The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
But do young people even go to pubs these days? I'm just wondering if it is becoming something that mostly old people do. I went out to a very fashionable gastropub for lunch with a friend and was the youngest person there by about three decades (apart from the staff).
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
Indeed - as someone who helped run a student union, the contrast with the Americans... They'd never been allowed near alcohol and had a high rate of medical intervention required after drinking themselves insensible.
I never understood why American frat boys seem so keen on doing funnels of beer apart from not wanting to taste their insipid beers.
I acknowledge being inestimably boring - I find political minituae interesting for crying out loud - but I've never really seen the appeal in getting shitfaced. Drinking alcohol just made be more glum and boring rather than lose inhibitions.
Confession: I suspect Sunak is really rather good at being PM
If only he’d been in charge of Brexit from the start. SIGH
Agree with your confession, but I doubt even Sunak can polish the largest turd that was ever dumped on the British people.
He's the worst in living memory. As we near the GE the PB tribes will separate and back a side like oil and water. I'll probably do it myself.
Worse than The Clown? Bloody hell I do respect someone who has an unconventional view but I have to break it to you...the only person who could ever have achieved the title of most unsuitable PM of all time over Johnson would have been the thick twat who used to "lead" the Labour party and who was beaten by Johnson at the last GE.
Boris's faults are manifold and well-known to PB. But he had some redeeming qualities that offered the occasional bit of potential. Sunak doesn't have these glimmers - but his shirts look crisper. Unlike many on PB, I don't find that of significant value in a PM.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
Indeed - as someone who helped run a student union, the contrast with the Americans... They'd never been allowed near alcohol and had a high rate of medical intervention required after drinking themselves insensible.
Whereas on the whole our young people prefer a quiet night in, especially at weekends, with maybe a cup of cocoa once they have finished reading an improving book, Tennyson and Browning are great favourites along with Stillingfleet's sermons, and writing a long letter to their grandmother. A small glass of Harvey's Bristol Cream is allowed at Christmas after charades.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Most other Western countries have compulsory ID cards! (Or de facto ones, as with driving licenses in the US):
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
But do young people even go to pubs these days? I'm just wondering if it is becoming something that mostly old people do. I went out to a very fashionable gastropub for lunch with a friend and was the youngest person there by about three decades (apart from the staff).
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
Both my lads go to pubs with their friends, but far less than I did at the same age. That seems the norm, which is why pubs keep closing.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Most other Western countries have compulsory ID cards! (Or de facto ones, as with driving licenses in the US):
Time for me to repost this gem from two years ago on the way we could have compulsory ID cards:
On topic, I’m willing in principle to consider ID cards that replace all current forms of ID and contain a driving licence, passport, and my entitlement to divers government services.
However, in order for that to be the case the following four criteria must be met:
1] I must have access to the data the government holds about me, and the power to edit ALL of it so any information I don’t want them to have, they can’t keep.
2) I must have access to the complete list of people who have accessed my database, and be able to take instant action against anyone who has accessed it for no good reason, including a reporting button for disciplinary measures and the right to prosecute free of charge where I am dissatisfied.
3) This must replace all other forms of ID so no more censuses, DBS, registrations with professional organisations etc.
4) I must have the absolute right to refuse to produce it on demand.
And since those four criteria will never be met while a single Civil Servant breathes air, I am opposed to ID cards.
Looking dismal for EFC now. Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow. Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City. We could be down with a couple of games to go.
Looking dismal for EFC now. Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow. Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City. We could be down with a couple of games to go.
I fear Leicester left it too late to shed Rodgers. Monday a crunch game for us both.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
But do young people even go to pubs these days? I'm just wondering if it is becoming something that mostly old people do. I went out to a very fashionable gastropub for lunch with a friend and was the youngest person there by about three decades (apart from the staff).
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
Both my lads go to pubs with their friends, but far less than I did at the same age. That seems the norm, which is why pubs keep closing.
Not an expert these days but pub drinking seems disproportionately expensive compared with other things as compared with its relative cost a few decades ago. (Just as obviously cigarettes are too).
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?
Let's look at countries without national ID cards shall we?
According the the link I sent you, the first world democracies without ID cards are:
* UK * New Zealand * Australia * Canada * Japan
Australia has no voter ID requirement currently, but is introducing one. However, this will include bank cards or a utility bill. "If voters are unable to present ID on polling day, another enrolled voter with ID can attest to their identity, or the voter can cast a declaration vote, which requires further details such as date of birth and a signature."
Looking dismal for EFC now. Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow. Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City. We could be down with a couple of games to go.
I fear Leicester left it too late to shed Rodgers. Monday a crunch game for us both.
Indeed. A draw may not be good enough for either. Loser is in a serious condition.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
But do young people even go to pubs these days? I'm just wondering if it is becoming something that mostly old people do. I went out to a very fashionable gastropub for lunch with a friend and was the youngest person there by about three decades (apart from the staff).
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
Round here cafe culture, and even they are not that young. Mostly late twenties plus.
Looking dismal for EFC now. Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow. Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City. We could be down with a couple of games to go.
I fear Leicester left it too late to shed Rodgers. Monday a crunch game for us both.
Indeed. A draw may not be good enough for either. Loser is in a serious condition.
Forest have Saints at home, which is another key one, particularly if Saints win the South Coast Derby.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
But do young people even go to pubs these days? I'm just wondering if it is becoming something that mostly old people do. I went out to a very fashionable gastropub for lunch with a friend and was the youngest person there by about three decades (apart from the staff).
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
Both my lads go to pubs with their friends, but far less than I did at the same age. That seems the norm, which is why pubs keep closing.
Same. I lived in the pub when I was young. My own son far less so.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Most other Western countries have compulsory ID cards! (Or de facto ones, as with driving licenses in the US):
Time for me to repost this gem from two years ago on the way we could have compulsory ID cards:
On topic, I’m willing in principle to consider ID cards that replace all current forms of ID and contain a driving licence, passport, and my entitlement to divers government services.
However, in order for that to be the case the following four criteria must be met:
1] I must have access to the data the government holds about me, and the power to edit ALL of it so any information I don’t want them to have, they can’t keep.
2) I must have access to the complete list of people who have accessed my database, and be able to take instant action against anyone who has accessed it for no good reason, including a reporting button for disciplinary measures and the right to prosecute free of charge where I am dissatisfied.
3) This must replace all other forms of ID so no more censuses, DBS, registrations with professional organisations etc.
4) I must have the absolute right to refuse to produce it on demand.
And since those four criteria will never be met while a single Civil Servant breathes air, I am opposed to ID cards.
Looking dismal for EFC now. Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow. Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City. We could be down with a couple of games to go.
I fear Leicester left it too late to shed Rodgers. Monday a crunch game for us both.
Indeed. A draw may not be good enough for either. Loser is in a serious condition.
Forest have Saints at home, which is another key one, particularly if Saints win the South Coast Derby.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
But do young people even go to pubs these days? I'm just wondering if it is becoming something that mostly old people do. I went out to a very fashionable gastropub for lunch with a friend and was the youngest person there by about three decades (apart from the staff).
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
Both my lads go to pubs with their friends, but far less than I did at the same age. That seems the norm, which is why pubs keep closing.
Same. I lived in the pub when I was young. My own son far less so.
Pubs aren't what they were. Aside from the fact the price of a lager in a bog standard, not-central-london local is now up to £5.60ish, most pubs are sterile, atmosphere-free places with identikit furniture and nik-naks on the walls and identikit menus serving bog standard "gourmet" burgers. Utterly sanitsed experiences compared to the pubs of my youth, where you could drink for not *that* much more than drinking at home, meet some real characters, throw some darts or play some pool (when was the last time you saw a pool table in a pub?)
Pubs simply aren't exciting or interesting places to go, and with the price of four pints well over twenty quid now, I can think of better ways to spend my money.
Found a lovely house to stay in tonight in a town called Sérent. I got here just in a time for a five minute supermarket dash before it closed, and got dinner, breakfast and booze ( a bottle of very nice cidre and a bottle of Saumur Champigny (a red from just outside Brittany, about 75 miles away from me), and I’ve got a load of washing done
It was the shortest day’s walk so far (just under nineteen miles), but I started very late and I’m still just over the twenty five mile a day average I wanted (so just passed a hundred miles so far!)
I had planned to have a day off after four days if I’d got to a hundred miles, but I want to walk again tomorrow. It’s only another twenty miles to Vannes, the next pilgrimage stop
Looking dismal for EFC now. Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow. Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City. We could be down with a couple of games to go.
I fear Leicester left it too late to shed Rodgers. Monday a crunch game for us both.
Indeed. A draw may not be good enough for either. Loser is in a serious condition.
Forest have Saints at home, which is another key one, particularly if Saints win the South Coast Derby.
It's 3 from 5 now. Tight as a gnat's chuff.
Leeds have a tough run in.
Plus they have an open borders approach to defending.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?
Let's look at countries without national ID cards shall we?
According the the link I sent you, the first world democracies without ID cards are:
* UK * New Zealand * Australia * Canada * Japan
Australia has no voter ID requirement currently, but is introducing one. However, this will include bank cards or a utility bill. "If voters are unable to present ID on polling day, another enrolled voter with ID can attest to their identity, or the voter can cast a declaration vote, which requires further details such as date of birth and a signature."..
Admirably displaying a belief that those who wish to vote ought not be prevented from doing so by overly prescriptive rules.
Our government really doesn’t seem to be bothered by that at all.
West Ham fans piping up about refs being corrupt for not giving the Thiago penalty, must have forgot this wasn’t given as a pen earlier in the season😂😂👍
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?
Let's look at countries without national ID cards shall we?
According the the link I sent you, the first world democracies without ID cards are:
* UK * New Zealand * Australia * Canada * Japan
Australia has no voter ID requirement currently, but is introducing one. However, this will include bank cards or a utility bill. "If voters are unable to present ID on polling day, another enrolled voter with ID can attest to their identity, or the voter can cast a declaration vote, which requires further details such as date of birth and a signature."
Looking dismal for EFC now. Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow. Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City. We could be down with a couple of games to go.
I fear Leicester left it too late to shed Rodgers. Monday a crunch game for us both.
Indeed. A draw may not be good enough for either. Loser is in a serious condition.
Forest have Saints at home, which is another key one, particularly if Saints win the South Coast Derby.
It's 3 from 5 now. Tight as a gnat's chuff.
For the first time in a long time, I don't see Saints clawing their way out of it at the last minute. I don't think they'll get the 3 points tomorrow.
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?
Let's look at countries without national ID cards shall we?
According the the link I sent you, the first world democracies without ID cards are:
* UK * New Zealand * Australia * Canada * Japan
Australia has no voter ID requirement currently, but is introducing one. However, this will include bank cards or a utility bill. "If voters are unable to present ID on polling day, another enrolled voter with ID can attest to their identity, or the voter can cast a declaration vote, which requires further details such as date of birth and a signature."
The Australian and Canadian systems are perfect: if you've got ID, great! If not, we're not going to disenfranchise you, because either someone else can vouch for you, you can use other ID like a credit card or utility bill, or you can sign a document saying that you're the voter in question.
Perfect! No disenfranchisement, and gets rid of 99% of personation. (If there is any.)
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?
The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.
The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.
The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.
I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….
I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...
The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.
Agree entirely.
But do young people even go to pubs these days? I'm just wondering if it is becoming something that mostly old people do. I went out to a very fashionable gastropub for lunch with a friend and was the youngest person there by about three decades (apart from the staff).
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
Round here cafe culture, and even they are not that young. Mostly late twenties plus.
It's a downside of a good thing, though - there's so much choice of ways to enjoy oneself now. I've met older people who literally spent every free evening in the pub, drinking the same beer and chatting to the same friends. We all grumble about the internet, but it's opened a whole world of interest, whatever your tastes. It's not that young people have become recluses, but they do other things both alone and together.
Can't say that I am particularly looking forward to United playing City in the cup final. They are just frightening right now with Haaland, Grealish and de Bruyne with Foden in reserve. Pep has got them up to yet another level.
On football, another Haaland goal. Incredibly, he is one off *fifty* goals this season.
Let’s please not just get used to this. It is a truly extraordinary season he’s had. So many records smashed. Even @dixiedean must be getting a little worried now…
The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?
This is Trumpian politics.
Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?
Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.
Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.
More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.
In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.
That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.
You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.
No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...
I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.
I agree with the bit in bold.
So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?
I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.
As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself
I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:
- the young (because they haven't need it yet) - the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad) - the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)
None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.
And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.
All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.
I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.
The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.
The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.
Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.
I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.
If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO
And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.
There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.
Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.
Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them). Some will not have ID.
But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.
Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.
Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?
I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges
b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant
A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.
Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?
Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?
Let's look at countries without national ID cards shall we?
According the the link I sent you, the first world democracies without ID cards are:
* UK * New Zealand * Australia * Canada * Japan
Australia has no voter ID requirement currently, but is introducing one. However, this will include bank cards or a utility bill. "If voters are unable to present ID on polling day, another enrolled voter with ID can attest to their identity, or the voter can cast a declaration vote, which requires further details such as date of birth and a signature."..
Admirably displaying a belief that those who wish to vote ought not be prevented from doing so by overly prescriptive rules.
Our government really doesn’t seem to be bothered by that at all.
Only bothered by the prospect of losing power that it's incompetent to exercise anyway.
Has Peter Brookes ever done a funny cartoon? That is just embarrassing.
The Home Secretary isn't funny. Just embarrassing.
Oh I agree. But jeez...
But to paraphrase Sir Humphrey-
There's only one thing worse than cartoons criticising the government, and that's cartoons praising the government.
How many genuinely laugh out loud funny political cartoons have there been?
Every Matt cartoon?
Good point well made.
OK, how many genuinely laugh out loud funny large format op-ed political cartoons have there been?
Probably some Carl Giles at the peak of his career.
I don't think they need to be laugh out loud funny - even to be slightly clever or insightful would be a plus. What is Brooks' point here? That Bravermann is laying a trail for children to lure them in before subjecting them to some awful fate? Clearly she isn't doing that - the parallel is miles off. She could be accused (wrongly imo) of being brutishly uncaring, but that would need a very different 'tale'. This just seems like an excuse to do a horrible witchy caricature of an Asian woman - something of a speciality for this cartoonist.
Why not just home school all kids or have all attend virtually?
Harder to get the kids parents to work two jobs each if they're at home teaching their own kids. I can't imagine sending my child to a school that had an armed guard. It was bad enough when I got a phone call saying she'd fallen over, put her tooth through her lip and needed to go to hospital for stitches.
This is the sort of measure you might expect of a society at war, or with major terrorist threats. Or even with major crime issues. Rather than just a society in which people with access to guns just keep going mad. The access to guns is obviously the tragedy. But the madness is by far the stranger aspect.
On thread - I suspect if I didn't have id and I lived where I do I wouldn't bother to apply for one. Labour have won at every level since I've lived here and will do for the forseeable future. Voting is all very jolly and all that but for most of us quite inonsequential and not worth doing some minor admin just for the pleasure of doing so.
This is the sort of measure you might expect of a society at war, or with major terrorist threats. Or even with major crime issues. Rather than just a society in which people with access to guns just keep going mad. The access to guns is obviously the tragedy. But the madness is by far the stranger aspect.
I went to an upwardly mobile secondary school in south London - the sort that new Labour ministers eventually felt safe enough to visit.
In my time there I witnessed another student being shot with a dart gun, someone had their leg broken in a fight, and my year went from seven classes in year 7 to six classes in year 10, because of the number of students who had been permanently excluded.
People "going mad", or inflicting violence on others with the tools for inflicting violence that are available to them, is sadly not that unusual. Looking back in retrospect it would seem highly likely that a student would have brought a gun to my school, had guns been as prevalent in Britain as they are in the US.
Has Peter Brookes ever done a funny cartoon? That is just embarrassing.
The Home Secretary isn't funny. Just embarrassing.
Oh I agree. But jeez...
But to paraphrase Sir Humphrey-
There's only one thing worse than cartoons criticising the government, and that's cartoons praising the government.
How many genuinely laugh out loud funny political cartoons have there been?
Every Matt cartoon?
Good point well made.
OK, how many genuinely laugh out loud funny large format op-ed political cartoons have there been?
Probably some Carl Giles at the peak of his career.
I don't think they need to be laugh out loud funny - even to be slightly clever or insightful would be a plus. What is Brooks' point here? That Bravermann is laying a trail for children to lure them in before subjecting them to some awful fate? Clearly she isn't doing that - the parallel is miles off. She could be accused (wrongly imo) of being brutishly uncaring, but that would need a very different 'tale'. This just seems like an excuse to do a horrible witchy caricature of an Asian woman - something of a speciality for this cartoonist.
It just doesn't work. We all know that Braverman is beastly to foreigners, as indeed she was appointed to be, but surely she would be keeping them out rather than enticing them in?
On football, another Haaland goal. Incredibly, he is one off *fifty* goals this season.
Let’s please not just get used to this. It is a truly extraordinary season he’s had. So many records smashed. Even @dixiedean must be getting a little worried now…
On baffling electoral decisions, I found my union ballot very difficult to consider - all potential candidates appear to be demanding the same things, with very slight variations in tone, yet some explicitly say to vote for specific others as well in what I presume is some kind of factional thing that is left unstated.
The govt must be relieved midwives have accepted the pay offer. If there's one group of workers you really don't want on strike in a hospital it's the midwives
Why not just home school all kids or have all attend virtually?
Quite a number of Republicans like that idea. Gets them away from those dangerously woke teachers.
Incidentally, since we have woke, vegan meat (venison), do we have woke, anti-gun guns?
Can't help thinking that .223 is a bit woke.
I think it’s the other way round. To kill with a .22 at anything other than almost point blank range takes a lot of skill. I reckon it’s the prats with AR-15s who are like the whole warriors in that debate. Can’t shoot the deer using skill with a hunting rifle? Buy GMLRS from Walmart and eliminate its grid square. Can’t shoot the intruder with a .22? Buy an AR-15.
Either he doesn't just play it up for the cameras, or he was confident of it being reported.
Exc: Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson engaged in an “aggressive” confrontation with MP Andrew Bridgen and a former Conservative councillor in a parliamentary dining room
Why not just home school all kids or have all attend virtually?
Quite a number of Republicans like that idea. Gets them away from those dangerously woke teachers.
Incidentally, since we have woke, vegan meat (venison), do we have woke, anti-gun guns?
Can't help thinking that .223 is a bit woke.
I think it’s the other way round. To kill with a .22 at anything other than almost point blank range takes a lot of skill. I reckon it’s the prats with AR-15s who are like the whole warriors in that debate. Can’t shoot the deer using skill with a hunting rifle? Buy GMLRS from Walmart and eliminate its grid square. Can’t shoot the intruder with a .22? Buy an AR-15.
Your are Peter Hathaway Capstick and I claim my 50 elephant tusks...
This is the sort of measure you might expect of a society at war, or with major terrorist threats. Or even with major crime issues. Rather than just a society in which people with access to guns just keep going mad. The access to guns is obviously the tragedy. But the madness is by far the stranger aspect.
I went to an upwardly mobile secondary school in south London - the sort that new Labour ministers eventually felt safe enough to visit.
In my time there I witnessed another student being shot with a dart gun, someone had their leg broken in a fight, and my year went from seven classes in year 7 to six classes in year 10, because of the number of students who had been permanently excluded.
People "going mad", or inflicting violence on others with the tools for inflicting violence that are available to them, is sadly not that unusual. Looking back in retrospect it would seem highly likely that a student would have brought a gun to my school, had guns been as prevalent in Britain as they are in the US.
At my 5th year 'graduation ball' someone took a Stanley knife blade out of their sock and slashed another pupils face from their eye down to the opposite site of their mouth in a big lopsided 'grin'. Pretty sure if a gun had been available that would have been used.
Blimey, Trump must be absolutely desperate on the documents case - he's not just comparing his case to others, not a bad call considering others have messed up, but magnanimously declaring none should be treated as criminal (presumably even if some - say, his - might involve more obstructive behaviour.
“Please know that despite the differences in the cases, we do not believe that any of these three matters should be handled by DOJ as a criminal case,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Rather, the stakeholders to these matters should set aside political differences and work together to remediate this issue and help to enhance our national security in the process.”
Looks like part of the defence will be blaming officials, but even if that is true it doesn't really explain claiming searches had been done and documents returned when that was not the case, and him trying to get them back afterwards.
Has Peter Brookes ever done a funny cartoon? That is just embarrassing.
Political cartooning is in any event a dying art.
This is a US article from a couple of years back.
In April, I quit political cartooning. I was thirty-seven, and I’d drawn about sixteen hundred cartoons over eighteen years. Deep burnout had set in over the course of the pandemic, and I decided to devote time to other kinds of work—genre comics, nonfiction graphic novels. It was mostly a creative decision, but there was also a financial incentive: while the market for political cartoons is shrinking, graphic novels are booming. Last year, graphic novels and comic books accounted for $1.28 billion in sales in North America. (The revenue from political cartooning, meanwhile, must be the combined income of the last thirty people doing it.)…
… In June, many of us in the field were dismayed to find that, for the first time since 1973—and in one of the most politically tumultuous years of our lifetimes—the Pulitzer Prize board declined to issue an award for editorial cartooning. The AAEC issued a fiery statement to “urge radical structural reform of the award to evaluate modern opinion cartoons by 21st century standards.” As far as I was concerned, the decision confirmed that the stewards of old media just aren’t that into us anymore. I had left at the right moment…
Matt is, of course, a glorious holdout - but as print news disappears, what is the future of the form after him ?
I think the government might get a poll bounce up to voting day because of the good work rescuing people from the Sudan chaos. Hundreds extracted safely today. Relieved and tearful people back on home soil hugging their loved ones all over the news, and the only party to thank and reward for this success are the Conservatives.
On thread - I suspect if I didn't have id and I lived where I do I wouldn't bother to apply for one. Labour have won at every level since I've lived here and will do for the forseeable future. Voting is all very jolly and all that but for most of us quite inonsequential and not worth doing some minor admin just for the pleasure of doing so.
Has Peter Brookes ever done a funny cartoon? That is just embarrassing.
Political cartooning is in any event a dying art.
This is a US article from a couple of years back.
In April, I quit political cartooning. I was thirty-seven, and I’d drawn about sixteen hundred cartoons over eighteen years. Deep burnout had set in over the course of the pandemic, and I decided to devote time to other kinds of work—genre comics, nonfiction graphic novels. It was mostly a creative decision, but there was also a financial incentive: while the market for political cartoons is shrinking, graphic novels are booming. Last year, graphic novels and comic books accounted for $1.28 billion in sales in North America. (The revenue from political cartooning, meanwhile, must be the combined income of the last thirty people doing it.)…
… In June, many of us in the field were dismayed to find that, for the first time since 1973—and in one of the most politically tumultuous years of our lifetimes—the Pulitzer Prize board declined to issue an award for editorial cartooning. The AAEC issued a fiery statement to “urge radical structural reform of the award to evaluate modern opinion cartoons by 21st century standards.” As far as I was concerned, the decision confirmed that the stewards of old media just aren’t that into us anymore. I had left at the right moment…
Matt is, of course, a glorious holdout - but as print news disappears, what is the future of the form after him ?
A brief golden age of satire fueled by AI able to churn out any cartoon you want with an imaginative prompt, cut off by the conversion of humanity's molecules into paperclips.
Found a lovely house to stay in tonight in a town called Sérent. I got here just in a time for a five minute supermarket dash before it closed, and got dinner, breakfast and booze ( a bottle of very nice cidre and a bottle of Saumur Champigny (a red from just outside Brittany, about 75 miles away from me), and I’ve got a load of washing done
It was the shortest day’s walk so far (just under nineteen miles), but I started very late and I’m still just over the twenty five mile a day average I wanted (so just passed a hundred miles so far!)
I had planned to have a day off after four days if I’d got to a hundred miles, but I want to walk again tomorrow. It’s only another twenty miles to Vannes, the next pilgrimage stop
I think I’ll go marching on!
You are living large off the fat of the land!
An inspiration to us all, most especially your fellow PBers, posties and the International Postal Union.
Has Peter Brookes ever done a funny cartoon? That is just embarrassing.
Political cartooning is in any event a dying art.
This is a US article from a couple of years back.
In April, I quit political cartooning. I was thirty-seven, and I’d drawn about sixteen hundred cartoons over eighteen years. Deep burnout had set in over the course of the pandemic, and I decided to devote time to other kinds of work—genre comics, nonfiction graphic novels. It was mostly a creative decision, but there was also a financial incentive: while the market for political cartoons is shrinking, graphic novels are booming. Last year, graphic novels and comic books accounted for $1.28 billion in sales in North America. (The revenue from political cartooning, meanwhile, must be the combined income of the last thirty people doing it.)…
… In June, many of us in the field were dismayed to find that, for the first time since 1973—and in one of the most politically tumultuous years of our lifetimes—the Pulitzer Prize board declined to issue an award for editorial cartooning. The AAEC issued a fiery statement to “urge radical structural reform of the award to evaluate modern opinion cartoons by 21st century standards.” As far as I was concerned, the decision confirmed that the stewards of old media just aren’t that into us anymore. I had left at the right moment…
Matt is, of course, a glorious holdout - but as print news disappears, what is the future of the form after him ?
A brief golden age of satire fueled by AI able to churn out any cartoon you want with an imaginative prompt, cut off by the conversion of humanity's molecules into paperclips.
Is much political cartooning intended to be funny or is it satirical in nature, and further along are the caricaturists. Did anyone look at Scarfe and laugh? Or Steve Bell? Were we supposed to?
Comments
I keep seeing this, very few young people in pubs. It is really different to 20 years ago when I started going to pubs. I don't think it is a case that I am just going to 'old peoples' pubs. There are no pubs where young people go, it seems to me anyway.
I guess it has been killed by the internet, netflix, cost of living issues, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_identity_card_policies_by_country#Countries_with_no_identity_cards
On topic, I’m willing in principle to consider ID cards that replace all current forms of ID and contain a driving licence, passport, and my entitlement to divers government services.
However, in order for that to be the case the following four criteria must be met:
1] I must have access to the data the government holds about me, and the power to edit ALL of it so any information I don’t want them to have, they can’t keep.
2) I must have access to the complete list of people who have accessed my database, and be able to take instant action against anyone who has accessed it for no good reason, including a reporting button for disciplinary measures and the right to prosecute free of charge where I am dissatisfied.
3) This must replace all other forms of ID so no more censuses, DBS, registrations with professional organisations etc.
4) I must have the absolute right to refuse to produce it on demand.
And since those four criteria will never be met while a single Civil Servant breathes air, I am opposed to ID cards.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3332093#Comment_3332093
Next to bottom and playing Newcastle tomorrow.
Then the crucial Leicester away. Followed by Brighton away then City.
We could be down with a couple of games to go.
According the the link I sent you, the first world democracies without ID cards are:
* UK
* New Zealand
* Australia
* Canada
* Japan
Australia has no voter ID requirement currently, but is introducing one. However, this will include bank cards or a utility bill. "If voters are unable to present ID on polling day, another enrolled voter with ID can attest to their identity, or the voter can cast a declaration vote, which requires further details such as date of birth and a signature."
New Zealand has no requirement for ID.
Canada has almost identical rules to the proposed Australian ones. See: https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
Japan has no requirement to present ID.
Not even checked.
Anyway, out the relegation zone.
For now.
It's 3 from 5 now. Tight as a gnat's chuff.
Mitigations
1) Ball didn't travel that far
2) Arm was in a natural position
3) Defected of another part of his body first then on to the arm
That's the difference.
The "other part of the body" being his elbow?
Pubs simply aren't exciting or interesting places to go, and with the price of four pints well over twenty quid now, I can think of better ways to spend my money.
Leicester are showing some fighting spirit now, but we left it too late to sack Rodgers.
It was the shortest day’s walk so far (just under nineteen miles), but I started very late and I’m still just over the twenty five mile a day average I wanted (so just passed a hundred miles so far!)
I had planned to have a day off after four days if I’d got to a hundred miles, but I want to walk again tomorrow. It’s only another twenty miles to Vannes, the next pilgrimage stop
I think I’ll go marching on!
Our government really doesn’t seem to be bothered by that at all.
https://twitter.com/jamielaughey/status/1651326892799152130/photo/1
Big love for them.
Comes from the Tevez scandal.
Perfect! No disenfranchisement, and gets rid of 99% of personation. (If there is any.)
https://pollingreport.uk/polls
Let’s please not just get used to this. It is a truly extraordinary season he’s had. So many records smashed. Even @dixiedean must be getting a little worried now…
There's only one thing worse than cartoons criticising the government, and that's cartoons praising the government.
How many genuinely laugh out loud funny political cartoons have there been?
OK, how many genuinely laugh out loud funny large format op-ed political cartoons have there been?
Probably some Carl Giles at the peak of his career.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65401494
Just Germans being German, or is there maybe substance to this?
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/04/24/texas-house-school-safety/
The access to guns is obviously the tragedy. But the madness is by far the stranger aspect.
In my time there I witnessed another student being shot with a dart gun, someone had their leg broken in a fight, and my year went from seven classes in year 7 to six classes in year 10, because of the number of students who had been permanently excluded.
People "going mad", or inflicting violence on others with the tools for inflicting violence that are available to them, is sadly not that unusual. Looking back in retrospect it would seem highly likely that a student would have brought a gun to my school, had guns been as prevalent in Britain as they are in the US.
[This comment left intentionally blank]
Gets them away from those dangerously woke teachers.
Though my season ticket is paid for, having greened out on Leicester relegation.
Watch the Football! ⚽ | That Mitchell and Webb Look
Can't help thinking that .223 is a bit woke.
Exc: Tory deputy chairman Lee Anderson engaged in an “aggressive” confrontation with MP Andrew Bridgen and a former Conservative councillor in a parliamentary dining room
"Hold on grandad, come outside and we’ll sort it out," Anderson allegedly said
https://twitter.com/BlewettSam/status/1651270368001245195?cxt=HHwWloC-jdTpvuotAAAA
“Please know that despite the differences in the cases, we do not believe that any of these three matters should be handled by DOJ as a criminal case,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “Rather, the stakeholders to these matters should set aside political differences and work together to remediate this issue and help to enhance our national security in the process.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/26/trump-classified-documents-letter-00094048
Looks like part of the defence will be blaming officials, but even if that is true it doesn't really explain claiming searches had been done and documents returned when that was not the case, and him trying to get them back afterwards.
This is a US article from a couple of years back.
In April, I quit political cartooning. I was thirty-seven, and I’d drawn about sixteen hundred cartoons over eighteen years. Deep burnout had set in over the course of the pandemic, and I decided to devote time to other kinds of work—genre comics, nonfiction graphic novels. It was mostly a creative decision, but there was also a financial incentive: while the market for political cartoons is shrinking, graphic novels are booming. Last year, graphic novels and comic books accounted for $1.28 billion in sales in North America. (The revenue from political cartooning, meanwhile, must be the combined income of the last thirty people doing it.)…
… In June, many of us in the field were dismayed to find that, for the first time since 1973—and in one of the most politically tumultuous years of our lifetimes—the Pulitzer Prize board declined to issue an award for editorial cartooning. The AAEC issued a fiery statement to “urge radical structural reform of the award to evaluate modern opinion cartoons by 21st century standards.” As far as I was concerned, the decision confirmed that the stewards of old media just aren’t that into us anymore. I had left at the right moment…
Matt is, of course, a glorious holdout - but as print news disappears, what is the future of the form after him ?
I can shoot 10/10 inside the 9 ring at 25 yards with a .22LR pistol. There's no way I can do that with a 9mm or .38.
An inspiration to us all, most especially your fellow PBers, posties and the International Postal Union.