote?
Edit: so 1.5 of your American gallons.
No.
They tell their voters too. Or get them a postal vote. Just as I have said.
See?
"This second-generation body is longer than the first, and as such, boasts impressive rear load space in which you could fit all kinds of things, like a small aircraft, or a limousine, or Hull."
This is straight from the US Republican playbook. Politicians who worry the electorate won't choose them start trying to choose the electorate instead.
"as much as possible as early as possible"
Conscription for all able-bodied British males over 16 to fight on the Ukrainian front?
There is an issue of malicious and deliberate intent here on the part of a Conservative government.
Back in the early 2000's, Labour benefitted from making postal voting easier, but the big shift to the Conservatives among Baby Boomers and Generation X after 2010 meant the change came to benefit the Conservatives.
Do i think that democracies are entitled to introduce rules as they see fit to protect the integrity of the voting system? Yes I absolutely do. That doesn’t mean I support every change that is made, and does not mean that this gives governments a carte blanche to introduce egregiously unfair systems.
On these changes: as above, I don’t really have a significant problem with them. They should be better publicised and I remain unconvinced of the harm they are intended to cure.
Letting children vote?
Balanced and fair system?
What's not really in dispute - and doesn't require any military expertise - is the the pace and amount of military kit sent to Ukraine falls short of any reasonable definition of that formulation.
The limiting factor on what's been sent has most often been getting the agreement of the more reluctant members of the NATO alliance.
Giving weaponry and munitions is not the same as sending our own people to fight. Nobody is discussing giving people to Ukraine and even if we sent our own forces there, we wouldn't be giving people to them either, the people would still be our people as opposed to giving weapons which makes the weapons now theirs to use.
By high rate earners in permanent jobs, reducing their tax.
By employers of low income workers, forcing them to be contractors, so that they have less employment rights.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?