Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.
It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.
Not sure about that. Evidence suggests ethnic minorities less likely to have valid ID.
Fairly confident the Tories would not be introducing this, in the face of opposition from other parties, if they thought it was going to reduce their own vote.
I don't believe it will reduce anyone's vote. Unless personation is a real issue in which case it will reduce that - if it isn't as claimed then everyone will still get their votes.
No they won't. That's the point. It rules out some electors -- whether or not by design, whether or not for party advantage -- to solve a problem that barely exists in the first place.
It doesn't rule out even a single elector since every elector either has ID or can get it for free.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.
Barnet certainly only needs 2 seats to change to go Labour.
I decided not to vote in these elections, just like I didn't bother in the Mayoral election in 2016.
I have not voted yet. I do not know whether I will bother. Neither of the main parties deserves a vote and I am not sure that the LibDems deserve one either.
I voted on which party would be best for my local area and I have some issues with the governing party (labour)with policies, so my vote went elsewhere.
Fair enough. I feel that voting is pointless at present. I have never felt that way before but to me all I have is a choice between two sets of equally repulsive ideologies and a third party so far up its own backside that daylight is a faint memory.
The other option in the ballot paper is English Democrats who I regard as far-right loons
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
What would be hilarious is if the Conservatives ended the night controlling fewer Boroughs than the LDs - Labour win Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster. LDs gain Sutton and Richmond. K&C goes NOC.
I would make that LAB 25, LD 3, CON 2, NOC 2 - how we'd all laugh !!
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.
Tower Hamlets :>
I liked the comment on Tower Hamlets from the CityMetric article: "Can’t help but think that this would be quite an interesting election, if only anyone could understand it."
Had a quick look at the Watford mayoralty, will be difficult for the Lib Dems to lose so long as Peter Taylor is in the top two as he is transfer friendly from both the reds and the blues who don't want the blues or reds in as mayor.
I've been out to vote and in the absence of an LD candidate in my Ward I was able to vote as I saw fit.
I had an enjoyable moment telling one of the activists what I thought about his Mayoral candidate's policy of compulsory sport for 12 hours per week for all secondary school children.
I reminded said activist of the National Curriculum and the amount of power a Mayor had with reference to Academies and other non-LA schools.
Ok I'd like my state pension now please. I'm paid up for 35 years. And no I'm not handing over any ID to prove I'm 65 yet.
Ok with you?
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I want as many people to be able to vote as are already able to now. You want to reduce the number of people able to vote. That's the difference.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.
Tower Hamlets :>
Yes I mean Labour need two gains on Tower Hamlets in order to take control.
Had a quick look at the Watford mayoralty, will be difficult for the Lib Dems to lose so long as Peter Taylor is in the top two as he is transfer friendly from both the reds and the blues who don't want the blues or reds in as mayor.
Dorothy Thornhill had a big personal following but I agree the LDs are likely to win again.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
What would be hilarious is if the Conservatives ended the night controlling fewer Boroughs than the LDs - Labour win Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster. LDs gain Sutton and Richmond. K&C goes NOC.
I would make that LAB 25, LD 3, CON 2, NOC 2 - how we'd all laugh !!
Would work for me, the main bet is Sutton (LD) - I've tried to finesse the Con-Lab swing between Con holding Wandsworth and Lab gaining Barnet; although in think in practice I'll win one bet but not the other as both will go the same way.
It's always funny talking to Europeans about voter ID or ID in general.
When I said to a Spanish friend of mine that I could just turn up to the polling station and tell them my name and address with nothing to prove that I was who I said I was, he was very surprised "no wonder Britain voted to leave!"
+1 ID is a simple requirement here in Spain. Ironically British residents are exempt from photo ID cards because of a stupid EU rule. As a result we miss out of a very useful card!
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
What would be hilarious is if the Conservatives ended the night controlling fewer Boroughs than the LDs - Labour win Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster. LDs gain Sutton and Richmond. K&C goes NOC.
I would make that LAB 25, LD 3, CON 2, NOC 2 - how we'd all laugh !!
Would work for me, the main bet is Sutton (LD) - I've tried to finesse the Con-Lab swing between Con holding Wandsworth and Lab gaining Barnet; although in think in practice I'll win one bet but not the other as both will go the same way.
On the same bet, but wouldn't be surprised if I won both. The gap in swing (at least on uniform swing) is significant. There's a big 'sweet spot' to aim for.
I also have to say my view is slowly changing on ID cards, having lived in a country with mandatory ID cards, it is starting to make sense. When I came back over the German border once I got stopped and obviously I had my passport with me so it wasn't an issue, but in the centre there were at least 10 "migrants" that had also been stopped without ID and clearly they were going to be sent to some kind of detention/deportation centre.
I think if the UK introduced it, the first one should be free and valid for 10 years, then the renewals should be as cheap as renewing the driving licence.
No they won't. That's the point. It rules out some electors -- whether or not by design, whether or not for party advantage -- to solve a problem that barely exists in the first place.
I agree with all of that but I think it goes even further. It sends out a signal to the politically disengaged that voting is a difficult thing to do. More people will just shrug their shoulders and stay away.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections and even in poorer areas like Elm Park and Rainham bordering Dagenham.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating many if any of the the current 19 residents association councillors! Perhaps of more interest is what happens to the UKIP vote - although they are running candidates in most wards there.
Anyone voting without ID is required to have their photo taken and to provide fingerprints. Spot checks are done afterwards. In the event of a close race, they could all be checked.
I'm not a huge fan of ID cards and was even less so when the Blair Government proposed charging us £300 for a card which contained little or no personal information.
There is strong cultural resistance to the notion of having to carrying an ID card and having to produce it on demand from some authority figure. There are those who argue we fought and won two World Wars for the principle to be able to not have to carry round identity papers and not to have to prove who you are on demand.
Yes we carry all kinds of ID around with us (or at least many of us do) but there is an assumption we all do and we all have some form of photo ID. I have a driving licence but Mrs Stodge doesn't - she would need to produce her passport - and there are people who don't have driving licences or a passport. Given other forms of ID are open to abuse why wouldn't a national ID card be open to fraud ?
Even with a polling card anyone can say they are someone else at a polling station but that isn't where most of the fraud happens. The fraud is in postal and proxy voting not in what happens at polling stations and that wouldn't be solved by ID cards.
I hope this isn't an overtly political attempt to disenfranchise those of a particular viewpoint - if so, that would be reprehensible. If it's an attempt to combat voter fraud, apart from being the wrong answer to the wrong problem, it's got a lot going for it.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating the residents!
So popular that they have three groups of them! But thanks, I expect you are right and we'll see another NOC.
Without looking was the last one the Austrian plebiscite on joining the Reich in 1938 ? It took place after the German troops had moved in with all the "democratic legitimacy" the Nazis could employ.
The 11,000 or so who voted NO were incredibly brave as I suspect there weren't the checks and balances we enjoy in terms of the secret ballot.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating the residents!
So popular that they have three groups of them! But thanks, I expect you are right and we'll see another NOC.
Sensible people, not wise to give unfettered majority rule to any party on a council even if everyone agrees amongst themselves they're broadly centre-right types.
Without looking was the last one the Austrian plebiscite on joining the Reich in 1938 ? It took place after the German troops had moved in with all the "democratic legitimacy" the Nazis could employ.
The 11,000 or so who voted NO were incredibly brave as I suspect there weren't the checks and balances we enjoy in terms of the secret ballot.
Yes it was Austria! I think the ballot paper was remarkable in that the "Ja" was in huge typeface but the "Nein" was tiny!
Much as I don't like to see the countryside being bricked over those houses are sorely needed given the whole price/demand/supply equation around London. And as she points out quite a bit of it isn't picture perfect fields of green.
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.
What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating the residents!
So popular that they have three groups of them! But thanks, I expect you are right and we'll see another NOC.
Yes - three groups representing their local areas - there used to be one group.
The east group represents posh Tory Upminster and Cranham and also Harold Wood - and decided to ally with the Tories to run the council post the last elections. The other groups represent other areas including poorer wards in Hornchurch and Elm Park - where aligning with the Tories isn't as popular as they used to be Labour voting areas.
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.
Housing is actually more or less OK up north though, more the economy and infrastructure that needs developing. Whereas down south and particularly in London the economy is going well but there is insufficient housing.
Just because this development should get the go ahead does not mean that for instance Robin Hood airport ought not to be developed further (To pick a project out in my neck of the woods). We can do both.
Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.
It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.
Not sure about that. Evidence suggests ethnic minorities less likely to have valid ID.
Fairly confident the Tories would not be introducing this, in the face of opposition from other parties, if they thought it was going to reduce their own vote.
I don't believe it will reduce anyone's vote. Unless personation is a real issue in which case it will reduce that - if it isn't as claimed then everyone will still get their votes.
This seems very naive to me. It's definitely going to have some impact on legitimate voters if introduced nationally, especially the first time before people get used to it. 3.5m without a valid photo ID.
Had a quick look at the Watford mayoralty, will be difficult for the Lib Dems to lose so long as Peter Taylor is in the top two as he is transfer friendly from both the reds and the blues who don't want the blues or reds in as mayor.
If the top two are Tory and Labour it's difficult to say who would win in the final round.
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.
Moving parliament out would be a good start - you could take the bulk of a bunch of civil service departments with you then.
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.
Yep. It is ridiculous for example that Google is building a huge HQ at King's Cross.
Why on earth do most of these jobs (online content, s/w engineering etc etc) need to be in central London?
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.
Moving parliament out would be a good start - you could take the bulk of a bunch of civil service departments with you then.
Even if parliament was moved out to Wentworth Woodhouse say! there'd still be a need for more housing in the capital.
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.
They are doing that with business rates already via revaluations.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoon
Quite exciting when you see the Xs by your name :>
When I stood I was bricking it a little as I was a paper candidate and did better than expected, coming second, which was the first time we did that in that ward. Next year we put up a proper candidate and he won.
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.
Yep. It is ridiculous for example that Google is building a huge HQ at King's Cross.
Why on earth do most of these jobs (online content, s/w engineering etc etc) need to be in central London?
To be near other companies/services they want to visit, to create a 'buzzing' atmosphere, and to have a deeper pool of potential employees.
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.
Moving parliament out would be a good start - you could take the bulk of a bunch of civil service departments with you then.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Although it doesn't stop people having pressure put on them to vote a certain way on postal votes, nor will it stop students voting at home and at university.
There seems to be a general feeling that these local elections aren't very important unless you're an elections obsessive, but in fact they could lead to the removal of May or Corbyn if the results are catastrophic for either main party. That's unlikely - the results are more likely to be so so for both parties.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Nice smear but what evidence is there of anyone at all benefiting from personation? This has the costs of voter suppression with no discernible benefit to the democratic process. There might be electoral fraud connected with postal votes and around spending limits but there is simply no evidence of personation being a problem.
ETA the figure of 1 in a million you plucked from thin air suggests at best wild optimism.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
It's crazy that in the year 2018 it's even up for discussion, many of our advanced Western neighbours have much tougher rules than we do regarding identification.
Ironically one of the local Labour candidates Charlotte Gerada was one of the main campaigners who fought tooth and nail to keep Lutfur Rahman in office. I don't even believe she lives in Bromley despite her 'supposed' registered address. Even if 1 person votes fraudulently then that's too many. Voter ID gives more weight and value to everyone's vote within the electorate and that's got to be a good thing.
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoon
Quite exciting when you see the Xs by your name :>
When I stood I was bricking it a little as I was a paper candidate and did better than expected, coming second, which was the first time we did that in that ward. Next year we put up a proper candidate and he won.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
So, looking at the PA list how late would you need to stay up to have a good idea how things have gone? 4.00 am seems to be the largest crunch time but that is very late on a school night.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Nice smear but what evidence is there of anyone at all benefiting from personation? This has the costs of voter suppression with no discernible benefit to the democratic process. There might be electoral fraud connected with postal votes and around spending limits but there is simply no evidence of personation being a problem.
ETA the figure of 1 in a million you plucked from thin air suggests at best wild optimism.
65 people nationally who wouldn't have the required ID!?
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
No part of the country should have a problem with fraudulent voting. It's no pity at all.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
So, looking at the PA list how late would you need to stay up to have a good idea how things have gone? 4.00 am seems to be the largest crunch time but that is very late on a school night.
Well Amber Valley declares at 2:30, Trafford at 2:00, Wandsworth at 3:00 and Barnet at 4:00 so between that lot we should have a pretty good idea of the provinces/Burnham's Tory hinterland and the capital.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
We currently have a half-baked system where the right to vote is part based on residence and part based on being a unique individual. It ought to be solely one or the other.
For those registered at 2 addresses, sometimes it is OK to vote at both and at other times it is not. For those not registered at any address, for whatever reason, they are denied a vote despite being a living breathing person. (In contrast, those on the register but no longer with us (or who never really existed) still get sent a polling card/postal vote which may or may not be used on their behalf.)
A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!
I support ID. On a personal level I bought my first flat in Wandsworth in 1981 under right to buy. A few years later we had a couple of years of zero Community Charge under the wonderful Tory council. I'd be very sad to see it go red especially as London and the rest are becoming too divergent.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
Those figures are pure conjecture and there is no evidence of disenfranchisement. There are a lot of scare stories but no evidence. No study looking at the electoral roll to see how many of these people who are claimed not to have any form of Id at all are actually on the register and voting already.
This is a trial that will be examined to see what effects it has.
Voting should be secure at all steps of the process. Nothing I have seen from anyone changes my view on that basic principle.
Anyone voting without ID is required to have their photo taken and to provide fingerprints. Spot checks are done afterwards. In the event of a close race, they could all be checked.
I'm presuming the reason no one has replied to this is because it's the perfect solution, and therefore far too simple.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
This like decrepit John's post is complete nonsense. We were all sent letters (everyone on the electoral roll) ages in advance, it listed all kinds of IDs you could use. Pretty much any kind of bill you could imagine. I could qualify on 15 forms of ID probably. If you somehow could not muster the required identification you had time to sort it or you could have contacted Bromley Civic Centre to get something sorted.
To be against Voter ID because not much fraud happens is IMO an idiotic approach. Anything that makes it tougher for those not entitled to vote should be applauded and the scheme has gone about things in a helpful way that only those who wilfully ignored instructions have been let down.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
314,159,265 times should be a good start
You may want that, but it's just a pi in the sky number.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
314,159,265 times should be a good start
You may want that, but it's just a pi in the sky number.
Indeed. For Yorkshire (or possibly Lancashire) it would only require 2.7182818 ~
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this. Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID. Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'. The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'. The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....
How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?
Comments
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
The other option in the ballot paper is English Democrats who I regard as far-right loons
I would make that LAB 25, LD 3, CON 2, NOC 2 - how we'd all laugh !!
I've been out to vote and in the absence of an LD candidate in my Ward I was able to vote as I saw fit.
I had an enjoyable moment telling one of the activists what I thought about his Mayoral candidate's policy of compulsory sport for 12 hours per week for all secondary school children.
I reminded said activist of the National Curriculum and the amount of power a Mayor had with reference to Academies and other non-LA schools.
(It was more a response to Pulpstar than you.)
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/992039305639055360
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating many if any of the the current 19 residents association councillors! Perhaps of more interest is what happens to the UKIP vote - although they are running candidates in most wards there.
Gibraltar 2002
Anyone voting without ID is required to have their photo taken and to provide fingerprints. Spot checks are done afterwards. In the event of a close race, they could all be checked.
I'm not a huge fan of ID cards and was even less so when the Blair Government proposed charging us £300 for a card which contained little or no personal information.
There is strong cultural resistance to the notion of having to carrying an ID card and having to produce it on demand from some authority figure. There are those who argue we fought and won two World Wars for the principle to be able to not have to carry round identity papers and not to have to prove who you are on demand.
Yes we carry all kinds of ID around with us (or at least many of us do) but there is an assumption we all do and we all have some form of photo ID. I have a driving licence but Mrs Stodge doesn't - she would need to produce her passport - and there are people who don't have driving licences or a passport. Given other forms of ID are open to abuse why wouldn't a national ID card be open to fraud ?
Even with a polling card anyone can say they are someone else at a polling station but that isn't where most of the fraud happens. The fraud is in postal and proxy voting not in what happens at polling stations and that wouldn't be solved by ID cards.
I hope this isn't an overtly political attempt to disenfranchise those of a particular viewpoint - if so, that would be reprehensible. If it's an attempt to combat voter fraud, apart from being the wrong answer to the wrong problem, it's got a lot going for it.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php
The 11,000 or so who voted NO were incredibly brave as I suspect there weren't the checks and balances we enjoy in terms of the secret ballot.
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp
Lab 35.7%
Con 25.8%
UKIP 15.6%
LD 11.1%
Greens 6.6%
Those figures were converted into these projected national votes shares:
Rallings & Thrasher: Lab 31%, Con 30%, UKIP 18%, LD 11%
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, UKIP 17%, LD 13%
http://electionsetc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/05/22/local-elections-2014-as-it-happens
I wonder if the warm weather will marginally help Labour.
And as she points out quite a bit of it isn't picture perfect fields of green.
The east group represents posh Tory Upminster and Cranham and also Harold Wood - and decided to ally with the Tories to run the council post the last elections. The other groups represent other areas including poorer wards in Hornchurch and Elm Park - where aligning with the Tories isn't as popular as they used to be Labour voting areas.
Whereas down south and particularly in London the economy is going well but there is insufficient housing.
Just because this development should get the go ahead does not mean that for instance Robin Hood airport ought not to be developed further (To pick a project out in my neck of the woods). We can do both.
It's definitely going to have some impact on legitimate voters if introduced nationally, especially the first time before people get used to it. 3.5m without a valid photo ID.
Why on earth do most of these jobs (online content, s/w engineering etc etc) need to be in central London?
To be near other companies/services they want to visit, to create a 'buzzing' atmosphere, and to have a deeper pool of potential employees.
Although it doesn't stop people having pressure put on them to vote a certain way on postal votes, nor will it stop students voting at home and at university.
ETA the figure of 1 in a million you plucked from thin air suggests at best wild optimism.
Ironically one of the local Labour candidates Charlotte Gerada was one of the main campaigners who fought tooth and nail to keep Lutfur Rahman in office. I don't even believe she lives in Bromley despite her 'supposed' registered address. Even if 1 person votes fraudulently then that's too many. Voter ID gives more weight and value to everyone's vote within the electorate and that's got to be a good thing.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
For those registered at 2 addresses, sometimes it is OK to vote at both and at other times it is not. For those not registered at any address, for whatever reason, they are denied a vote despite being a living breathing person. (In contrast, those on the register but no longer with us (or who never really existed) still get sent a polling card/postal vote which may or may not be used on their behalf.)
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!
This is a trial that will be examined to see what effects it has.
Voting should be secure at all steps of the process. Nothing I have seen from anyone changes my view on that basic principle.
To be against Voter ID because not much fraud happens is IMO an idiotic approach. Anything that makes it tougher for those not entitled to vote should be applauded and the scheme has gone about things in a helpful way that only those who wilfully ignored instructions have been let down.
You may want that, but it's just a pi in the sky number.
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.
The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....