It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
"Westinghouse is offering a smaller-scale nuclear reactor in an effort to expand access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy soars.
...
The AP300 will generate approximately 300 megawatts of energy, which will power approximately 300,000 homes, versus 1,200 megawatts for the AP1000, according to David Durham, president of energy systems at Westinghouse."
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
Your grandfather was NOT alone in this. He respected the spirit, if not letter, of the law.
Plus honoring the greatest law of all: love.
I wonder if any lawyer has attempted that line at trial.
Unfortunately, even if there is a power of attorney in place, it does not permit voting.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
I don't think it's even partisan in the usual sense. It's an importation of talking points from the US, even if they don't make any sense in a British context.
True, but it is partisan in the sense that it attempts (using US type gutter politics) to suggest electoral fraud or gerrymandering by the government when there isn't any. Quite sad really to see Trumpian tactics used by the British Labour Party
It is gerrymandering when all the options required to get photo ID required time, money and paperwork (a birth certificate say) that you may not have round.
Especially for those on here who could see simple solutions that would have resolved all the issues that were being complained about.
Basically in person voting fraud is hard work - there are way easier ways of doing it (postal voting being the obvious one where again the issue is known but nowt was done to implement the recommended changes).
The only example of voting fraud that I know about personally involved in person voting. The person in question put themselves on the electoral roll despite not having the right to vote. I'm not sure if the new rules on ID would have caught that.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
Sounds cosy.
Such a dense collection of democracy.
Are they all Lib Dems ?
A quick bit of googling will tell you which ward in Woking. As it has been won by all the 3 main parties I think it is fair to assume they have all been at it, although libel laws might restrict me to naming only those who have been 'sent down'.
I am also pretty sure that none of the main parties were actively involved. From personal knowledge I am aware that some, if not all, the main parties actively tried to prevent it happening and failed miserably.
Apoligies, I was making the Lib Dems comment in reference to the word "dense" in the previous post. As an amusement only.
No offence taken @Taz and no apology needed. I was just adding a bit more detail about the particular ward involved. In fact I might add that in the grand history of this ward more than one LD has been 'sent down' so It would be hypocritical of me to take offence even if I wanted to.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
"Westinghouse is offering a smaller-scale nuclear reactor in an effort to expand access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy soars.
...
The AP300 will generate approximately 300 megawatts of energy, which will power approximately 300,000 homes, versus 1,200 megawatts for the AP1000, according to David Durham, president of energy systems at Westinghouse."
Very sad how our pretend Government seems to be squandering our leadership in this area.
Just voted. Had to wake up the clerks. Nobody else but me and them in spitting distance of the polling station. Could be because it has moved from its usual spot. I would have gone to the wrong place if it wasn't on the other side of the road from me at the vicarage.
Sad to report that the id card issue is non existent here. They tell me everyone has come with one. Could be of course that only me and the vicar have voted.
Gardenwalker said: "The Coronation is not well timed for viewers in the Americas, including many no doubt loyal subjects in Canada and the Caribbean.
They should have kept the Lord’s flummery, and moved the time slot to “prime time”, which would probably be something like 7pm UK.
(2pm US; 7am NZ etc)"
It's a little more complicated than that. To begin with, the 48 contiguous states of the US have four time zones, Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific. (And individual states may, or may not, have daylight savings time.)
(FWIW, Vanilla knows which time zone I am in, and shows comments to me in -- currently - Pacific Daylight Time. So this comment will appear to me to be timed at about 8:42 AM.)
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
As predicted, the performative "being turned away" was inevitable.
I'm totally against the policy, but some low level disruption occurs even with regular changes, or no changes at all (people turning up not on the register for example). I'm not sure how to quantify the impact or perceived impact, as opposed to simply being against the principle of the changes, simply from reports of issues. Large Tory losses may make it harder to quickly identify if they've proportionally gained somehow.
And time zones did once affect the coverage of an American presidential election. The western-most part of Florida (commonly called the "panhandle") is in the Central tiem zone, so polls close in that generally Republican part of the state, an hour after they close in the rest of the state. This caused some confusion in 2000.
Watching Andor on Disney which is quite an entertaining Star Wars spin-off. However I have reached the bit where they steal “the Empire’s entire monthly payroll for this quadrant of the universe” etc etc, and it appears to be in the form of massive gold coins
I’m somewhat surprised that, given they have developed the ability to reformulate galaxies and destroy solar systems, the Empire hasn’t got the hang of digital banking and is still relying on cash
Next episode: an urchin steals Darth Vader’s kerchief
To be fair there is an interesting (well, boring and no one will ever touch it as a theme in fiction) question of how you’d manage to have a currency with a galactic empire that is, presumably, always expanding. It’s the eurozone problem in steroids. The Rebel Alliance could have just waited for it to fall apart when the evil Sith failed to set a workable monetary policy.
I’ll send you and outline and we can go halves.
Charlie's Stross covered it in Neptune's Brood with the concept of fast and slow money
Those notes actual refer to Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber which is important because it says - Barter, Graeber points out, isn't something that emerges, and that acts as a precursor to the development of money: rather, barter is what we get in atomized societies when fiscal systems collapse and nobody trusts their neighbours. True primitive tribal societies run on interpersonal debt and/or honour systems: everybody knows what their neighbours owe them, so there's no need to provide an immediate exchange for items of value received.
I think the universe of Star Wars or Star Trek is worse. Interstellar travel is portrayed as dead easy, so commodities are fungible between solar systems. If you’re doing that, and your empire is expanding, nothing is scarce. Nothing has value, other than work done. But work done has no value because it’s automated and, in Star Trek, you can replicate anything anyway.
You’ll end up either in socialist utopia or 1984 and a slave. Not sure which.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
In North Dakota not all that long ago (in my terms), you did not even need to register to vote. It's such a rural state, that you could assume the folks manning (or, more often womaning, in my experience) knew everyone who lived in their precincts, and for how long.
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
This is great, but would set a problem now as several million lifelong Tories have no intention whatever of voting for them this time, out of pure traditional Tory principle.
My late grandmother was of a different generation and made of sterner stuff.
She would absolutely not have flinched from her duty to vote for whoever or whatever was wearing a blue rosette, on trifling grounds such as total unsuitability, rampant corruption, and utter incompetence.
"Westinghouse is offering a smaller-scale nuclear reactor in an effort to expand access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy soars.
...
The AP300 will generate approximately 300 megawatts of energy, which will power approximately 300,000 homes, versus 1,200 megawatts for the AP1000, according to David Durham, president of energy systems at Westinghouse."
Very sad how our pretend Government seems to be squandering our leadership in this area.
Do we actually have leadership in this area? My understanding is that the US has produced modular nuclear reactors for their aircraft carriers and submarines for half a century, while for our own submarines we produce the US design under license.
I know Rolls Royce has plans for a small scale (modular) nuclear reactor, but if there's one thing we know, it is that development costs can run massively above budget (see Areva, which went essentially bust).
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
That bad? ... Ok. A passionate abstain then. At least you won't have to show ID for that.
Just voted. Had to wake up the clerks. Nobody else but me and them in spitting distance of the polling station. Could be because it has moved from its usual spot. I would have gone to the wrong place if it wasn't on the other side of the road from me at the vicarage.
Sad to report that the id card issue is non existent here. They tell me everyone has come with one. Could be of course that only me and the vicar have voted.
"Westinghouse is offering a smaller-scale nuclear reactor in an effort to expand access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy soars.
...
The AP300 will generate approximately 300 megawatts of energy, which will power approximately 300,000 homes, versus 1,200 megawatts for the AP1000, according to David Durham, president of energy systems at Westinghouse."
Very sad how our pretend Government seems to be squandering our leadership in this area.
Do we actually have leadership in this area? My understanding is that the US has produced modular nuclear reactors for their aircraft carriers and submarines for half a century, while for our own submarines we produce the US design under license.
I know Rolls Royce has plans for a small scale (modular) nuclear reactor, but if there's one thing we know, it is that development costs can run massively above budget (see Areva, which went essentially bust).
It’s impossible to go into the details here, and anyone who claims to is either lying or in breach of section two of the official secrets act, but the public line is that it’s not anywhere near so simple as Rolls building a US design under licence.
Just voted. Had to wake up the clerks. Nobody else but me and them in spitting distance of the polling station. Could be because it has moved from its usual spot. I would have gone to the wrong place if it wasn't on the other side of the road from me at the vicarage.
Sad to report that the id card issue is non existent here. They tell me everyone has come with one. Could be of course that only me and the vicar have voted.
Yes, but you've both done so 24 times, so turnout might be described as brisk.
Just voted. Had to wake up the clerks. Nobody else but me and them in spitting distance of the polling station. Could be because it has moved from its usual spot. I would have gone to the wrong place if it wasn't on the other side of the road from me at the vicarage.
Sad to report that the id card issue is non existent here. They tell me everyone has come with one. Could be of course that only me and the vicar have voted.
Let’s hope your candidate wins the toss, then…
The monster raving looney party might get both votes
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
A few years ago, there was a controversy in this area over some rich guys paying tuition at a good Catholic high school for some poor black kids. If that's all you knew, you might wonder why there was a controversy, why the rich guys weren't being commended for their generosity.
But, as it happened, the poor black kids just happened to be good athletes, and so that generosity broke some local rules.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
"Layla Moran, the Lib Dem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, said she had been told of issues in her constituency. “We’ve had reports by our tellers of people being turned away at polling stations for lack of correct ID,” she said. “Across the country I’m worried this will be significant numbers and far more than the exactly 0 people found guilty of fraud last year.”"
A useful convention would be that anything which potentially restricts the right to vote, or makes the process harder, needs to be accompanied by a measure agreed with the electoral commission as making voting commensurately easier or more attractive. And potentially vice-versa.
So, voter ID required: a fiver for everyone who comes to vote (total cost for a GE around £150m, which would immediately in most cases get ploughed back into the economy in spending).
Or voter ID required: lower the voting age to 17, say.
Personally think we should take the barbecued sausages bit of Australian elections, but probably leave out the compulsory bit for now.
OT. For anyone who hasn't read it a review of Johnson at No 10 "....Johnson's chaotic reign lays bare a man utterly unfit to hold the highest office writes Andrew Rawnsley"
"Westinghouse is offering a smaller-scale nuclear reactor in an effort to expand access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy soars.
...
The AP300 will generate approximately 300 megawatts of energy, which will power approximately 300,000 homes, versus 1,200 megawatts for the AP1000, according to David Durham, president of energy systems at Westinghouse."
Very sad how our pretend Government seems to be squandering our leadership in this area.
Do we actually have leadership in this area? My understanding is that the US has produced modular nuclear reactors for their aircraft carriers and submarines for half a century, while for our own submarines we produce the US design under license.
I know Rolls Royce has plans for a small scale (modular) nuclear reactor, but if there's one thing we know, it is that development costs can run massively above budget (see Areva, which went essentially bust).
The UK initially used American reactors, but diverged to a state where we share information with the US and they with us.
The two countries submarine programs are heavily intertwined - to the point that the US would (according to some congressional testimony) need to sort out UK approval to sell some sub tech abroad. Hence AUKUS.
The most dramatic result of this cooperation was that the UK shared the successful design for a pumpjet propulsors (sort of ducted propellors) and the US shared their latest reactor design that didn't need a coolant pump at quite high powers. This resulted in both countries building submarines that are as quiet at 20 knots as the previous generations were at 5 knots.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
As predicted, the performative "being turned away" was inevitable.
What's the difference between being turned away and being 'performatively' turned away?
Someone deliberately showing up with no ID even though they knew about the policy and have ID? I doubt many are doing that.
I imagine there will be a few saddos that might in the hope that a non-existent problem that they claim is for a non-existent problem might be seen as a problem
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
No longer will they be out and proud, but in and ashamed?
If only. The notoriety probably puffs them up further. They've also fallen out bigtime with The Oath Keepers. The latter offer a quieter, more reflective and cerebral fascism and look down their noses at the rather primitive Proudies.
No longer will they be out and proud, but in and ashamed?
If only. The notoriety probably puffs them up further. They've also fallen out bigtime with The Oath Keepers. The latter offer a quieter, more reflective and cerebral fascism and look down their noses at the rather primitive Proudies.
Just as the "intellectuals" of the SD looked down on the SS who looked down on the SA.
I am extremely ambivalent to the monarchy and the coronation but to be honest I do find it unpleasant to see many wanting to spoil it for those who are really looking forward to the day and support the monarchy
Sadly in these days of social media tolerance is being sacrificed and not for the better good
Each to their own is my belief, and I wish all those wanting to celebrate a historic day all the best
I am, with @OldKingCole, one of the few who will be witnessing a second coronation in our lifetime but in view of Charles's age I suspect many will do the same in the years ahead
AP (via Seattle Times): Ex-Proud Boys leader Tarrio guilty of Jan. 6 sedition plot
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and three other members of the far-right extremist group were convicted Thursday of a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol in a desperate bid to keep Donald Trump in power after the Republican lost the 2020 presidential election.
A jury in Washington, D.C., found Tarrio guilty of seditious conspiracy after hearing from dozens of witnesses over more than three months in one of the most serious cases brought in the stunning attack that unfolded on Jan. 6, 2021, as the world watched on live TV.
Tarrio was also convicted of obstructing Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory and obstructing law enforcement as well as two other conspiracy charges. He was cleared of an assault charge stemming from a co-defendant who stole an officer’s riot shield.
It’s a significant milestone for the Justice Department, which has now secured seditious conspiracy convictions against the leaders of two major extremist groups prosecutors say were intent on keeping Biden out of the White House at all costs. The charge carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years. . . .
In addition to Tarrio, a Miami resident, three other Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl.
Jurors have not yet reached a unanimous verdict on the sedition charge for fifth defendant: Dominic Pezzola. The judge told them to keep deliberating.
Nordean, of Auburn, Washington, was a Proud Boys chapter leader. Rehl led a group chapter in Philadelphia. Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, was a self-described Proud Boys organizer. Pezzola was a group member from Rochester, New York.
Prosecutors told jurors the group viewed itself as “Trump’s army” and was prepared for “all-out war” to stop Biden from becoming president.
The Proud Boys were “lined up behind Donald Trump and willing to commit violence on his behalf,” prosecutor Conor Mulroe said in his closing argument. . . . .
The backbone of the government’s case was hundreds of messages exchanged by Proud Boys in the days leading up to Jan. 6 that show the far-right extremist group peddling Trump’s false claims of a stolen election and trading fears over what would happen when Biden took office. . .
Defense lawyers denied there was any plot to attack the Capitol or stop Congress’ certification of Biden’s win. A lawyer for Tarrio sought to push the blame onto Trump, arguing the former president incited the pro-Trump mob’s attack when he urged the crowd near the White House to “fight like hell.” . . .
The Justice Department has yet to disclose how much prison time it will seek when the Oath Keepers are sentenced next month.
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
As predicted, the performative "being turned away" was inevitable.
What's the difference between being turned away and being 'performatively' turned away?
One involves turning up with the intention of "being turned away" so they can moan about the government in the Guardian or on Twitter.
Ah, I see. So if somebody moans about being turned away it indicates a set-up rather than a problem. And if they don't moan about it we don't get to hear about problems and can assume there aren't any!
What a ridiculous load of bollox it is expecting people to apologise for what their ancestors did.
OK folks if any of your ancestors were in Ireland approximately when my ancestors were there, then I would like to apologise to you for the fact that it is very likely that some of my ancestors were colonial Vikings. This of course means that I must also apologise to myself for the hurt caused by my Viking ancestors to my non-Viking ancestors.
On my English side I would like to apologise to all the people that would enjoy hearing an apology from someone who had absolutely no control over what my exploitative English industrialist ancestors did
There we are. Can you all please fucking apologise for what your ancestors did, particularly if you are a descendant of Ghengis Khan, which seeing as it is said he has 16 million, that probably includes quite a lot of you.
Get out there and say sorry for things you did not do.
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
Are the election officials expected to count the number of people rejected because they don't have id? If not, why not? If so, surely it is countable rather than countless?
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
As predicted, the performative "being turned away" was inevitable.
What's the difference between being turned away and being 'performatively' turned away?
One involves turning up with the intention of "being turned away" so they can moan about the government in the Guardian or on Twitter.
Ah, I see. So if somebody moans about being turned away it indicates a set-up rather than a problem.
If they moan on Twitter or in the Guardian, yeah, most probably. Given that it's pretty much impossible to have been unaware of the ID requirements given the way the poll card was delivered.
No longer will they be out and proud, but in and ashamed?
If only. The notoriety probably puffs them up further. They've also fallen out bigtime with The Oath Keepers. The latter offer a quieter, more reflective and cerebral fascism and look down their noses at the rather primitive Proudies.
Just as the "intellectuals" of the SD looked down on the SS who looked down on the SA.
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
Are the election officials expected to count the number of people rejected because they don't have id? If not, why not? If so, surely it is countable rather than countless?
That data probably is going to be recorded by some areas, even if not everyone is doing so,
I think the AEA comment will be important, simply because if things are run smoothly (and elections teams have worked hard to be prepared) the focus for and against will have to focus on actual examples of people turned away and not be able to either excuse r defend issues as teething problems administratively.
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
As predicted, the performative "being turned away" was inevitable.
What's the difference between being turned away and being 'performatively' turned away?
One involves turning up with the intention of "being turned away" so they can moan about the government in the Guardian or on Twitter.
Ah, I see. So if somebody moans about being turned away it indicates a set-up rather than a problem.
If they moan on Twitter or in the Guardian, yeah, most probably. Given that it's pretty much impossible to have been unaware of the ID requirements given the way the poll card was delivered.
Of course the voters who didn't hear about the requirement, don't have ID, and don't complain on twitter or in the Guardian don't really count do they.
The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.
Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.
The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.
Bollocks Klaxon at full volume
What are your prediction for seats for Westminster and the Scottish parliament after the next election(s) ?
Far too early to tell, though way SNP keep shooting themselves in the foot it could be thay they will get an absolute hammering. They seem desperate to alienate everybody and the weirdo nutcase Greens are unbelievable. Still hard to believe that people will go back to Labour who were more crooked and more useless and London lapdogs for 40 years beforehand. However having seen teh amount of spineless idiots about here anything is possible. Doom is my only prediction at this point. @Malmesbury
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
...and no avenue to vote and 'cure' or validate the voter's ID post-election either.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
The polling station was busier than I've known it. ID was pretty perfunctory which suggests a bigger than normal turnout so a bad night for the Tories.
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
...and no avenue to vote and 'cure' or validate the voter's ID post-election either.
Curing votes post election seems a right old faff. Not in favour of that.
But if we must have photographic ID make driving licenses and passports free of charge.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
My argument is not over the implementation (which could clearly be a lot better), it is over the merit of doing it, which common sense (and the evidence of other countries) tells me is a stronger case than saying "oh I can't see any fraud" when you are very unlikely to anyway when the system is so open to abuse. Labour on the other hand, see this as a Trumpian opportunity to paint their political foes as being involved in voter suppression which is complete nonsense. What you can conclude from this is that Labour is happy to have a system that is wide open to fraud.
I suspect that a large number of those who don't have requisite ID probably don't care as they probably don't vote. It really is a non-issue that has been blown out of all proportion by cynical politics.
Radio On the eve of the coronation, the King made a live broadcast from Buckingham Palace which was heard throughout the British Empire.
The Coronation ceremony itself was not televised, but it was the first coronation service to be broadcast on radio; 28 microphones were placed around the Abbey to capture the music and speech. There was no commentary, but the Reverend Frederic Iremonger, Director of Religion at the BBC and Honorary Chaplain to the King, read out the rubrics or written directions from the service book from a seat high in the triforium over Saint Edward's Chapel.
During the most sacred parts of the service, the consecration and the Holy Communion, the microphones were turned off and listeners heard hymns being sung by the choir in the Church of St Margaret, Westminster. The ability to project the service to citizens of the Empire allowed the Coronation to further Britain's imperial ambitions; as Range wrote, "with the twentieth century there also came a heightened awareness of ... the propagandistic qualities of the event".
The BBC and CBC jointly transmitted the proclamation of George VI. In the lead up to the Coronation, the BBC organised talks by Ministers to be broadcast under the name Responsibilities of Empire, and also broadcast The Empire's Homage featuring messages from colonial officers and citizens from across the Empire. The BBC's Empire Service broadcast the whole service, lasting two-and-a-half hours.
Television The procession was broadcast on the BBC Television Service, which had only been operating since the previous November. Several tons of television cables, measuring 8 miles (13 km), were laid across central London, so that the images from three Emitron television cameras could be sent to the transmission centre at Alexandra Palace.
Commentary was by Frederick Grisewood, who was with the cameras at Hyde Park Corner. The coverage of the procession is regarded as being the BBC's first outside broadcast.[64] In reviewing the broadcast, The Daily Telegraph commented: "Horse and foot, the Coronation procession marched into English homes yesterday," while the Daily Mail said: "When the King and Queen appeared the picture was so vivid that one felt that this magical television is going to be one of the greatest of all modern inventions."
Newsreels The coronation service of George VI was the first to be filmed; the 40 camera crew inside the Abbey were required to wear evening dress. It was later shown in edited form as a newsreel in cinemas across the British Empire. The service was later broadcast from these recordings, with the authorities censoring only one small section: a clip of Queen Mary wiping a tear from her eye.
The polling station was busier than I've known it. ID was pretty perfunctory which suggests a bigger than normal turnout so a bad night for the Tories.
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
You may well be right but the media are already in coronation obsession mode which is likely to overwhelm all news this weekend and crowd out the locals
Just voted. Almost empty. Staff looked surprised and relieved when I walked up to the desk, driving license in hand. They seemed to be prepared for agro.
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.
Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.
The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.
Bollocks Klaxon at full volume
What are your prediction for seats for Westminster and the Scottish parliament after the next election(s) ?
Far too early to tell, though way SNP keep shooting themselves in the foot it could be thay they will get an absolute hammering. They seem desperate to alienate everybody and the weirdo nutcase Greens are unbelievable. Still hard to believe that people will go back to Labour who were more crooked and more useless and London lapdogs for 40 years beforehand. However having seen teh amount of spineless idiots about here anything is possible. Doom is my only prediction at this point. @Malmesbury
The SNP is surging in England though. The cross breaks in both of the last two YouGov GB polls have the SNP on a steady 1% in the England sub-sample.
The polling station was busier than I've known it. ID was pretty perfunctory which suggests a bigger than normal turnout so a bad night for the Tories.
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
You may well be right but the media are already in coronation obsession mode which is likely to overwhelm all news this weekend and crowd out the locals
That may well be true but if the Tory vote is low, it's low; that not being splashed across the news doesn't give them any solace at all.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
...and no avenue to vote and 'cure' or validate the voter's ID post-election either.
Curing votes post election seems a right old faff. Not in favour of that.
But if we must have photographic ID make driving licenses and passports free of charge.
In Washington State, "curing" ballots submitted via mail or drop boxes, to make them eligible to count, takes place before and during Election Day, up until one day prior to official certification of the election.
For some info, including real-time statistics from April 2023 special election in King County, check out this link
If folk must protest, this is the way to do it. It feels properly British. None of your gilet jaune rabble or invading government buildings; we mow a cock into a lawn.
The local election in the Coxford Ward in Southampton has been suspended due to the death of the conservative candidate, Graham Galton, after the polls opened
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
...and no avenue to vote and 'cure' or validate the voter's ID post-election either.
Curing votes post election seems a right old faff. Not in favour of that.
But if we must have photographic ID make driving licenses and passports free of charge.
There is of course no evidence we need photographic ID. Tightening up on postal votes would probably stop some actual voting fraud.
The polling station was busier than I've known it. ID was pretty perfunctory which suggests a bigger than normal turnout so a bad night for the Tories.
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
Countless examples? Is there no number large enough to describe how many there were, or is this just needless hyperbole?
Yep, if anyone uses the word "countless" or "many" it is a way to hide the real unimpressive statistic
Given the numerical ability of most journalists I assume countless is accurate and simply means more than 10 (fewer in winter when they are wearing gloves.)
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
Who gets your vote today then Pagan?
No one, only have choice of the main 3 so why bother. Its like being asked would you rather be sodomized by a donkey, a bull or a pig
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
As predicted, the performative "being turned away" was inevitable.
What's the difference between being turned away and being 'performatively' turned away?
One involves turning up with the intention of "being turned away" so they can moan about the government in the Guardian or on Twitter.
Ah, I see. So if somebody moans about being turned away it indicates a set-up rather than a problem.
If they moan on Twitter or in the Guardian, yeah, most probably. Given that it's pretty much impossible to have been unaware of the ID requirements given the way the poll card was delivered.
Of course the voters who didn't hear about the requirement, don't have ID, and don't complain on twitter or in the Guardian don't really count do they.
I can't believe any legitimate voter can have been unaware of the requirement, given the way the poll card was delivered.
The local election in the Coxford Ward in Southampton has been suspended due to the death of the conservative candidate, Graham Galton, after the polls opened
I thought it was supposed to continue, and then be re-run if the elected candidate turns out not to be able to take office due to not being alive on the pertinent date?
The polling station was busier than I've known it. ID was pretty perfunctory which suggests a bigger than normal turnout so a bad night for the Tories.
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
You may well be right but the media are already in coronation obsession mode which is likely to overwhelm all news this weekend and crowd out the locals
That may well be true but if the Tory vote is low, it's low; that not being splashed across the news doesn't give them any solace at all.
I agree but it is a good time for the conservatives to bury bad news
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
...and no avenue to vote and 'cure' or validate the voter's ID post-election either.
Curing votes post election seems a right old faff. Not in favour of that.
But if we must have photographic ID make driving licenses and passports free of charge.
There is of course no evidence we need photographic ID. Tightening up on postal votes would probably stop some actual voting fraud.
I do not think we should have photographic ID. But likely we are now stuck with it, so the next step is to make the forms of ID that have most use outside of voting, driving licenses and passports, free.
Not sure it would cost anything anyway, paying out of general taxation takes away a load of admin costs vs some extra eligible people would get one and youd probably expect a small increase in people losing them if they are free to replace. Feels like savings vs costs would balance themselves out, and slightly re-distributive.
The polling station was busier than I've known it. ID was pretty perfunctory which suggests a bigger than normal turnout so a bad night for the Tories.
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
You may well be right but the media are already in coronation obsession mode which is likely to overwhelm all news this weekend and crowd out the locals
The polling station was busier than I've known it. ID was pretty perfunctory which suggests a bigger than normal turnout so a bad night for the Tories.
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
The 1992 General Election with its high turnout is a good counter example.
My own voting experience (8:15am): one teller (Con) outside chatting to a polling clerk - the teller only asked me which of the two wards at that polling station I was in.
Presented poll card with driving licence to make it easier for the clerk, ID check seemed to be perfunctory but perhaps not waiting to be asked for ID speeded it up.
Abstained on the grounds of all candidates standing for parties that were members of either the current useless administration or the previous equally useless administration.
If folk must protest, this is the way to do it. It feels properly British. None of your gilet jaune rabble or invading government buildings; we mow a cock into a lawn.
I'm not really seeing any great celebration around my neck of woods for the coronation of Chaz. The village hall has a bit of bunting, a couple of houses have bunting up, but no street parties around me. The village pub isn't doing anything special. What's it like elsewhere?
The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.
Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.
The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.
I wouldn't be surprised. The Tory Party in its present incarnation is vile. I just received a text from an old friend saying she had just received her Austrian passport. Her late father was an Austrian refugee and apparently that entitles her and her whole family- children included -to an Austrian (EU) passport.
There seems to be quite a scramble in London in particular to look for for loopholes that will get people EU passports. How ridiculous that people are having to go through hoops to get what we all had by right before this Tory/UKIP government took power
Every day, thousands of refugees flee this country for the Continent.
In large boats?
If you're bothered about corruption in government, Austria would be a curious choice of country to move to.
Nobody moves anywhere. It's a second passport which means you have all the benefits you had three years ago whereby you can live and work in 28 different countries
I'm not really seeing any great celebration around my neck of woods for the coronation of Chaz. The village hall has a bit of bunting, a couple of houses have bunting up, but no street parties around me. The village pub isn't doing anything special. What's it like elsewhere?
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Not really. 26 countries of EU have compulsory ID for voting. Only 15 have mandatory ID cards. It isn't inevitable.
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
So if you're right (and you haven't linked to any source so I'm not prepared to accept your claim on face value) that could still be 15 countries with mandatory (photo) ID cards requiring photo ID cards, and 11 without photo ID cards requiring some other non-photographic ID, making your total of 26.
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
My argument is not over the implementation (which could clearly be a lot better), it is over the merit of doing it, which common sense (and the evidence of other countries) tells me is a stronger case than saying "oh I can't see any fraud" when you are very unlikely to anyway when the system is so open to abuse. Labour on the other hand, see this as a Trumpian opportunity to paint their political foes as being involved in voter suppression which is complete nonsense. What you can conclude from this is that Labour is happy to have a system that is wide open to fraud.
I suspect that a large number of those who don't have requisite ID probably don't care as they probably don't vote. It really is a non-issue that has been blown out of all proportion by cynical politics.
No, it is anything but common sense. The number of documented cases of fraud over the past few years can literally be counted on one hand. So you admit that your claim of widespread fraud rests on it being wholly undetectable. Reminds me of the supposed existance of ether, or of WMDs in Iraq.
Yet fraud should not be undetectable. While the system as now could allow someone to vote for someone else, if it was happening even on a minimal scale, in some cases people would find on turning up at polling stations that their vote had already been cast. Unless you could be certain that someone was not going to vote, some such cases of attempted double voting would be bound to come to light. The cases would be detected retrospectively and a report of potential fraud submitted in each case by electoral officers. Likewise, sample cross checks with registers of deaths against the marked register would be able to find that find that some dead people had apparently voted. But the retrospective evidence for any of that happening is also almost non-existent. The evidence is that the system on polling day is not broken.
So I think the undetectable cases would boil down to a very few ones almost all involving collusion by the person casting a vote and the person whose vote is being cast, so essentially proxy votes cast by unofficial means. Maybe a daughter voting for a bed bound mother (it could hardly be the father.) And even then, those few votes would be cast in an essentially random way, some for Conservatives, some for Labour etc, in such a way that the randomness all but cancels them out. No way could that distort the outcome of elections in any meaningful way, in which case there is no problem.
Compare that to the effect of putting in place proof of identity requirements that 2 million people can't meet, and specifically applying those exclusions to groups whose voting patterns are going to be quite skewed. Those under pensionable age. Those who have no current or old passports (so likely to be young and/or unable to afford to travel abroad.) Those who don't have access to a car (and households without a car is a very good predictor of poverty.) Basically all demographics likely to be heavily skewed to Labour.
Make no mistake. Voter suppression, big time, by the Conservative Party.
"Campaigners claim there have been “countless examples” of would-be voters being turned away from polling stations in the first elections where photo identification is mandatory.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
The least surprising news of the day. I hope that the numerous plonkers on here who went out to bat for this needless change will now eat humble pie.
It is totally irrelevant as a change as voting doesn't matter. You will get in a party that won't actually fix anything as if they actually fix anything they won't ever get voted in because of the losers from the thing they fixed.
Comments
"Westinghouse is offering a smaller-scale nuclear reactor in an effort to expand access to nuclear power as demand for clean energy soars.
...
The AP300 will generate approximately 300 megawatts of energy, which will power approximately 300,000 homes, versus 1,200 megawatts for the AP1000, according to David Durham, president of energy systems at Westinghouse."
Could the person using the lasting power of attorney apply for a proxy vote on the basis that apply for proxy is not a decision on voting?
Sad to report that the id card issue is non existent here. They tell me everyone has come with one. Could be of course that only me and the vicar have voted.
They should have kept the Lord’s flummery, and moved the time slot to “prime time”, which would probably be something like 7pm UK.
(2pm US; 7am NZ etc)"
It's a little more complicated than that. To begin with, the 48 contiguous states of the US have four time zones, Eastern, Central, Mountain, and Pacific. (And individual states may, or may not, have daylight savings time.)
Alaska has two more time zones, and Hawaii one more: There's a map here showing all the US and Canadian time zones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Time_Zone
(FWIW, Vanilla knows which time zone I am in, and shows comments to me in -- currently - Pacific Daylight Time. So this comment will appear to me to be timed at about 8:42 AM.)
You’ll end up either in socialist utopia or 1984 and a slave. Not sure which.
She would absolutely not have flinched from her duty to vote for whoever or whatever was wearing a blue rosette, on trifling grounds such as total unsuitability, rampant corruption, and utter incompetence.
I know Rolls Royce has plans for a small scale (modular) nuclear reactor, but if there's one thing we know, it is that development costs can run massively above budget (see Areva, which went essentially bust).
With respect to David-couldnt-negotiate-a- discount-at-SCS-Davies ; I am not sure I would expect him to be able to identify a slippery slope if he stood at the top of an unpisted black run in my favourite French alpine ski resort.
But, as it happened, the poor black kids just happened to be good athletes, and so that generosity broke some local rules.
https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/23501089.pranksters-mow-giant-penis-lawn-royal-crescent-bath/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65481714
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/04/england-local-elections-2023-voter-id-conservatives-labour-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-latest
So, voter ID required: a fiver for everyone who comes to vote (total cost for a GE around £150m, which would immediately in most cases get ploughed back into the economy in spending).
Or voter ID required: lower the voting age to 17, say.
Personally think we should take the barbecued sausages bit of Australian elections, but probably leave out the compulsory bit for now.
Amen to that.....
ttps://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/apr/30/johnson-at-10-anthony-seldon-raymond-newell-review-ducking-and-diving-with-the-pm-who-would-be-king-boris-johnson
The two countries submarine programs are heavily intertwined - to the point that the US would (according to some congressional testimony) need to sort out UK approval to sell some sub tech abroad. Hence AUKUS.
The most dramatic result of this cooperation was that the UK shared the successful design for a pumpjet propulsors (sort of ducted propellors) and the US shared their latest reactor design that didn't need a coolant pump at quite high powers. This resulted in both countries building submarines that are as quiet at 20 knots as the previous generations were at 5 knots.
I am extremely ambivalent to the monarchy and the coronation but to be honest I do find it unpleasant to see many wanting to spoil it for those who are really looking forward to the day and support the monarchy
Sadly in these days of social media tolerance is being sacrificed and not for the better good
Each to their own is my belief, and I wish all those wanting to celebrate a historic day all the best
I am, with @OldKingCole, one of the few who will be witnessing a second coronation in our lifetime but in view of Charles's age I suspect many will do the same in the years ahead
Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio and three other members of the far-right extremist group were convicted Thursday of a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol in a desperate bid to keep Donald Trump in power after the Republican lost the 2020 presidential election.
A jury in Washington, D.C., found Tarrio guilty of seditious conspiracy after hearing from dozens of witnesses over more than three months in one of the most serious cases brought in the stunning attack that unfolded on Jan. 6, 2021, as the world watched on live TV.
Tarrio was also convicted of obstructing Congress’ certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory and obstructing law enforcement as well as two other conspiracy charges. He was cleared of an assault charge stemming from a co-defendant who stole an officer’s riot shield.
It’s a significant milestone for the Justice Department, which has now secured seditious conspiracy convictions against the leaders of two major extremist groups prosecutors say were intent on keeping Biden out of the White House at all costs. The charge carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years. . . .
In addition to Tarrio, a Miami resident, three other Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl.
Jurors have not yet reached a unanimous verdict on the sedition charge for fifth defendant: Dominic Pezzola. The judge told them to keep deliberating.
Nordean, of Auburn, Washington, was a Proud Boys chapter leader. Rehl led a group chapter in Philadelphia. Biggs, of Ormond Beach, Florida, was a self-described Proud Boys organizer. Pezzola was a group member from Rochester, New York.
Prosecutors told jurors the group viewed itself as “Trump’s army” and was prepared for “all-out war” to stop Biden from becoming president.
The Proud Boys were “lined up behind Donald Trump and willing to commit violence on his behalf,” prosecutor Conor Mulroe said in his closing argument. . . . .
The backbone of the government’s case was hundreds of messages exchanged by Proud Boys in the days leading up to Jan. 6 that show the far-right extremist group peddling Trump’s false claims of a stolen election and trading fears over what would happen when Biden took office. . .
Defense lawyers denied there was any plot to attack the Capitol or stop Congress’ certification of Biden’s win. A lawyer for Tarrio sought to push the blame onto Trump, arguing the former president incited the pro-Trump mob’s attack when he urged the crowd near the White House to “fight like hell.” . . .
The Justice Department has yet to disclose how much prison time it will seek when the Oath Keepers are sentenced next month.
The Electoral Reform Society, which has strongly opposed the introduction, urged ministers to rethink the new law as voters went to the polls in the local elections in England on Thursday, PA Media reports. But the Association of Electoral Administrators said the polls were “running as smoothly as usual”.
Jess Garland, the Electoral Reform Society’s director of policy and research, said: “We’re already seeing countless examples of people being denied their right to vote due to these new laws.
“From people caught out by having the wrong type of photo ID to others turned away for not looking enough like their photo.
“One voter turned away is one voter too many. The government must take lessons from the problems we’re seeing today at polling stations across the country and face up to the fact that these new rules damage our elections more than they protect them.”"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/may/04/england-local-elections-2023-voter-id-conservatives-labour-rishi-sunak-uk-politics-latest#top-of-blog
I sometimes think you're wasted on here.
What a ridiculous load of bollox it is expecting people to apologise for what their ancestors did.
OK folks if any of your ancestors were in Ireland approximately when my ancestors were there, then I would like to apologise to you for the fact that it is very likely that some of my ancestors were colonial Vikings. This of course means that I must also apologise to myself for the hurt caused by my Viking ancestors to my non-Viking ancestors.
On my English side I would like to apologise to all the people that would enjoy hearing an apology from someone who had absolutely no control over what my exploitative English industrialist ancestors did
There we are. Can you all please fucking apologise for what your ancestors did, particularly if you are a descendant of Ghengis Khan, which seeing as it is said he has 16 million, that probably includes quite a lot of you.
Get out there and say sorry for things you did not do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3VrJw9u9I
GF would probably point to this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-Uo7GFzcrw
The issue is not the ID, it's the requirement for an acceptable form of photographic ID, which in the absence of a national UK identity card an estimated 2 million potential UK voters don't have. And which 97% of those 2 million still didn't have, at the cut off 2 weeks before polling day.
I think the AEA comment will be important, simply because if things are run smoothly (and elections teams have worked hard to be prepared) the focus for and against will have to focus on actual examples of people turned away and not be able to either excuse r defend issues as teething problems administratively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_IA9T3uT8M
https://twitter.com/mrianleslie/status/1654091933575270400/photo/1
Still hard to believe that people will go back to Labour who were more crooked and more useless and London lapdogs for 40 years beforehand. However having seen teh amount of spineless idiots about here anything is possible. Doom is my only prediction at this point. @Malmesbury
People rarely assemble in numbers to congratulate the government on how well they're doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area
the only EU countries where ID isn't compulsory are Ireland, Sweden, Denmark and Austria. Edit and Finland!
I also doubt that 26 EU countries require photo ID to vote. I know in Germany it isn't required because I've done it several times.
But if we must have photographic ID make driving licenses and passports free of charge.
I suspect that a large number of those who don't have requisite ID probably don't care as they probably don't vote. It really is a non-issue that has been blown out of all proportion by cynical politics.
exerpts -
Radio
On the eve of the coronation, the King made a live broadcast from Buckingham Palace which was heard throughout the British Empire.
The Coronation ceremony itself was not televised, but it was the first coronation service to be broadcast on radio; 28 microphones were placed around the Abbey to capture the music and speech. There was no commentary, but the Reverend Frederic Iremonger, Director of Religion at the BBC and Honorary Chaplain to the King, read out the rubrics or written directions from the service book from a seat high in the triforium over Saint Edward's Chapel.
During the most sacred parts of the service, the consecration and the Holy Communion, the microphones were turned off and listeners heard hymns being sung by the choir in the Church of St Margaret, Westminster. The ability to project the service to citizens of the Empire allowed the Coronation to further Britain's imperial ambitions; as Range wrote, "with the twentieth century there also came a heightened awareness of ... the propagandistic qualities of the event".
The BBC and CBC jointly transmitted the proclamation of George VI. In the lead up to the Coronation, the BBC organised talks by Ministers to be broadcast under the name Responsibilities of Empire, and also broadcast The Empire's Homage featuring messages from colonial officers and citizens from across the Empire. The BBC's Empire Service broadcast the whole service, lasting two-and-a-half hours.
Television
The procession was broadcast on the BBC Television Service, which had only been operating since the previous November. Several tons of television cables, measuring 8 miles (13 km), were laid across central London, so that the images from three Emitron television cameras could be sent to the transmission centre at Alexandra Palace.
Commentary was by Frederick Grisewood, who was with the cameras at Hyde Park Corner. The coverage of the procession is regarded as being the BBC's first outside broadcast.[64] In reviewing the broadcast, The Daily Telegraph commented: "Horse and foot, the Coronation procession marched into English homes yesterday," while the Daily Mail said: "When the King and Queen appeared the picture was so vivid that one felt that this magical television is going to be one of the greatest of all modern inventions."
Newsreels
The coronation service of George VI was the first to be filmed; the 40 camera crew inside the Abbey were required to wear evening dress. It was later shown in edited form as a newsreel in cinemas across the British Empire. The service was later broadcast from these recordings, with the authorities censoring only one small section: a clip of Queen Mary wiping a tear from her eye.
Own goal by the government, I expect.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/vbxqddbe8g/TheTimes_VI_AdHoc_230419_W.pdf
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/b5hfshk8fs/TheTimes_VI_230427_W.pdf
For some info, including real-time statistics from April 2023 special election in King County, check out this link
https://kingcounty.gov/depts/elections/results/ballot-return-statistics/2023/202302.aspx
Sunak can breathe easy.
Not sure it would cost anything anyway, paying out of general taxation takes away a load of admin costs vs some extra eligible people would get one and youd probably expect a small increase in people losing them if they are free to replace. Feels like savings vs costs would balance themselves out, and slightly re-distributive.
Presented poll card with driving licence to make it easier for the clerk, ID check seemed to be perfunctory but perhaps not waiting to be asked for ID speeded it up.
Abstained on the grounds of all candidates standing for parties that were members of either the current useless administration or the previous equally useless administration.
Did enjoy this though: https://theiaincameron.medium.com/the-profaning-prince-73520aed6a1d
Yet fraud should not be undetectable. While the system as now could allow someone to vote for someone else, if it was happening even on a minimal scale, in some cases people would find on turning up at polling stations that their vote had already been cast. Unless you could be certain that someone was not going to vote, some such cases of attempted double voting would be bound to come to light. The cases would be detected retrospectively and a report of potential fraud submitted in each case by electoral officers. Likewise, sample cross checks with registers of deaths against the marked register would be able to find that find that some dead people had apparently voted. But the retrospective evidence for any of that happening is also almost non-existent. The evidence is that the system on polling day is not broken.
So I think the undetectable cases would boil down to a very few ones almost all involving collusion by the person casting a vote and the person whose vote is being cast, so essentially proxy votes cast by unofficial means. Maybe a daughter voting for a bed bound mother (it could hardly be the father.) And even then, those few votes would be cast in an essentially random way, some for Conservatives, some for Labour etc, in such a way that the randomness all but cancels them out. No way could that distort the outcome of elections in any meaningful way, in which case there is no problem.
Compare that to the effect of putting in place proof of identity requirements that 2 million people can't meet, and specifically applying those exclusions to groups whose voting patterns are going to be quite skewed. Those under pensionable age. Those who have no current or old passports (so likely to be young and/or unable to afford to travel abroad.) Those who don't have access to a car (and households without a car is a very good predictor of poverty.) Basically all demographics likely to be heavily skewed to Labour.
Make no mistake. Voter suppression, big time, by the Conservative Party.
Democracy is fucking as dead as a norwegian blue