In certain circumstances, where you have an emergency that means you can't vote in person, you can apply for an emergency proxy.
This must be something that you weren't aware of before the normal proxy vote deadline.
You have a medical emergency (PDF) You are away for work (PDF) Your photo ID is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged, and the deadline to apply for a Voter Authority Certificate has passed. This form can also be used if your Anonymous Elector's Document is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged. These applications can be made up to 5pm on polling day.
genuine question - how do they physically count votes where you can vote for more than one candidate ? Its easy in a GE to count as FPTP but how is it physically done ?
They use the grass skirt method here. They stick 20 ballot papers to a board, line them up so that the boxes are shown and then count across to create tallies for each candidate.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
Ofcourse, looking back, historians will be less surprised ; for instance at the great "woke wars" of 2087, when London joined Paris against an alliance of Yorkshire and mid-France ;.)
In Greece, the provincial nationalist-voting citizens of sparta laid siege to the new Athenian state, which they accused of beng too "international"..
That ship has sailed. Precious few consider adultery an issue.
Adultery is bad, and serial adultery in particular, but forgiveness is also a virtue.
What astonishes me is how viscerally some people I know loathe Camilla. Follow me to anecdote land, but I listened to two who were spitting mad about being called Queen now ("That's never happened before!") and how that went against what the Queen wanted, even though one was a committed republican, and the other was a "I was never really a fan but respected the Queen, and it should have ended with her" republican.
Didn't Queen Anne (Boleyn) has same problem thanks to being "the other woman" re: Queen Catherine (of Aragon)?
Comes with the territory.
It’s rather like the visceral hate for Amber Heard, on the part of people who have never met her.””
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
And yesterday's highlights of PMQs was the take down of Starmer by Stephen Flynn heralding the fight for votes in Scotland between them
In certain circumstances, where you have an emergency that means you can't vote in person, you can apply for an emergency proxy.
This must be something that you weren't aware of before the normal proxy vote deadline.
You have a medical emergency (PDF) You are away for work (PDF) Your photo ID is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged, and the deadline to apply for a Voter Authority Certificate has passed. This form can also be used if your Anonymous Elector's Document is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged. These applications can be made up to 5pm on polling day.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
genuine question - how do they physically count votes where you can vote for more than one candidate ? Its easy in a GE to count as FPTP but how is it physically done ?
You mark them off on a tally sheet. So every ten ballots fills up a sheet which shows 7 voted for x 6 voted for y etc and how many did not use up all votes. Then you add up all the tally sheets. The ballots are attached to the tally sheet so you can recheck if things overall dont add up.
Its annoying as hell with town's and parishes which can have upwards of 20 votes if they have no warding arrangements.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
Nationalism is an incredibly powerful ideology, for something so recent. It broke up all the European empires (including the Soviets’), defeated global communism, and mostly trumps religious loyalties.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
Shifting the goal posts somewhat with the word "mandatory", which @rcs1000 didn't use. All those countries have state issued ID cards AIUI, with varying degrees of nominal optionalilty
Must say producing ID to vote felt very unBritish. We'll probably get 'provisional' ballots in in time, and so the counts will be delayed. Then legal challenge nonsense and so forth.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Interesting point that Lord Peston was making on his programme last night, when interviewing Michael "John Travolta" Gove ; Britain's borrowing costs are still affected by the Truss debacle, a bit higher than they were. That will amount to billions, when taken over several years.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
Nationalism is an incredibly powerful ideology, for something so recent. It broke up all the European empires (including the Soviets’), defeated global communism, and mostly trumps religious loyalties.
It enables new tribes to belong to which are more open - you can join them and it doesn't matter what your race or faith in many - whilst still putting limits between you and the amorphous mass of humanity, which is harder to personslie.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
I don't see something like this as remotely likely and I'm not even sure I'd vote for it, but I do suspect that it's the only way that Europe avoids economic, geopolitical and technological irrelevance.
I must say, whilst perhaps of questionable value, it’s rather fun being the only teller down in rural Sussex. The look of astonishment on some faces that anyone could dare wear a red rosette is delightful. Still a counter cultural act.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
I must say, whilst perhaps of questionable value, it’s rather fun being the only teller down in rural Sussex. The look of astonishment on some faces that anyone could dare wear a red rosette is delightful. Still a counter cultural act.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Mr. F, I also didn't follow it beat for beat, but it seemed very much lopsided from what I heard. Rather glad Depp won the case (though he lost film roles, whereas Heard, after being found in the wrong, has retained her role in Aquaman 2).
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Maybe the question should be if they win again what lessons have Labour to learn
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
Sorry. I forgot Iceland, where required ID "is at the discretion of the returning officer" (https://www.althingi.is/lagas/148b/2000024.htm) which is a bit broad, but certainly doesn't sound inflexible.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Maybe the question should be if they win again what lessons have Labour to learn
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
I know I am biased, but I am concerned if the Tories sneak it. There is definitely a need for some democratic fresh air. Labour shoulder an awesome responsibility to deliver it, despite starting so far behind.
Must say producing ID to vote felt very unBritish. We'll probably get 'provisional' ballots in in time, and so the counts will be delayed. Then legal challenge nonsense and so forth.
Given how sclerotic our courts are the legal challenges may make California’s certification process look rapid.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
Utterly off topic because it's not Europe but some US states make it almost impossible for poorer voters to get to a polling station.
I presime one of those MoD replica plastic Spitfires which it needed after selling off most of its real ones?
It's a replica Mk.IX which, for reasons known only to the constructor and the mental health professionals that care for them, was built from the original engineering drawings in metal but has but no engine, electrical, hydraulics, etc.
The original MK805 is now in the Italian Air Force museum in Rome.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Maybe the question should be if they win again what lessons have Labour to learn
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
I know I am biased, but I am concerned if the Tories sneak it. There is definitely a need for some democratic fresh air. Labour shoulder an awesome responsibility to deliver it, despite starting so far behind.
I would just say it would be very surprising if Starmer isn't the next PM, and to be honest it is unlikely to effect my wife and I at this late stage in our journey through life
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Maybe the question should be if they win again what lessons have Labour to learn
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
I know I am biased, but I am concerned if the Tories sneak it. There is definitely a need for some democratic fresh air. Labour shoulder an awesome responsibility to deliver it, despite starting so far behind.
I would just say it would be very surprising if Starmer isn't the next PM, and to be honest it is unlikely to effect my wife and I at this late stage in our journey through life
Well I hope that you see change and despite tending towards the blue, delight in democratic fresh air it brings.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
Utterly off topic because it's not Europe but some US states make it almost impossible for poorer voters to get to a polling station.
And this is where the Tories get their inspiration from.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
Utterly off topic because it's not Europe but some US states make it almost impossible for poorer voters to get to a polling station.
Implementing laws to solve a problem that there is no evidence exists, but which disenfranchise millions of voters is immoral.
This isn't one of these cases where there are arguments on both sides of the debate. It's simply wrong.
(And making it impossible to vote by having polling stations with too few clerks or which are far from voters is equally wrong.)
If there was evidence of substantial personation (you know, like lots of people turning up to vote and finding someone had already voted), then obviously it would be different.
And you know, if you want to make absolutely sure there's no personation, then there are things you can do that don't disenfranchise people. Almost all countries which require voter ID have these provisons.
That we have chosen not to implement *any* backups, and given that a very substantial portion of the UK population does not carry photo ID on them, looks - to put it generously - like something designed for partisan advantage.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
Utterly off topic because it's not Europe but some US states make it almost impossible for poorer voters to get to a polling station.
Implementing laws to solve a problem that there is no evidence exists, but which disenfranchise millions of voters is immoral.
This isn't one of these cases where there are arguments on both sides of the debate. It's simply wrong.
(And making it impossible to vote by having polling stations with too few clerks or which are far from voters is equally wrong.)
If there was evidence of substantial personation (you know, like lots of people turning up to vote and finding someone had already voted), then obviously it would be different.
And you know, if you want to make absolutely sure there's no personation, then there are things you can do that don't disenfranchise people. Almost all countries which require voter ID have these provisons.
That we have chosen not to implement *any* backups, and given that a very substantial portion of the UK population does not carry photo ID on them, looks - to put it generously - like something designed for partisan advantage.
And that's pretty fucking sickening.
It is incredibly sickening and anyone who tries to justify it is a PoS.
Even the staff were grousing about these stupid rules.
‘We all know there’s no problem with voter impersonation.’
The key problem we need to solve is getting people to engage and get out to vote. Creating hurdles to solve the non existent problem of impersonation at best doesn’t help the core problem.
The trouble is that parties in safe seats have a vested interest in keeping those that stayed at home last time at home. All our political leaders, by definition have safe seats. The winning party overall wants to maintain the status quo that won them power.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
It is the nation state which has allowed the flowering of democracy. Do not be too quick to consign it to the dustbin of history.
1) I suppose we can't know how many personations (?) took place
2) Surely it's older voters who are most likely to not have a valid passport/driving licence? Even with the trend for not drinking/driving, most younger people have ID to get into concerts etc
3) lots of countries that we admire have ID requirements (and monarchies ). Sweden, for example.
The main thing it will do is cause massive queues, lots of angst and general ill feeling.
Of developed world democracies without ID cards - New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and Japan - two don't require ID to vote at all (NZ and Japan), while two (Australia and Canada) do.
However, in both cases, there are contingencies for people who arrive without ID*: if another voter attests to your identity, then you can vote; and if you don't have another voter who can attest, then you can cast a provisional ballot that can be cured later in the event that the result is sufficiently close.
* And their list of acceptable IDs is longer
Though worth adding that in Australia voting is compulsory so the effect of ID cards upon likelihood to vote and disenfrancisement is probably rather muted
Does Australia require voter ID? Quick google says no although they have been through a near identical debate.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
It is the nation state which has allowed the flowering of democracy. Do not be too quick to consign it to the dustbin of history.
As Ukraine is currently demonstrating. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily the only model.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A blockade would also be difficult, unless they start actually sinking ships.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
It is the nation state which has allowed the flowering of democracy. Do not be too quick to consign it to the dustbin of history.
As Ukraine is currently demonstrating. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily the only model.
True but much like the current thread debate on ID, why change something that clearly works, to deal with an imaginary problem, and in doing so probably create more real problems.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
You snowflakes have a real thing about criticism = almost being labelled a fascist and therefore should not be allowed. There is a whole spectrum of malign. The Boris and post Boris version of the Tories is more malign than any UK government of my lifetime by a distance. That does not make them the worst political party in the world ever or anywhere remotely close, but they are still problematic and should be challenged loudly and clearly.
I was exaggerating for effect.
The point is criticise a governments actions. Don’t smear them as being somehow evil. The left lives to do that.
Again there is a whole spectrum of malign. Intentions behind actions matter. This was malign. Not evil, but malign. Still not evil. Nor terrible 1930s fascism. Malign.
Not in this post but in previous threads there have been comparisons of this government to 1930s Germany…
And malign is a much stronger word than you think
Well if it happened unfairly on a previous thread, complain about it on that thread, don't snowflake your way to try and stop criticism on this thread!
It’s happened on multiple occasions.
My point is that the language used and demonisation of opponents is not conducive to a healthy society.
I’m stunned that anyone actually disputes that!
Mere snowflakery to deflect criticism. Not to mention the hypocrisy when we get into the language of the government on immigration or even their own civil servants and judges.
Is it snowflakery to point out that all but one of all EU countries require ID? Is it snowflakery to point out that the objection to this very reasonable and sensible measure is actually a cynical ploy by Labour and other opposition parties to try and paint the government as "malign" and evil and therefore create division in society and mistrust in politics?
I have always loathed Johnson and his populist politics of division, but the reality is that many on the left in this country are equal if not far worse.
And all those countries that require ID to be shown also have National ID cards and probably a legal requirement to carry it at all times.
We don't have a national ID card and it's almost like this is designed to correct demand for it by stealth.
IIRC only 15 have mandatory ID cards. Your next desperate point?
Japan and New Zealand require no ID to vote. Canada and Australia require ID to vote, but in the event you don't have any on you, you can either have another voter attest to your identity or cast a provisional ballot.
As far as I can tell, the UK is unique in (a) not having ID cards, and (b) not offering any kind of on the day alternative for people without ID.
I don't know where you got that from. I was referring to Europe. Only 15 member countries have mandatory ID cards. All but one require voter ID.
So sorry your research, for what it is worth (Wiki) appears to be very wrong
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
Utterly off topic because it's not Europe but some US states make it almost impossible for poorer voters to get to a polling station.
Implementing laws to solve a problem that there is no evidence exists, but which disenfranchise millions of voters is immoral.
This isn't one of these cases where there are arguments on both sides of the debate. It's simply wrong.
(And making it impossible to vote by having polling stations with too few clerks or which are far from voters is equally wrong.)
If there was evidence of substantial personation (you know, like lots of people turning up to vote and finding someone had already voted), then obviously it would be different.
And you know, if you want to make absolutely sure there's no personation, then there are things you can do that don't disenfranchise people. Almost all countries which require voter ID have these provisons.
That we have chosen not to implement *any* backups, and given that a very substantial portion of the UK population does not carry photo ID on them, looks - to put it generously - like something designed for partisan advantage.
And that's pretty fucking sickening.
That's the question I posed upthread. Why do defenders of the change think we omitted to provide for any such backups, when everyone else has them ?
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
It is the nation state which has allowed the flowering of democracy. Do not be too quick to consign it to the dustbin of history.
As Ukraine is currently demonstrating. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily the only model.
indeed. Democracy did also originally flower in a city-state, too. In the modern world, nation states have allowed a lot of progress, though.
What I find most interesting are cosmopolitan metropolises when they were within and capitals of, as the centring of, Empires - Vienna, Constantinople, etc.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
Yes that was his point - a blockade having neutralised any US fleet there. He did a lot of mentioning China's hypersonic missile capability.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A blockade would also be difficult, unless they start actually sinking ships.
His point was that they would sink ships and no one (ie the US) would respond.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.
Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A blockade would also be difficult, unless they start actually sinking ships.
His point was that they would sink ships and no one (ie the US) would respond.
I think he's very wrong about that. FWIW.
Though if Trump gets back in, it might be a very different matter.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
It is the nation state which has allowed the flowering of democracy. Do not be too quick to consign it to the dustbin of history.
As Ukraine is currently demonstrating. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily the only model.
True but much like the current thread debate on ID, why change something that clearly works, to deal with an imaginary problem, and in doing so probably create more real problems.
Because have I ever mentioned that it happened to me. Turned up to vote and was told I had already voted. So it does happen (sample size/frequency me/PB contributors = 1/???).
Was it cock up or conspiracy? No idea. My gut feel is cock up but it could have been conspiracy. My constituency was a super-marginal also so it might easily have made a difference.
Of course probably cock up, but everyone at the polling station took it super seriously, phone calls were made, special authorisation for me to vote "again" was given.
I'm glad this thread has given me the opportunity to air this never-before-revealed incident.
Even the staff were grousing about these stupid rules.
‘We all know there’s no problem with voter impersonation.’
The key problem we need to solve is getting people to engage and get out to vote. Creating hurdles to solve the non existent problem of impersonation at best doesn’t help the core problem.
The trouble is that parties in safe seats have a vested interest in keeping those that stayed at home last time at home. All our political leaders, by definition have safe seats. The winning party overall wants to maintain the status quo that won them power.
1) A pedant notes: personation, not impersonation. I don't think anyone on any side has claimed there is a problem with impersonation of voters!
2) Struggling to be bothered to vote. Labour will win the ward easily anyway - hardly seems worth the effort just to add a tally in one box or other. And my polling station has changed: it used to be the sports club, which had a bar which served surprisingly good beer; it's now the church hall, which doesn't have a bar.
3) Inflation news: bought some tickets for the T20 Blast last night. Last year, a family of five could go for £20. This year, it costs over £50. It's still a better tournament than the 100, obviously, for all sorts of reasons. But the #1 reason it was a better tournament was that it was so agreeably cheap. I'd had half a mind I'd get tickets for all Lancashire's home games. But I think two is the most we can reasonably do. Still, they appear to be selling all their tickets, so it's what the market will bear I suppose - I always thought they were underselling their product. Even if it costs the same, mind, I'd rather go to watch Lancashire in the T20 than Manchester in the Hundred.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A blockade would also be difficult, unless they start actually sinking ships.
His point was that they would sink ships and no one (ie the US) would respond.
I think he's very wrong about that. FWIW.
Though if Trump gets back in, it might be a very different matter.
Very wrong but if one of the presidential candidates gets in a very different matter.
Doesn't therefore sound "very wrong" to me. But I think it's unlikely, if not very wrong.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Maybe the question should be if they win again what lessons have Labour to learn
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
It's an excellent question BigG - although one I hope doesn't arise and neither do I expect it to. But let's run with it. A stridently moderate Labour Party, as floating voter friendly as they can possibly be, fights a GE against a Tory Party who've been in power for 14 years, with the backdrop of a struggling economy, people worse off, and the Johnson and Truss debacles in recent memory.
The outcome of this is nevertheless a Tory win!
The questions raised for Labour would be existential. Why are we here? Why do we bother? It'd be a period of real soul searching about the party, its values, its place and purpose. It would also raise some deep (almost philosophical) questions about what on earth goes on in the minds of the electorate when they vote.
Union bosses have accused the Scottish Government of being “rooted in the past” over its veto of a new fleet of nuclear power stations to be built north of the Border.
The Herald revealed that the UK Government has given up attempting to impose nuclear power developments on Scotland, with SNP ministers continuing to oppose the energy source under current technology…..
Despite the opposition by the Scottish Government, under the UK Government’s plans to build new reactors, nuclear energy could still be used to power Scotland due to the UK’s single power grid.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Maybe the question should be if they win again what lessons have Labour to learn
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
It's an excellent question BigG - although one I hope doesn't arise and neither do I expect it to. But let's run with it. A stridently moderate Labour Party, as floating voter friendly as they can possibly be, fights a GE against a Tory Party who've been in power for 14 years, with the backdrop of a struggling economy, people worse off, and the Johnson and Truss debacles in recent memory.
The outcome of this is nevertheless a Tory win!
The questions raised for Labour would be existential. Why are we here? Why do we bother? It'd be a period of real soul searching about the party, its values, its place and purpose. It would also raise some deep (almost philosophical) questions about what on earth goes on in the minds of the electorate when they vote.
That is the 1992 scenario, but in reality if the Tories lose 50seats (which happens with a tied poll of 38%) then this government is over, even if Parliament is NOC.
Because have I ever mentioned that it happened to me. Turned up to vote and was told I had already voted. So it does happen (sample size/frequency me/PB contributors = 1/???).
Was it cock up or conspiracy? No idea. My gut feel is cock up but it could have been conspiracy. My constituency was a super-marginal also so it might easily have made a difference.
Of course probably cock up, but everyone at the polling station took it super seriously, phone calls were made, special authorisation for me to vote "again" was given.
I'm glad this thread has given me the opportunity to air this never-before-revealed incident.
Cockup probably. I'm surprised it doesn't happen more. Easy to cross through the wrong voter. Good to know it was taken seriously.
Ed Jennings @Ed_Jennings Fun fact: Took my Voter Authority Certificate to test it out. Apparently I was the first voter to turn up with one, and (more worryingly) the polling station staff hadn’t been told what one looked like.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
Saw this in my Facebook feed:
Would annoy the Chinese government far more if it showed Tibet and Xinjiang independent.
I considered spoiling my ballot paper in protest at this shambles.
But I decided it would annoy the Tories far more if they lost the seat.
Not sure whether the Green candidate can take it, but maybe if enough Labour voters vote Green I won’t have voted in vain.
Important to give feedback to the team politely but forcibly, and ask them to feedback your views on ID to the returning officer.
I asked. They said they were not permitted to feed my complaint back.
Of course not. They need to be able to report that there were no problems and nobody was unhappy about it. That means not noting any incidents or comments.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.
Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.
No, it's rather whether the US responds to China proceeding to war. It's not going to be the other way around.
There seems a strong case to me that Western nations should sell (at least the Taiwanese don't need billions of free handouts) Taiwan what it needs in terms of weaponry to put an invasion by China beyond the realms of possibility. I haven't seen an argument against this that measures up.
Well I support voter ID. But whatever one's opinion, I hope that no one is discourteous to the officials at the polling station; they are doing their jobs, as they are instructed to do them.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.
Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.
No, it's rather whether the US responds to China proceeding to war. It's not going to be the other way around.
Taiwan would not need the US to go to war on its behalf if it was bristling with a palisade of missiles and torpedos able to sink the Chinese Navy twice. They are a dignified independent democracy, with money - they should be permitted to purchase anything that can be provided.
Update from the trenches, or rather from a trencherman over dinner last night. An old China hand, actually, spent the past 30+ years in HK and was deported/singled out by the authorities there for his outspokenness.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
I can see China blockading Taiwan, but launching an invasion over 150 miles of Ocean against a very well equipped opponent would be very brave.
A proper blockade would be an act of war would it not ? It'd certainly wreck the world economically.
Yes and yes. The calculus is whether the US proceeds to war over Taiwan.
No, it's rather whether the US responds to China proceeding to war. It's not going to be the other way around.
China blockades Taiwan and to do so destroys the US fleet and then does the US proceed to war with China as a result.
I considered spoiling my ballot paper in protest at this shambles.
But I decided it would annoy the Tories far more if they lost the seat.
Not sure whether the Green candidate can take it, but maybe if enough Labour voters vote Green I won’t have voted in vain.
Important to give feedback to the team politely but forcibly, and ask them to feedback your views on ID to the returning officer.
I asked. They said they were not permitted to feed my complaint back.
I hope they are feeding back the number of voters they have to turn away or is that information also not being recorded?
Of course it isn't.
I thought some brief report / note was made from each station on how the day had gone and any issues encountered, in case it was relevant to the counting. If so, voter ID issues and protests may feature but I'd doubt they would feed back at the behest of individual voters.
It's intriguing how wedded the majority seem to be to nation states, most of which have only existed in their current form for a few hundred years at most.
Nationalism has been in the ascendancy in in recent centuries but is it 'forever'? I doubt it.
It is the nation state which has allowed the flowering of democracy. Do not be too quick to consign it to the dustbin of history.
As Ukraine is currently demonstrating. But that doesn't mean it is necessarily the only model.
I always find the idea that nationalism can be "modified" to a "rational" state amusing.
The concept of nationalism, as Orwell points out, has a large measure of faith in it. A semi-religious belief.
It is a bit like saying we are going to rationalise a religion.
I have not subscribed to the opinion that some in the conservative party have, that Sue Gray's report was influenced by her connections with labour.
However, it seems she was approached by Starmer in October and the point that is controversial is that her discussions with Starmer may be in breach of the civil service code and I suggest that it is wise to wait to see the report due shortly which will receive plenty of coverage in the media, not least Sky
On the subject of Sky, Sam Coates of posted this today which summarises the position as of now
The Tories and their client media have been saying that its a political stutch-up. Except that the report into Boris was done and dusted months before the first approach from Starmer.
Which means the scandal is that Ed Llewlyn stepped straight from the civil service to being David Cameron's Chief of Staff...
Indeed some have and they are wrong
Sue Gray's report was quite lenient for Johnson and I do not question its veracity
The question that is relevant is whether Starmer and Sue Gray entered discussions on her appointment in breach of the civil service code and on that subject it will become public knowledge soon enough and if she did any gardening leave she may have to take
You do seem to like to jump to conclusions where Starmer is concerned, I remember your early Currygate enthusiasm, yet with Partygate it was all "let's wait for the Gray Report".
If Sunak disallows Gray from ever working for Starmer, that is fair enough it is in his gift and a massive one-upmanship win for Sunak. He is after all Prime Minister. But in no way was Gray ever compromised over Partygate. Johnson was banged to rights because he was caught red-handed.
On topic. Mike's header is proof, it were needed, that the Conservatives under Johnson and now Sunak are far more malign with a plot to suppressa significant proportion of the population from voting is far more serious than the date at which Starmer first approached Gray
Your attitude is part of the problem with modern politics
The Tories have introduced a measure that they argue will improve security of the ballot. In principle that’s a good thing. Now you can argue whether it’s needed, or effective, or whether they should have reformed postal voting as well. All fair questions.
But instead you go for “malign” Tories. Evil demons. Only one step better than a fascist dictator (I paraphrase). That’s not constructive.
Perhaps as a punishment I should be barred from voting.
Your punishment is having SKS to put your faith in...
I saw PMQs on YouTube at midnight. I thought for a plodding donkey Sir Softie was rather articulate. Sunak on the other hand was as smooth as silk. A sleek, polished presentation of pre- prepared sound bites and a real dose of electioneering. He made no attempt to answer any one of Starmer's questions. And where I was mildly impressed with Starmer was his final question in which in the light of the Coronation he asked Sunak to join with him in celebrating the late Queen. Sunak could barely agree with that, and instead remained on script, banging on about voting Tory in tomorrow's election. As you know, I am a snowflake, so it wouldn't surprise you to learn I felt that was very disrespectful.
Starmer has no polished finish and really is a bit of a donkey, but beyond the slick delivery and the elocution Sunak really has nothing to offer. Enough, it would seem for many on this board, but where did running a country on crisp soundbites (for just 45 days) once get us?
Good morning
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
Sunak is no Major. The fundamental point is that a party that crashed the economy as badly as the Tories deserves and needs a rebuke from the electorate.
Only if the alternative is better which will be put to the test most likely in October 24
If they can win again after all this chaos, what lessons will the Tories learn?
Maybe the question should be if they win again what lessons have Labour to learn
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
It's an excellent question BigG - although one I hope doesn't arise and neither do I expect it to. But let's run with it. A stridently moderate Labour Party, as floating voter friendly as they can possibly be, fights a GE against a Tory Party who've been in power for 14 years, with the backdrop of a struggling economy, people worse off, and the Johnson and Truss debacles in recent memory.
The outcome of this is nevertheless a Tory win!
The questions raised for Labour would be existential. Why are we here? Why do we bother? It'd be a period of real soul searching about the party, its values, its place and purpose. It would also raise some deep (almost philosophical) questions about what on earth goes on in the minds of the electorate when they vote.
That is the 1992 scenario, but in reality if the Tories lose 50seats (which happens with a tied poll of 38%) then this government is over, even if Parliament is NOC.
Yep - although a touch worse imo. 1992 was a shock but I can find some rational explanations for why it happened. This time I'm not sure I'd be able to. Depressing thought, so probably best not to dwell on it. Like you say, a hung parliament should be enough for a change of government. Let's see what these Locals tell us. I'm hoping for an NEV lead in double digits.
There seems a strong case to me that Western nations should sell (at least the Taiwanese don't need billions of free handouts) Taiwan what it needs in terms of weaponry to put an invasion by China beyond the realms of possibility. I haven't seen an argument against this that measures up.
The problem with that is that if China wants to go to war over Taiwan, they will, regardless of what we do. As we saw with Russia and Ukraine; if an autocrat wants to take his country to war, he will.
And indeed, if we do send stuff, they'll use that as an excuse for war. And gullible idiots over here will shill those messages, to make the invasion 'our' fault.
Just back from the pub. The whole place was in uproar about Sue Grey-gate. Some in tears, some shouting, one poor chap even hounded out of the entire premises by a burly bouncer for daring to suggest that her appointment was a full three months after the departure of Boris Johnson.
I dread to think what will happen in the upcoming days with this. The mood is such anger against Sue Grey that there could be civil disorder.
If it turns violent, is that Fifty Shades of Gray?
Have you even read the book or seen the film?
A badly written novel and in a me-too world, rather an offensive sexploitation movie.
Are you still attending the Cozza dressed like Aerosmith? I'll look out for a Steven Tyler lookalike on the telly.
I think you’ve got your wires crossed. The bearskins should keep our head dry. We are not taking guns!
Are you sure your "bearskins" are for real? Odds they're really rabbitskins WAY more than 19 out of 20!
Running your finger through it, you can tell it’s not been alive at any point.
This pic has really piqued your interest again. You must be a complete sucker for the trappings of British pageantry
Bunnies and bears are both alive before being turned into hats.
Since you are such a mind reader, how many $500 bills am I thinking are currently in my wallet?
None. Zero.
You ARE a mind reader!
And you are broke.
You wouldn't make a mean, hurtful crack like that about Rishi Sunak!
It is known that local elections and by elections are limited predictors of general elections, what I don't know historically is how good local by elections are at predicting local elections.
The Tories sit only 4 points behind Labour on a prior NEV plus vote share change in the last 3 months local by elections. The numbers are a bit swingy and the last few months include bigger proportions from London, Scotland and Wales than from the shires where LEs are taking place.
But as a left leaning worrier, I am taking very seriously the possibility that the Tories might suffer very few losses, even as everyone and his dog knows otherwise. Call it practice for the GE.
Truth be told, I expect Labour to do better than a 4 point NEV lead, but not so much better.
The LE VI surveys all have Labour a bit better. I think the doubt here is on the turnout filters. Opinium recorded very high turnout intention in giving Labour a healthy vote lead in the areas voting, but their write up was sceptical of their own results. Btw, I think this year's pattern means a Lab NEV lead would be around 5 points more than their raw vote lead.
So, the element of doubt against this measure is simply that the turnout filters might be less developed in these surveys, and the pollsters are less experienced in local VI polling by simple fact that they do it less.
In summary, I'm not taking a shellacking for granted, and I think the counter possibility is worth bearing in mind for betting purposes.
I'm expecting differential turnout to favour Labour - a lot of Lab voters are really keen to vote, and I've only met a few Tories who feel like that.
Because have I ever mentioned that it happened to me. Turned up to vote and was told I had already voted. So it does happen (sample size/frequency me/PB contributors = 1/???).
Was it cock up or conspiracy? No idea. My gut feel is cock up but it could have been conspiracy. My constituency was a super-marginal also so it might easily have made a difference.
Of course probably cock up, but everyone at the polling station took it super seriously, phone calls were made, special authorisation for me to vote "again" was given.
I'm glad this thread has given me the opportunity to air this never-before-revealed incident.
The thing that bemuses me with this debate is how circular it all is, nobody ever changes their mind.
You have mentioned time and again this happened with you. Time and again, people repeat its an "imaginary" problem that never happens.
Time and again I've mentioned it was the independent Electoral Commission that first said we should have voter ID. Time and again people claim it was the Tories and done to circumvent the Electoral Commission.
I considered spoiling my ballot paper in protest at this shambles.
But I decided it would annoy the Tories far more if they lost the seat.
Not sure whether the Green candidate can take it, but maybe if enough Labour voters vote Green I won’t have voted in vain.
Important to give feedback to the team politely but forcibly, and ask them to feedback your views on ID to the returning officer.
I asked. They said they were not permitted to feed my complaint back.
Perfectly sensible. The Returning Officer and staff will be well aware of views about it, many hate it themselves, and it doesn't matter whether people moan to a polling station volunteer (almost all of whom are not electoral staff) en masse as they have no discretion about it and it does the RO.
What they need to do is be told to moan to their MP.
Comments
In certain circumstances, where you have an emergency that means you can't vote in person, you can apply for an emergency proxy.
This must be something that you weren't aware of before the normal proxy vote deadline.
You have a medical emergency (PDF)
You are away for work (PDF)
Your photo ID is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged, and the deadline to apply for a Voter Authority Certificate has passed. This form can also be used if your Anonymous Elector's Document is lost, stolen, destroyed or damaged.
These applications can be made up to 5pm on polling day.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/apply-vote-proxy#emergency-proxy-en
In Greece, the provincial nationalist-voting citizens of sparta laid siege to the new Athenian state, which they accused of beng too "international"..
South East 23%
East Midlands 17%
East 17%
North West 16%
West Midlands 11%
South West 7%
Yorkshire & Humber 5%
North East 4%
Total North & Midlands 53%
Total South 47%
I would just say that for some of us Sunak is just a great relief from the days of Johnson and the idiotic Truss and with Hunt he is seen as competent
He has a mountain to climb but no matter today's results he is the only conservative that has the ability to start the process of healing
Starmer is looking very likely to be the next PM but he is no Blair and the GE campaign will be interesting
And yesterday's highlights of PMQs was the take down of Starmer by Stephen Flynn heralding the fight for votes in Scotland between them
Plus, is that what voters turning up with no valid ID will be told?
Its annoying as hell with town's and parishes which can have upwards of 20 votes if they have no warding arrangements.
The audio recordings do not make for great listening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area
"National identity cards are issued to their citizens by the governments of all European Economic Area (EEA) member states except Denmark, Iceland and Ireland."
Of these, ID cards are compulsory for citizens in Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain,
However, in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and France, citizens "should be able to prove their identity if stopped by police". Which, I presume, means they need to carry photo ID on them at all times.
Which leaves, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Litchenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.
I don't know how you got to 15 without citizens without ID cards, unless you are including places like Germany where the law is "National identity card optional; however, a national identity card or passport is compulsory for German citizens aged 16 or over, and valid identity documentation is compulsory for other EEA citizens."
I make it Ireland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Liechtenstein, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway (7) where there is neither compulsory ID cards nor any requirement to carry ID.
As far as voting goes:
In Ireland, in addition to photo ID, you may also use a bank or credit card. (Source: https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/elections_and_referenda/voting/voting_procedure_in_a_general_election.html)
In Denmark, if you do not have photo ID, you can either be attested by another voter or you can provide other other ID: https://elections.im.dk/local-elections/voting-on-election-day
Finland does require photo ID: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/-/1410853/municipal-elections-proving-identity-at-polling-stations
Sweden allows other voters to attest to the ID of the voter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws#Sweden
Switzerland, like Finland, requires citizens to produce ID. However, in some cantons, e-voting is allowed by citizens on the day. If you have a polling card, you can vote from your phone on the day without going into a polling station. The app will take a photo of you when you cast your vote.
Norway, like Finland, requires ID. I have no idea whether there are alternatives.
It is worth noting that Norway and Finland uptake of the (voluntary) national ID card is close to 100%.
I can't think of a single democratic developed country that has disenfranchised so many people. Can you?
Dont teller Pike
Rest easy though I do not expect a majority conservative government post GE 24
Lie Harder...
Leopard 2 in the Ukraine - had forgotten that they mount an MG-3 (at 0:12). It's kind of a moment to see those in Ukraine again....
The original MK805 is now in the Italian Air Force museum in Rome.
Very pessimistic/realistic about China and Taiwan. Gives it 3-5 years before they try to retake and doesn't think The West will do much about it. Even if China sinks the US pacific fleet which I think is a bit of a stretch but I suppose you pays your money on this one and it's what Xi thinks not what I think.
Even the staff were grousing about these stupid rules.
‘We all know there’s no problem with voter impersonation.’
This isn't one of these cases where there are arguments on both sides of the debate. It's simply wrong.
(And making it impossible to vote by having polling stations with too few clerks or which are far from voters is equally wrong.)
If there was evidence of substantial personation (you know, like lots of people turning up to vote and finding someone had already voted), then obviously it would be different.
And you know, if you want to make absolutely sure there's no personation, then there are things you can do that don't disenfranchise people. Almost all countries which require voter ID have these provisons.
That we have chosen not to implement *any* backups, and given that a very substantial portion of the UK population does not carry photo ID on them, looks - to put it generously - like something designed for partisan advantage.
And that's pretty fucking sickening.
The trouble is that parties in safe seats have a vested interest in keeping those that stayed at home last time at home. All our political leaders, by definition have safe seats. The winning party overall wants to maintain the status quo that won them power.
https://twitter.com/dank_ackroyd/status/1654012190586699779?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
I raise Mr Thomas:
1) "Lavatory Cleaner"
2) Fisherman who had both his legs ripped off by a cable and whose body was dumped in the North Sea
But that doesn't mean it is necessarily the only model.
Why do defenders of the change think we omitted to provide for any such backups, when everyone else has them ?
What I find most interesting are cosmopolitan metropolises when they were within and capitals of, as the centring of, Empires - Vienna, Constantinople, etc.
Though if Trump gets back in, it might be a very different matter.
But I decided it would annoy the Tories far more if they lost the seat.
Not sure whether the Green candidate can take it, but maybe if enough Labour voters vote Green I won’t have voted in vain.
Because have I ever mentioned that it happened to me. Turned up to vote and was told I had already voted. So it does happen (sample size/frequency me/PB contributors = 1/???).
Was it cock up or conspiracy? No idea. My gut feel is cock up but it could have been conspiracy. My constituency was a super-marginal also so it might easily have made a difference.
Of course probably cock up, but everyone at the polling station took it super seriously, phone calls were made, special authorisation for me to vote "again" was given.
I'm glad this thread has given me the opportunity to air this never-before-revealed incident.
2) Struggling to be bothered to vote. Labour will win the ward easily anyway - hardly seems worth the effort just to add a tally in one box or other. And my polling station has changed: it used to be the sports club, which had a bar which served surprisingly good beer; it's now the church hall, which doesn't have a bar.
3) Inflation news: bought some tickets for the T20 Blast last night. Last year, a family of five could go for £20. This year, it costs over £50.
It's still a better tournament than the 100, obviously, for all sorts of reasons. But the #1 reason it was a better tournament was that it was so agreeably cheap. I'd had half a mind I'd get tickets for all Lancashire's home games. But I think two is the most we can reasonably do. Still, they appear to be selling all their tickets, so it's what the market will bear I suppose - I always thought they were underselling their product.
Even if it costs the same, mind, I'd rather go to watch Lancashire in the T20 than Manchester in the Hundred.
Doesn't therefore sound "very wrong" to me. But I think it's unlikely, if not very wrong.
The outcome of this is nevertheless a Tory win!
The questions raised for Labour would be existential. Why are we here? Why do we bother? It'd be a period of real soul searching about the party, its values, its place and purpose. It would also raise some deep (almost philosophical) questions about what on earth goes on in the minds of the electorate when they vote.
The Herald revealed that the UK Government has given up attempting to impose nuclear power developments on Scotland, with SNP ministers continuing to oppose the energy source under current technology…..
Despite the opposition by the Scottish Government, under the UK Government’s plans to build new reactors, nuclear energy could still be used to power Scotland due to the UK’s single power grid.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23499129.rooted-past-unions-blast-snp-nuclear-power-snub/?ref=twtrec
Of course, were something to end the UK’s single power grid…..
Ed Jennings
@Ed_Jennings
Fun fact: Took my Voter Authority Certificate to test it out. Apparently I was the first voter to turn up with one, and (more worryingly) the polling station staff hadn’t been told what one looked like.
But whatever one's opinion, I hope that no one is discourteous to the officials at the polling station; they are doing their jobs, as they are instructed to do them.
The alternative to proving your identity when voting is to vote by post.
Which is where almost every case of recorded voter fraud since 1918 has actually happened.
from each station on how the day had gone and any issues encountered, in case it was relevant to the counting. If so, voter ID issues and protests may feature but I'd doubt they would feed back at the behest of individual voters.
This thread has just been turned away from the polling station for not having the requisite photo ID
The concept of nationalism, as Orwell points out, has a large measure of faith in it. A semi-religious belief.
It is a bit like saying we are going to rationalise a religion.
And indeed, if we do send stuff, they'll use that as an excuse for war. And gullible idiots over here will shill those messages, to make the invasion 'our' fault.
You have mentioned time and again this happened with you. Time and again, people repeat its an "imaginary" problem that never happens.
Time and again I've mentioned it was the independent Electoral Commission that first said we should have voter ID. Time and again people claim it was the Tories and done to circumvent the Electoral Commission.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media-centre/id-needed-polling-stations-recommends-independent-watchdog
What they need to do is be told to moan to their MP.