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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
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.
You really don't sound like someone keen to see some detailed Labour policies so you can decide whether to vote for them or not.
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?
I don't think we should let children vote but there really needs to be a voter cut off age. Cognitive decline after 65 means that people don't have the judgment to vote, much like 11-18 year olds don't but in a different way clearly. I think it's a fair system, if we don't let children vote then we should stop over 75 voting as well. We stop people being High Court judges and sitting on juries at that age.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
What is so difficult about getting photo ID? They manage in Northern Ireland. You have years to do it between elections and it is part of normal life.
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.
Sure, democracies are entitled to introduce rules designed to protect the integrity of the voting system. And I'm entitled to point out if those rules are likely to create a far bigger one than the one they're designed to solve, while giving every appearance of being a deeply cynical and partisan effort at voter suppression straight out of the US Republican playbook.
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.
You really don't sound like someone keen to see some detailed Labour policies so you can decide whether to vote for them or not.
There is a void caused by the Labour leadership's failure to announce policies - it's not my fault if Labour activists fill that void with things that dissuade me!
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.
In any case, Plymouth's civic centre architecture is *very* distinctive. That's Guz all right ...
I was born in the area (Saltash, to be exact) in 1964, as my dad was in the RN. I visited Plymouth a few weeks back, and was struck by the city centre: it occurred to me that when my Mum was taking me around the shops, it must have been pretty new and would have looked amazing.
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?
I don't think we should let children vote but there really needs to be a voter cut off age. Cognitive decline after 65 means that people don't have the judgment to vote, much like 11-18 year olds don't but in a different way clearly. I think it's a fair system, if we don't let children vote then we should stop over 75 voting as well. We stop people being High Court judges and sitting on juries at that age.
There's a logical case for that but good luck making it to the electorate!
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?
You've asked me that before, and I've answered it. To repeat myself, I would really, really want to avoid British boots on the ground, especially in a combat role (although I would not be surprised if some people from Hereford et al are in-country). But there is a massive amount we could be doing up to that point, which we are not.
So what's your answer? I mean, you weirdly carp on about what I say enough; it's fair to ask what you think.
This compulsory voting ID scheme is crass and unnecessary. It damages not only the electoral system, but also faith in the electoral system.
Precisely the idea!
I just don't buy this idea that proving who you are damages democracy. Surely being able to turn up at a poll booth and give your neighbours name and steal their vote is more damaging?
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 domestic archaeology of bodging is something I always find interesting, as it's so widespread - I found similar in our house here when we had some work done - the previous owners are lovely folk we're still sort of in touch with, but crikey, they bloody loved to cut corners.
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?
Labour/LibDem/Greens canvassers on the ground are too thick to know there has been a rule change?
No.
They tell their voters too. Or get them a postal vote. Just as I have said.
See?
But with the rules bent by the Tories away from Labour etc.
There's no evidence at all that bringing GB in line with NI actually benefits the Tories - OGH's header is pretty clear on this.
Which is why I said we Conservatives were identifying our vote and making sure they were aware of ID being a requirement. If that was a problem, we can get them a postal vote.
My point was to negate OGH's claim that it would hurt the Tories. Because we are aware of the issue and are addressing it.
At which point the pearl-clutchers had a fit of the vapours....
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.
You really don't sound like someone keen to see some detailed Labour policies so you can decide whether to vote for them or not.
There is a void caused by the Labour leadership's failure to announce policies - it's not my fault if Labour activists fill that void with things that dissuade me!
Mmm. So let me guess - massively opposed to a national ID card, massively in favour of ID for in-person voting at elections.
Together with the Council Tax demand from my local council- was a printed leaflet telling me that 'Photo ID is now required to vote in England'. It continues, 'Available forms of photo ID for voting are set out in law. The list includes.' 'Passport, Photo Driving Licence, Older Person's Buss Pass,Blue Badge'. It also states 'You can use your photo ID if it's out of date if the photo is still a good likeness'. These are the exact words used by the Council.
So - when I show my out of date passport my right to cast my vote will depend upon the Poll Clerk accepting my old passport photo is 'still a good likeness'.
Who is judging how good the Poll Clerk's eyesight is?
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
What is so difficult about getting photo ID? They manage in Northern Ireland. You have years to do it between elections and it is part of normal life.
They had to do it in Northern Ireland because personation was a massive problem there. And it has been well publicised. And voter registration and turnout are high in NI. By contrast millions of people here have no idea it's happening. We already have a problem of people not bothering to vote - and now we are making it even harder. And we are fixing a problem that is almost non-existent - while doing nothing to address postal voting fraud. If you're serious about this, bring in compulsory national ID cards. Otherwise it is just obvious partisan gerrymandering.
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.
In any case, Plymouth's civic centre architecture is *very* distinctive. That's Guz all right ...
I was born in the area (Saltash, to be exact) in 1964, as my dad was in the RN. I visited Plymouth a few weeks back, and was struck by the city centre: it occurred to me that when my Mum was taking me around the shops, it must have been pretty new and would have looked amazing.
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.
NOTICE TO ALL WOMEN: THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE PB EXPERT GENDER FEELINGS PANEL (MALE DIVISION).
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
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.
NOTICE TO ALL WOMEN: THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE PB EXPERT GENDER FEELINGS PANEL (MALE DIVISION).
Why are you shouting at all women?
Isn’t that rather misogynistic?
Probably because we’ve long since stopped paying attention to him 😆
This compulsory voting ID scheme is crass and unnecessary. It damages not only the electoral system, but also faith in the electoral system.
Precisely the idea!
I just don't buy this idea that proving who you are damages democracy. Surely being able to turn up at a poll booth and give your neighbours name and steal their vote is more damaging?
What damages democracy is lack of trust in the process and in the intentions behind the process more than the process either way. The way this has been done is divisive, reckless and unconservative, the core character traits of the Johnson and post Johnson tories.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
I am not in favour of ID cards. But I'm not in favour of requiring ID to vote unless everyone, rich or poor, old or young, black or white, is put on an equal footing. If you want ID cards to vote, you have to have a national ID card.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
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.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
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.
I have a photo of my ID on my phone
I don't think you'll be allowed to vote with that.
This compulsory voting ID scheme is crass and unnecessary. It damages not only the electoral system, but also faith in the electoral system.
Precisely the idea!
I just don't buy this idea that proving who you are damages democracy. Surely being able to turn up at a poll booth and give your neighbours name and steal their vote is more damaging?
It depends on the impact. If for every fraudulent vote prevented there are 100 votes lost through people forgetting their ID there's a good argument for saying the change has led to a less democratic election.
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.
In any case, Plymouth's civic centre architecture is *very* distinctive. That's Guz all right ...
I was born in the area (Saltash, to be exact) in 1964, as my dad was in the RN. I visited Plymouth a few weeks back, and was struck by the city centre: it occurred to me that when my Mum was taking me around the shops, it must have been pretty new and would have looked amazing.
My dad was trained there, near Saltash, in WW2! The scars are still very evident in Devonport and the naval base - which was very different before/after in layout and extent, eg the car park at the entrance is basically just bulldozed houses from the war. Was startled to find they even filled a whole inlet of the sea with rubble (now the playing fields near Stonehouse/Millbay).
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
Not only the database but the sheer number of organisations that would have access to it.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
'According to academic research presented to the House of Commons, these changes may result in 1.1 million fewer voters at the next general election due to the photo ID requirement.[8]
Key elements of the act were opposed by parliamentary committees, the House of Lords, the Electoral Commission, devolved governments, and academics.[6] Changes proposed by the House of Lords were rejected by Boris Johnson's government.[6][9] William Wallace, Baron Wallace of Saltaire, described it as a "nefarious piece of legislation" that is "shabby and illiberal".[10][11] Toby James, a professor of politics and public policy, has said "the inclusiveness of elections has been undermined by the act and it weakens the UK’s claim to be a beacon of democracy".[6] The Labour Party said the Conservatives are "trying to rig the rules of the game to help themselves".[12]'
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
But 'completely unnecessary' is the topic here, Morris. We're debating ID for in-person voting.
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.
In any case, Plymouth's civic centre architecture is *very* distinctive. That's Guz all right ...
I was born in the area (Saltash, to be exact) in 1964, as my dad was in the RN. I visited Plymouth a few weeks back, and was struck by the city centre: it occurred to me that when my Mum was taking me around the shops, it must have been pretty new and would have looked amazing.
On a tangent, I was speaking to @NickPalmer about consistencies in architectural beauty, and the possibility that taking into account universally appreciated hallmarks of architectural beauty could result in buildings that were both modern and beautiful a few weeks ago. Someone has clearly advanced that idea beyond the initial surmises I was making:
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
Yes, the problem with the previous national ID card schemes was the demented attempts to Minority Report all personal data, without any restriction.
The problem isn’t the card, or the unique ID.
The New Labour one, that got binned by the coalition, had a special sequestration of data for “Special people” - when they realised that giving access to *all personal records* to people employed by the council to check recycling bin violations might be a security problem.
Mr. kinabalu, I agree photo ID should not be necessary, though I'm not as adverse as many.
Imposing an ID card system and the database, which was terribly put together, is unacceptable regardless. And I have zero faith any government of this country would do anything but constitute said database in a stupid and dangerous way (widespread access, intrusive levels of information collection etc).
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.
You really don't sound like someone keen to see some detailed Labour policies so you can decide whether to vote for them or not.
There is a void caused by the Labour leadership's failure to announce policies - it's not my fault if Labour activists fill that void with things that dissuade me!
Mmm. So let me guess - massively opposed to a national ID card, massively in favour of ID for in-person voting at elections.
Let me guess in return - massively against needing to prove whoi you are to vote, perfectly happy to need to prove who you are to pick up a parcel.
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
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.
"as much as possible as early as possible" - is a trite catchphrase, not a strategy
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Of course there is a database sat behind it. The question is what the database holds.
I was very clear in my post that I was referring to the New Labour proposals which were to be linked to a very extensive database.
On driver's licenses and photo IDs: The state of Washington issues photo IDs, in the same process that it uses to issue driver's licenses. You can convert to one from a driver's license, quite easily, making it easier for older people who have decided to stop driving.
(I have a photo ID, and I need it from time to time. Recently, to my surprise, they have started requiring a photo ID for all alcohol purchases in my area. I have decided to make a point of buying a bottle of wine on my 80th birthday later this year, just for fun.)
Making such an ID easily available is, at least here, a valuable government service.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
I was in Ryman's and an old lady was complaining bitterly that due to the failure to raise personal allowances, she'll now have to pay income tax, following the rise in old age pensions.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
How do you provide evidence when the police tell people who complain about their vote being stolen to piss off?
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
The flag man, don't forget the flag. Could even be two, one for the design and one for the hologram, just like the wonderful GHICs.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
So explain what you meant by
"If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI"
And it's not a question of stupidity. Already turnout in the UK is a disgrace, because it isn't made very easy to vote. If you make it more difficult it will affect those who are working long shifts, have children to take care of etc more than it will affect those with loads of time on their hands ie pensioners.
Presumably you are too thick to understand this - it's not exactly rocket science.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Yes with the right API's it is easy to link them and I suspect strongly those api's are in existence and used by the security services regularly. They however aren't available to every tom dick and harry at your local council or the other 100 or so organisations the new labour proposed should have access to every scrap of data about you....how do I know the latter.....word would leak out pretty pronto
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
How do you provide evidence when the police tell people who complain about their vote being stolen to piss off?
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.
Go for tortoises. No hair.
That’s because the hair is so much faster it nearly won the race…
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
I backed that this morning @ 11 and laid it back @ 5.5 before the race! Your tips move the market obviously.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
Probably current address and DOB as well.....why does it need more?
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
I'm sure you could write your bank account number, sort code, and mother's maiden name on there, yourself, just to be helpful.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling, but my view FWIW is that it's a transparent but probably rather ineffective attempt at suppression of younger (and therefore less documented plus more left-wing) voters. As OGH suggests it may do some collateral damage to the very elderly, mostly Tory, vote, so the overall effect may simply be to make British democracy a bit less representative all round.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
This is a very non-day at Cheltenham; if you don't like crowds, Thursday is your day. And to think they were thinking of extending the meeting to five days.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
So explain what you meant by
"If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI"
And it's not a question of stupidity. Already turnout in the UK is a disgrace, because it isn't made very easy to vote. If you make it more difficult it will affect those who are working long shifts, have children to take care of etc more than it will affect those with loads of time on their hands ie pensioners.
Presumably you are too thick to understand this - it's not exactly rocket science.
Turnout is a disgrace because there's no reason for many to vote because our politicians on all sides are shit. High turnout shouldn't need to be something to be sought as an end in itself, it should happen naturally because we have major parties - at least one, ideally two - that are actually worth voting for.
In any case, postal voting on demand is available to people "working long shifts, have children to take care of etc" so how can it be said to be difficult?
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
How do you provide evidence when the police tell people who complain about their vote being stolen to piss off?
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
The flag man, don't forget the flag. Could even be two, one for the design and one for the hologram, just like the wonderful GHICs.
Oh no. Don't mind it being linked to my tax and medical records but no flags please. I won't carry that. Go to jail first.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
You turn up to vote and they say you have voted already.
I was in Ryman's and an old lady was complaining bitterly that due to the failure to raise personal allowances, she'll now have to pay income tax, following the rise in old age pensions.
It is certainly pushing the envelope if she thinks Ryman can help with 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.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling
Then your response is welcome, because I'm not trolling...
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
You turn up to vote and they say you have voted already.
And you go to the police and they tell you to piss off.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
The flag man, don't forget the flag. Could even be two, one for the design and one for the hologram, just like the wonderful GHICs.
Oh no. Don't mind it being linked to my tax and medical records but no flags please. I won't carry that. Go to jail first.
So you dont mind sharing those sensitive records with the "Home Office forecasts envisaged that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have had access to the database"
I was in Ryman's and an old lady was complaining bitterly that due to the failure to raise personal allowances, she'll now have to pay income tax, following the rise in old age pensions.
It is certainly pushing the envelope if she thinks Ryman can help with that.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
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.
In any case, Plymouth's civic centre architecture is *very* distinctive. That's Guz all right ...
I was born in the area (Saltash, to be exact) in 1964, as my dad was in the RN. I visited Plymouth a few weeks back, and was struck by the city centre: it occurred to me that when my Mum was taking me around the shops, it must have been pretty new and would have looked amazing.
See also tower blocks in 1960s Glasgow.
'Our own inside toilet, and a bath!'
Did make it difficult to hurl a jeely piece doon tae the wean in the yaird 20 floors below.
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?
And who will tell us Monster Raving Loons?
I doubt they have an organised GOTV effort to be fair
But there should be some government / electoral commission / whoever advertising of the new rules as well
I think in fairness to us loons the government should pay for Cookie Monster from Sesame Street to explain it to us, or someone of similar intellect like Gavin Williamson.
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?
And who will tell us Monster Raving Loons?
I doubt they have an organised GOTV effort to be fair
But there should be some government / electoral commission / whoever advertising of the new rules as well
I think in fairness to us loons the government should pay for Cookie Monster from Sesame Street to explain it to us, or someone of similar intellect like Gavin Williamson.
The hunny monster surely....we don't want any american puppet come over here muppetsplaining to us.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
How do you provide evidence when the police tell people who complain about their vote being stolen to piss off?
Did I ever mention that this happened to me?
The polling booth staff are so nervous - I was mumbling something about voter fraud/the police - that they put it down to human error and, after a call to who knows who, they let you 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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
If it it was only me then you would be right. It is controversial because the main opposition parties are against it.
Which other countries have a strict photo ID to vote requirement and no compulsory ID card?
I can't think of any voting rule change in the US that does not help one party and hurt the other, because of the different groups supporting the parties. For example, decades ago, voting by mail helped Republicans by letting traveling businessmen vote.
And both parties use these changes to attack each other. Republicans are right that Democrats are more likely to commit vote fraud; Democrats are right that Republicans are more likely to restrict voting -- but both parties exaggerate the extent of the other's faults. Greatly.
For instance, if a Republican state legislature copies the election laws long used by a Democratic state, Democrats will charge vote suppression, and have those charges repeated, uncritically, around the world.
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?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
You turn up to vote and they say you have voted already.
And you go to the police and they tell you to piss off.
Says someone on here. Yet we have recorded cases of personation so we know it is recorded. You'd think, if they wanted to demonstrate this was a problem, the government might have gone out of its way to record and publicise the cases that are out there. In fact I'm sure they have, and they still can't demonstrate it's a big problem. Why? Because it isn't.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Portevinia maculata, the Ramson Hoverfly, is attracted to stands of these plants. Can variously be quite common or in some years, surprisingly scarce.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
Comments
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
Details here;
https://www.racefans.net/2023/03/16/haas-f1-team-denies-false-report-linking-team-partner-to-russias-war-effort/
So what's your answer? I mean, you weirdly carp on about what I say enough; it's fair to ask what you think.
My point was to negate OGH's claim that it would hurt the Tories. Because we are aware of the issue and are addressing it.
At which point the pearl-clutchers had a fit of the vapours....
'Passport, Photo Driving Licence, Older Person's Buss Pass,Blue Badge'.
It also states 'You can use your photo ID if it's out of date if the photo is still a good likeness'.
These are the exact words used by the Council.
So - when I show my out of date passport my right to cast my vote will depend upon the Poll Clerk accepting my old passport photo is 'still a good likeness'.
Who is judging how good the Poll Clerk's eyesight is?
I shall test what happens on 4th May.
If you're serious about this, bring in compulsory national ID cards. Otherwise it is just obvious partisan gerrymandering.
'Our own inside toilet, and a bath!'
Isn’t that rather misogynistic?
Figures revealed amid anger over leadership race secrecy, including claims the contest to succeed Sturgeon could be being rigged….
At the end of 2019, the SNP had 125,691 members. Latest number (72,186) is down by 43% on then
https://twitter.com/chrismusson/status/1636385174882750473
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
Bowel cancer screening is now being rolled out to those over the age of 56.
I received a letter from the NHS telling me that I would soon receive a poo test kit, dated on the day of my 56th birthday.
I look forward (not) to collecting my sample!
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
'According to academic research presented to the House of Commons, these changes may result in 1.1 million fewer voters at the next general election due to the photo ID requirement.[8]
Key elements of the act were opposed by parliamentary committees, the House of Lords, the Electoral Commission, devolved governments, and academics.[6] Changes proposed by the House of Lords were rejected by Boris Johnson's government.[6][9] William Wallace, Baron Wallace of Saltaire, described it as a "nefarious piece of legislation" that is "shabby and illiberal".[10][11] Toby James, a professor of politics and public policy, has said "the inclusiveness of elections has been undermined by the act and it weakens the UK’s claim to be a beacon of democracy".[6] The Labour Party said the Conservatives are "trying to rig the rules of the game to help themselves".[12]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_Act_2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9pg2j2oGy0
It's a good (longish watch) video that should be required watching for any considering commissioning a building project or working with architects.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
The problem isn’t the card, or the unique ID.
The New Labour one, that got binned by the coalition, had a special sequestration of data for “Special people” - when they realised that giving access to *all personal records* to people employed by the council to check recycling bin violations might be a security problem.
Imposing an ID card system and the database, which was terribly put together, is unacceptable regardless. And I have zero faith any government of this country would do anything but constitute said database in a stupid and dangerous way (widespread access, intrusive levels of information collection etc).
I was very clear in my post that I was referring to the New Labour proposals which were to be linked to a very extensive database.
By submitting some additional paper work, you can get an "enhanced" version of either of these IDs. https://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/edl.html
(I have a photo ID, and I need it from time to time. Recently, to my surprise, they have started requiring a photo ID for all alcohol purchases in my area. I have decided to make a point of buying a bottle of wine on my 80th birthday later this year, just for fun.)
Making such an ID easily available is, at least here, a valuable government service.
Works just fine
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
I was in Ryman's and an old lady was complaining bitterly that due to the failure to raise personal allowances, she'll now have to pay income tax, following the rise in old age pensions.
Should have picked that each way.
Great news
"If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI"
And it's not a question of stupidity. Already turnout in the UK is a disgrace, because it isn't made very easy to vote. If you make it more difficult it will affect those who are working long shifts, have children to take care of etc more than it will affect those with loads of time on their hands ie pensioners.
Presumably you are too thick to understand this - it's not exactly rocket science.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
But there should be some government / electoral commission / whoever advertising of the new rules as well
In any case, postal voting on demand is available to people "working long shifts, have children to take care of etc" so how can it be said to be difficult?
Rocket science is possible.
That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
https://news.sky.com/story/nhs-strike-action-to-be-paused-after-union-recommends-members-accept-improved-pay-offer-12835466
Manic Manny Macron has pushed pension reform over the heads of Parliament. Unsurprisingly the opposition has exploded.
In all likelihood this will spill on to the streets and the UK strikes will look endearingly amateur.
I remain to be convinced the Rugby World Cup and the Olympics will go seamlessly.
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
The polling booth staff are so nervous - I was mumbling something about voter fraud/the police - that they put it down to human error and, after a call to who knows who, they let you vote.
After you show them some ID.
I'm sure there is a lesson in there somewhere.
Which other countries have a strict photo ID to vote requirement and no compulsory ID card?
Here's some evidence on electoral fraud given to parliament:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/38405/html/
And both parties use these changes to attack each other. Republicans are right that Democrats are more likely to commit vote fraud; Democrats are right that Republicans are more likely to restrict voting -- but both parties exaggerate the extent of the other's faults. Greatly.
For instance, if a Republican state legislature copies the election laws long used by a Democratic state, Democrats will charge vote suppression, and have those charges repeated, uncritically, around the world.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.