We will only know the true impact in six to nine months time. It may be that Brexit has been a disaster. It may be that it has no measurable impact. It may be that it was positive.
But we cannot know that right now.
We know that putting up barriers to trade reduces trade.
That may be true but when I first moved to the UK in 1998, I helped in the 2001 General Elections. I was astonished how easy it was to commit voter fraud with postal voting on demand. Coming from South Africa, I couldn't believe that the system was naively based on trust. There have been several questionable election results such as the Forest Ward by-election in Leytonstone in 2003 where I helped. I knew Labour would lose it but not by over 600 votes. My estimate was around 200 votes based on canvassing returns and I'm usually very accurate.
What was the system you observed in South Africa? How did it work, and how well? And what parts of it would you personally recommend (or not) for UK?
I now live in the UAE but nothing has changed from the time I first helped in elections there in 1994 and 1996. You have to be registered and hold a photo ID document. They also have invisible ink painted on their fingers, which shows up under UV scanners to ensure that they have voted. No other form of ID is allowed such as a passport. The UK is just proposing any form of photo ID, which I think is more than fair. It is then much easier to track voter fraud and all people - even in a poor society like South Africa - accept photo ID to preserve the integrity of the vote. It hasn't suppressed the votes of any party. Parties will just have to ensure that people are educated and get voter ID.
Voter ID is ID cards by the back door.
I have proposed two cheap, essentially 100% effective, methods of eliminating personation, that don't suppress voter turnout, and don't effectively introduce ID cards.
How is compulsory photo ID superior to either of my suggestions?
Simplicity. Just have passports, driving license or if you don’t have either of those a government approved voter ID card that can be issued by banks or post offices.
Don’t link it to anything, don’t over engineer it, just have a simple proof of identity.
Add a date of birth and you can use it to stop your kids going into pubs as well…
People just wont bother. 4 out of 10 people already cant be bothered. The more obstacles, the less people will be bothered.
Yes, I know it isn’t a huge hurdle — I myself carry photo ID wherever I go — but it’s still a hurdle and people wont be arsed. The price is reduced turnout.
On Northern Ireland it is difficult to know how much of a view an outsider should have, but the best solutions to me appear to be:
a. Dont prosecute anyone at all from before the Good Friday agreement
or
b. Have a truth and reconciliation committee. Anything confessed to that committee is no longer a convictable offence. Anything else can be prosecuted.
1. You can't compare 1q to 4q 2. There's a pandemic 3. There was stockpiling, and then the unwinding of sociology
We will only know the true impact in six to nine months time. It may be that Brexit has been a disaster. It may be that it has no measurable impact. It may be that it was positive.
But we cannot know that right now.
Can we have a video explaining the impact of the “unwinding of sociology” on trade patterns? 😳
Digging out your passport to vote is a pain in the arse. You can’t pop in to vote any more.
The government should be looking to increase turnout. Nearly 60% of people didn’t bother in Hartlepool. You don’t have to think too hard about why the government doesn’t do anything about that.
Those people didn’t vote because they didn’t believe in the integrity of the system mate. Photo ID is going to solve that. Rejoice.
Why these people didn't vote is an interesting question. Presumably there will be a number of reasons but it is pretty obvious that none of our political parties spoke for them or to them despite all the leafleting and efforts focused in a bye election with both the PM and the LOTO there regularly.
In Scotland I do not think that there is any doubt that the increased turnout was driven by anxiety about Indyref2 on both sides so people cared more. It is troubling that so many really didn't care what either Boris or SKS was offering in Hartlepool.
I no longer vote because there is no one to vote for. The Opposition is useless and I will not vote for Johnson and his English Nationalists.
That may be true but when I first moved to the UK in 1998, I helped in the 2001 General Elections. I was astonished how easy it was to commit voter fraud with postal voting on demand. Coming from South Africa, I couldn't believe that the system was naively based on trust. There have been several questionable election results such as the Forest Ward by-election in Leytonstone in 2003 where I helped. I knew Labour would lose it but not by over 600 votes. My estimate was around 200 votes based on canvassing returns and I'm usually very accurate.
What was the system you observed in South Africa? How did it work, and how well? And what parts of it would you personally recommend (or not) for UK?
I now live in the UAE but nothing has changed from the time I first helped in elections there in 1994 and 1996. You have to be registered and hold a photo ID document. They also have invisible ink painted on their fingers, which shows up under UV scanners to ensure that they have voted. No other form of ID is allowed such as a passport. The UK is just proposing any form of photo ID, which I think is more than fair. It is then much easier to track voter fraud and all people - even in a poor society like South Africa - accept photo ID to preserve the integrity of the vote. It hasn't suppressed the votes of any party. Parties will just have to ensure that people are educated and get voter ID.
Voter ID is ID cards by the back door.
I have proposed two cheap, essentially 100% effective, methods of eliminating personation, that don't suppress voter turnout, and don't effectively introduce ID cards.
How is compulsory photo ID superior to either of my suggestions?
Simplicity. Just have passports, driving license or if you don’t have either of those a government approved voter ID card that can be issued by banks or post offices.
Don’t link it to anything, don’t over engineer it, just have a simple proof of identity.
Add a date of birth and you can use it to stop your kids going into pubs as well…
Great point, taking a photo and asking someone to sign it is beyond this governments technical capability. We all know it will end up with Serco who will struggle with the complexity of the task.
We will only know the true impact in six to nine months time. It may be that Brexit has been a disaster. It may be that it has no measurable impact. It may be that it was positive.
But we cannot know that right now.
We know that putting up barriers to trade reduces trade.
Ask the fishermen...
And the figures show we're £10bn better off as a result, but you're objecting to that. 🤔
The reality is as others have said the improvement in our trade is probably temporary, because there was a major stockpiling effect in Q4 and a major unwind effect in January.
What would be more interesting is to compare eg March to eg Q3, stripping out the January unwind and the Q4 stockpiling.
The fraud isn’t happening in person too much I suspect, it’s happening with postal votes. Most people who have spent time overseas have a tale to tell about “lost” postal ballots. I voted in 2016 but that was the only time in the 2010s because every other time without fail, the postal ballots inexplicably got “lost”. And the electoral commission doesn’t care.
I’d be interested to see how it works in university seats like Canterbury too, where most students forget the election is even happening and their post is delivered on campus to insecure cubby holes.
If people are losing votes this is obviously a concern in itself - but the checking and verification arrangements are nowadays sufficiently tight that no-one else would be able to get a fraudulent vote past the first stage of the verification process. Maybe there should be more publicity about the existing checks that are made on postal votes, since these are unlikely to be widely understood (even here, as we saw yesterday)
The whole voter registration system needs to be looked at. My daughter lives in Bournemouth and is registered to vote there. As an oversight I have not removed from the voters roll at my house. Therefore she could have voted twice in the UK elections last Thursday. The system for voter registration needs to be upgraded, using the tax and benefits system to ensure that someone can only be registered to vote at one address and that they actually exist.
I could record Donald Trump as living at my address and he would get a polling card no problem.
In the UK elections last Thursday, she was entitled to vote twice (assuming your house isn't in Bournemouth) on the basis of being registered in two different local authority areas - but wasn't entitled to be registered twice in the first place. The rules on registering for properties that aren't your principal residence are a lot tighter than they used to be, although in terms of explaining and checking they never reviewed pre-existing registrations. That there isn't a central database tied to NI numbers is a weakness, for sure, and over the years I have found all sorts of registrations for nationalities not entitled, children, and in one memorable case I canvassed someone who had put their dog on the register. I wish I could remember the name, but it was something like Rover Smith.
One of the reasons why people - even those experienced in elections - sometimes don't appreciate the checks that are done on postal votes (other than that even few agents and candidates bother going along to observe these counts, as that's generally a waste of time as well as taking up key time in the days before polling day) is that to get the data for the numbers of votes that are rejected, you generally have to dig for it.
This is because the official return from the count is precisely that - a statement of the outcome for those votes that arrived at the count. Postal votes that fail verification before the count (which will be the large majority of those so rejected) don't reach the count, and hence don't show in the official return.
The level of postal votes failing verification varies by election and local authority within a 1-10% range, with typical rates being 3-4%. Academic analysis of the geographical variation of such rejections hasn't found any strong pattern - there is a slight correlation with areas of lower average educational attainment - but academic study of the patterns suggest the principal reason is different standards for signature matches being applied by different EROs.
The EC sets out a procedure for reporting cases where fraud is suspected, including protocols for preserving potential forensic evidence, but the subjective conclusion is that most of the rejections arise from voter mistakes. We had one anecdote from a PB'er yesterday who recalls getting his birth date wrong on a form. I had another in this election, when the lady across the road got her ballot papers and wanted to vote for me, but (during a chat about the whole process) couldn't remember which signature she'd used for the application. When I seemed surprised she explained that she generally used a long full-name signature but sometimes an abbreviated one, and when I asked how she decided which to use, she said it depended upon whether the box on the form was big enough to put down her full-name signature! Her vote could easily have been rejected if she used differing signatures, particularly as for most counts the signature matching is now done automatically rather than visually (although those rejected should also be examined visually)
There is much wrong with American elections, but being able to check that a postal vote has been received and judged valid is one worth copying.
One reason that I prefer to vote in person is knowing that the vote is going to be counted. I only voted by post in one GE (2010) as I was in Malawi at the time, which incidentally made following the outcomes a bit tricky.
Voter ID at polling stations is using a wrecking ball to crack a nut. I doubt any seat since the war has been decided by the rare odd illegal vote due to somebody voting in person and pretending to be somebody else. Fermanangh and South Tyrone possibly?? (at the height of the Troubles) . Postal voting has far more capacity for fraud/coercion but I think it is acknowledged that it does more good than harm so canto see why the Tories are pushing this stupid policy
Postal voting CAN be more secure that in-person IF the signatures of all postal ballots returned are checked against sigs on file.
Not cheap but use of technology can reduce per unit cost.
Way its done in WA, is that all sigs are checked. Then sigs that are flagged as problematic are double-checked by a supervisor. And only rejected IF the supervisor agrees it does NOT match.
At that point, voters are sent a letter, telling them of the problem, and giving them opportunity to submit a new signature. Which is then compared to the one on the ballot. If the new sig matches, it's counted. IF not, not.
BTW, all these signatures are to legally-required voter oath, with voters informed that forging signatures or submitting false info is punishable as perjury.
I support Voter and photo ID based on what I experienced as a Lib Dem Leader in Woking Council in 2012 where one of my councillors was found guilty of voter fraud. We knew widespread voter fraud was going on for at least 8 years prior to this - in all parties in Maybury and Sheerwater ward - but it could never be proven because of witnesses being too scared to come forward. My own councillor, who I suspected was guilty, tried to use all sorts of intimidation to undermine me and discredit my leadership with my own party members. It did work where eventually I decided not to restand as leader of the group in 2013. However, my wife and I were proved right in denying party funds be used in his defence. I just felt sorry for the poor suckers who were fooled into funding his legal defence costs on an individual basis.
Woking was one of the pilot councils who implemented voter ID to ensure that elections were free and fair. It hasn't suppressed voter turnout and support for anti-Tory parties actually increased last week in Woking.
Over the country as a whole, the problem is very small and hardly ever affects election results.
I wouldn't have a problem with extra ID checks in the few area where problems have taken place — but of course that would be deemed to be unacceptable for discriminating against certain places. The modern religion is "all or nothing" when it comes to this type of problem.
"Hardly ever affects election results" - sorry, but we should have zero tolerance to the possibility of it EVER affecting election results.
I'm appalled that people are so cavalier about this, when there is a very simple step to prevent it.
Problem is NOT stopping fraud - that's GOOD.
Problem is PRETENDING to fix fraud, when vast preponderance of EVIDENCE is that, in order to fix a rare problem, you make voter disenfranchisement a much bigger problem, esp. for the eligible citizens who lose their vote in the process - that's BAD.
Unless you're religion forbids it, killing a pesky fly is a good thing. Using a bazooka to do it is NOT.
Asking someone to show photo ID is reasonable. I know it may seem different from a US perspective because, unfortunately, it all too often goes hand in hand with other voter suppression techniques (eg limiting number of polling stations).
No. It isn’t reasonable because it’s unnecessary and not everyone has photo ID.
The current system works. You turn up and vote. If someone else has voted as you, you’ll know about it immediately. There is not a problem here that needs to be fixed therefore there must be a ulterior motive.
You need to make sure there is an easily accessible approved photo ID that people can get.
There is something about the left that think so badly about their fellow humans.
Voting ID is about demonstrating the importance of the vote and signalling to everyone that it is secure.
But you assume it is for partisan reasons with no evidence - just your own belief that Tories are evil.
Would you agree that fraudulent postal voting is more of an issue than personation?
I don’t know the stats so wouldn’t be comfortable being definitive but many of the electoral fraud stories I remember reading involve abuse of postal votes.
So I would have no problem going back to the (pre-Blair?) restrictions on who can get postal votes. Even though I’ve used one for as long as I can remember and it makes life far simpler for me personally
That’s great but that isn’t what the government is proposing in their grand crusade against “voter fraud”.
Mcvities to close their Scottish plant in Glasgow due to excess capacity and concentrate on their RUK plants
This sounds ever so familiar when we were warned the same would happen on Brexit as Companies relocate to the EU
This does raise the serious question of just how much economic damage will Sturgeon's quest for Independence do to future inward investment to Scotland whilst nobody knows it's future status, whilst the RUK does not have that as a problem
One of the reasons why people - even those experienced in elections - sometimes don't appreciate the checks that are done on postal votes (other than that even few agents and candidates bother going along to observe these counts, as that's generally a waste of time as well as taking up key time in the days before polling day) is that to get the data for the numbers of votes that are rejected, you generally have to dig for it.
This is because the official return from the count is precisely that - a statement of the outcome for those votes that arrived at the count. Postal votes that fail verification before the count (which will be the large majority of those so rejected) don't reach the count, and hence don't show in the official return.
The level of postal votes failing verification varies by election and local authority within a 1-10% range, with typical rates being 3-4%. Academic analysis of the geographical variation of such rejections hasn't found any strong pattern - there is a slight correlation with areas of lower average educational attainment - but academic study of the patterns suggest the principal reason is different standards for signature matches being applied by different EROs.
The EC sets out a procedure for reporting cases where fraud is suspected, including protocols for preserving potential forensic evidence, but the subjective conclusion is that most of the rejections arise from voter mistakes. We had one anecdote from a PB'er yesterday who recalls getting his birth date wrong on a form. I had another in this election, when the lady across the road got her ballot papers and wanted to vote for me, but (during a chat about the whole process) couldn't remember which signature she'd used for the application. When I seemed surprised she explained that she generally used a long full-name signature but sometimes an abbreviated one, and when I asked how she decided which to use, she said it depended upon whether the box on the form was big enough to put down her full-name signature! Her vote could easily have been rejected if she used differing signatures, particularly as for most counts the signature matching is now done automatically rather than visually (although those rejected should also be examined visually)
There is much wrong with American elections, but being able to check that a postal vote has been received and judged valid is one worth copying.
One reason that I prefer to vote in person is knowing that the vote is going to be counted. I only voted by post in one GE (2010) as I was in Malawi at the time, which incidentally made following the outcomes a bit tricky.
Probably partly why trotting down the polling station with your completed PV is increasingly popular. You get the ballot paper well ahead of time, so have time to study the candidates and their details - home addresses etc - and do any internet searching you might want to do for their background or manifestos. You can make your choices at leisure yet still get the security of seeing it go into the box yourself, don't have to trust the post, get to participate in the whole polling station experience, and are able to return home and report to PB that things are brisk or steady....
Digging out your passport to vote is a pain in the arse. You can’t pop in to vote any more.
The government should be looking to increase turnout. Nearly 60% of people didn’t bother in Hartlepool. You don’t have to think too hard about why the government doesn’t do anything about that.
Those people didn’t vote because they didn’t believe in the integrity of the system mate. Photo ID is going to solve that. Rejoice.
Why these people didn't vote is an interesting question. Presumably there will be a number of reasons but it is pretty obvious that none of our political parties spoke for them or to them despite all the leafleting and efforts focused in a bye election with both the PM and the LOTO there regularly.
In Scotland I do not think that there is any doubt that the increased turnout was driven by anxiety about Indyref2 on both sides so people cared more. It is troubling that so many really didn't care what either Boris or SKS was offering in Hartlepool.
I no longer vote because there is no one to vote for. The Opposition is useless and I will not vote for Johnson and his English Nationalists.
I think that's sad. Who or what would you vote for?
I voted for the Union. In my area that meant voting Tory but I regard the current party as very much a mixed bag, some good, some bad. It is the least worst of the options. Can you not take such a relative view of the merits? Big tents inevitably contain undesirable elements but that is the nature of the beast and our democratic system.
I support Voter and photo ID based on what I experienced as a Lib Dem Leader in Woking Council in 2012 where one of my councillors was found guilty of voter fraud. We knew widespread voter fraud was going on for at least 8 years prior to this - in all parties in Maybury and Sheerwater ward - but it could never be proven because of witnesses being too scared to come forward. My own councillor, who I suspected was guilty, tried to use all sorts of intimidation to undermine me and discredit my leadership with my own party members. It did work where eventually I decided not to restand as leader of the group in 2013. However, my wife and I were proved right in denying party funds be used in his defence. I just felt sorry for the poor suckers who were fooled into funding his legal defence costs on an individual basis.
Woking was one of the pilot councils who implemented voter ID to ensure that elections were free and fair. It hasn't suppressed voter turnout and support for anti-Tory parties actually increased last week in Woking.
Over the country as a whole, the problem is very small and hardly ever affects election results.
I wouldn't have a problem with extra ID checks in the few area where problems have taken place — but of course that would be deemed to be unacceptable for discriminating against certain places. The modern religion is "all or nothing" when it comes to this type of problem.
"Hardly ever affects election results" - sorry, but we should have zero tolerance to the possibility of it EVER affecting election results.
I'm appalled that people are so cavalier about this, when there is a very simple step to prevent it.
Problem is NOT stopping fraud - that's GOOD.
Problem is PRETENDING to fix fraud, when vast preponderance of EVIDENCE is that, in order to fix a rare problem, you make voter disenfranchisement a much bigger problem, esp. for the eligible citizens who lose their vote in the process - that's BAD.
Unless you're religion forbids it, killing a pesky fly is a good thing. Using a bazooka to do it is NOT.
Asking someone to show photo ID is reasonable. I know it may seem different from a US perspective because, unfortunately, it all too often goes hand in hand with other voter suppression techniques (eg limiting number of polling stations).
No. It isn’t reasonable because it’s unnecessary and not everyone has photo ID.
The current system works. You turn up and vote. If someone else has voted as you, you’ll know about it immediately. There is not a problem here that needs to be fixed therefore there must be a ulterior motive.
You need to make sure there is an easily accessible approved photo ID that people can get.
The obvious point is if its trivial to get then it is trivial to get for electoral fraudsters too. If it is not trivial to get voters who dont already have qualifying ID are to an extent disenfranchised.
Voting should be easy not hard. Making voting hard is a fraud all of its own.
Photo ID us not “hard”
Does it make voting easier or harder?
Should the electoral process be secure or not?
Of course. Are you saying recent elections are insecure? Which ones are you worried about? The general election? The EU referendum? The Hartlepool by-election? You must have serious concerns about their legitimacy.
Mcvities to close their Scottish plant in Glasgow due to excess capacity and concentrate on their RUK plants
This sounds ever so familiar when we were warned the same would happen on Brexit as Companies relocate to the EU
This does raise the serious question of just how much economic damage will Sturgeon's quest for Independence do to future inward investment to Scotland whilst nobody knows it's future status, whilst the RUK does not have that as a problem
There is something about the left that think so badly about their fellow humans.
Voting ID is about demonstrating the importance of the vote and signalling to everyone that it is secure.
But you assume it is for partisan reasons with no evidence - just your own belief that Tories are evil.
Would you agree that fraudulent postal voting is more of an issue than personation?
I don’t know the stats so wouldn’t be comfortable being definitive but many of the electoral fraud stories I remember reading involve abuse of postal votes.
So I would have no problem going back to the (pre-Blair?) restrictions on who can get postal votes. Even though I’ve used one for as long as I can remember and it makes life far simpler for me personally
That’s great but that isn’t what the government is proposing in their grand crusade against “voter fraud”.
I guess that proves I’m not in government?
Yes but your defending the government’s policy not on what it actually is but what you think it should be. We can only challenge what has actually been proposed.
Simple question: is there going to free photo ID available. A passport is over £100 I believe and a provisional driving license costs £35. Are we really proposing a £30 tax on the ability to vote to tackle fraud that doesn’t exist?
Three different numbers for GDP today vs pre virus.
1. -8.7% this is the modelled output figure, the one that is the least internationally comparable and gold plates a lot of unnecessary recommendations on measuring state output instead of inputs. 2. -5.9% this is based on the monthly index of market price GDP and is relatively internationally comparable but it still uses an index based measurement which is unnecessary. 3. -2.9% this is nominal GDP and easily the most comparable to how the rest of the world measures GDP, one number divided by the other.
So there's something for everyone. The third measure probably most closely reflects what is happening on the ground as it is simply a mathematical measure of GDP at the end of March 2021 compared to GDP at the end of Feb 2020. Some would argue that the first measure is most accurate but ultimately a doctor getting paid £120k still gets paid £120k whether they're seeing hundreds of patients (a high level of output) or no patients (zero output). The first measure downrates that doctor's output from ~£120k to zero, the third measure doesn't. Same as teachers and other state sector employees who are inherently less productive because their place of work is closed.
One of the reasons why people - even those experienced in elections - sometimes don't appreciate the checks that are done on postal votes (other than that even few agents and candidates bother going along to observe these counts, as that's generally a waste of time as well as taking up key time in the days before polling day) is that to get the data for the numbers of votes that are rejected, you generally have to dig for it.
This is because the official return from the count is precisely that - a statement of the outcome for those votes that arrived at the count. Postal votes that fail verification before the count (which will be the large majority of those so rejected) don't reach the count, and hence don't show in the official return.
The level of postal votes failing verification varies by election and local authority within a 1-10% range, with typical rates being 3-4%. Academic analysis of the geographical variation of such rejections hasn't found any strong pattern - there is a slight correlation with areas of lower average educational attainment - but academic study of the patterns suggest the principal reason is different standards for signature matches being applied by different EROs.
The EC sets out a procedure for reporting cases where fraud is suspected, including protocols for preserving potential forensic evidence, but the subjective conclusion is that most of the rejections arise from voter mistakes. We had one anecdote from a PB'er yesterday who recalls getting his birth date wrong on a form. I had another in this election, when the lady across the road got her ballot papers and wanted to vote for me, but (during a chat about the whole process) couldn't remember which signature she'd used for the application. When I seemed surprised she explained that she generally used a long full-name signature but sometimes an abbreviated one, and when I asked how she decided which to use, she said it depended upon whether the box on the form was big enough to put down her full-name signature! Her vote could easily have been rejected if she used differing signatures, particularly as for most counts the signature matching is now done automatically rather than visually (although those rejected should also be examined visually)
There is much wrong with American elections, but being able to check that a postal vote has been received and judged valid is one worth copying.
One reason that I prefer to vote in person is knowing that the vote is going to be counted. I only voted by post in one GE (2010) as I was in Malawi at the time, which incidentally made following the outcomes a bit tricky.
One thing yours truly did during the 2020 (and previous) elections, was check the challenged ballot list on a daily basis.
This is especially important in very close elections, in particular where it looks like a recount is possible, or a virtual certainty. At that point, campaigns start matching the challenged list against IDed supporters, to urge them to take the steps needed to "cure" their ballots so they can and will be counted.
We call this a "signature chase" and it is open and done by both sides - though mine tends to do it slightly better! Was a key reason why Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by +133 votes in 2004 govenors race.
Have seen these votes turn out to be THE difference between the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.
I worry about the number of posters on here who generally self identify as liberal (not in the party sense necessarily ) who support compulsory ID. ID will solve some issues and create some problems but fundamentally it is saying that the government has a right to demand to know who you are (at any time or transaction) and and can decide from that if you are worthy of a service/vote/benefit or privilege.
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way as adults. The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
To be fair to Chas, there are two possibilities here
1. He knows it is bollocks and is cynically posting an alternative view. 2. He really is that gullible
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity...
People forget that I’m not a Tory - I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If I trusted the LibDems I would happily vote for them but I don’t like their SDP leanings.
The democratic system is sacrosanct. It should be protected. People should have confidence in it. There have been way too many cases undermining that. I fully accept that most known cases are abuse of postal votes but the whole system needs an overhaul. Voter ID is part of that - but it is important to make sure that people have easy access to an approved form of ID in the event they don’t have a passport or driving license.
1. You can't compare 1q to 4q 2. There's a pandemic 3. There was stockpiling, and then the unwinding of sociology
We will only know the true impact in six to nine months time. It may be that Brexit has been a disaster. It may be that it has no measurable impact. It may be that it was positive.
But we cannot know that right now.
Sorry, I replied before I had seen your reply. I suspect the fact that we are now no longer in the Customs Union and the SM with some friction at the border will reduce the Rotterdam effect somewhat with a consequential improvement in our balance of trade with the EU and a deterioration of our position with the RotW. It will be interesting to see how big this is.
I also think on reflection that even in 6 months time our economy is going to be highly distorted by bounce back and growing at a truly exceptional rate (7% according to the Bank) sucking imports in. It may be very difficult to identify the new normal for quite some time.
The drop in GDP, 1.5% in the quarter, was considerably better than expected. Q2 will show a big bounce in GDP.
And how come my son, who is 17, can apply for a driving licence and a passport, without producing a driver's licence or a passport as proof of his ID?
Because it isn't difficult to get ID in this country.
This isn't the USA where you have to take a day off work to go to the notoriously unhelpful DVLA to get ID.
I've queued four hours at the DMV, only for them to tell me I lacked a form that they don't tell you you need.
The next day I decided to beat the queue and arrived at 7:45 for a 9am opening. The queue was already round the block.
The DMV is one of very few great levellers in US society, where absolutely everyone has to go there in person and stand in line.
It’s amazing that it still persists, with few online options or VIP fast track services.
One thing we have in WA - instituted by a Republican secretary of state, indeed first state in the Union to do it - is "motor voter".
Anyone 18 or older who is US citizen applying for a drivers license (or ID card) is given opportunity to register to vote. In fact, that is how most new registrations are received in WA, via the state Department of Licensing.
You can get your photo ID and get on the voter rolls in one fell swoop.
Mcvities to close their Scottish plant in Glasgow due to excess capacity and concentrate on their RUK plants
This sounds ever so familiar when we were warned the same would happen on Brexit as Companies relocate to the EU
This does raise the serious question of just how much economic damage will Sturgeon's quest for Independence do to future inward investment to Scotland whilst nobody knows it's future status, whilst the RUK does not have that as a problem
Voting should be easy not hard. Making voting hard is a fraud all of its own.
Photo ID us not “hard”
Does it make voting easier or harder?
Should the electoral process be secure or not?
The most striking thing is that push the (usually Conservative) proponents of voter ID, and you pretty quickly get to what one might call the alleged Tower Hamlets scenario. Yet the proposals themselves don't really offer anything to deal with that. Which means they are being put forward for some other reason.
The blackest scenario is the quasi-GOP voter suppression one. Yet I suspect the impact on turnout will actually be marginal (although I do anticipate it could cause queues and admin chaos at some polling stations), and may well hit the elderly (and new red wall) Tory voters. So I suspect it isn't being put forward for that reason.
The two more likely scenarios are as a stepping-stone to ID cards, or simply the "something must be done" factor as a bone to Tory electioneers, with this being "something" regardless of whether it will make any difference.
1. You can't compare 1q to 4q 2. There's a pandemic 3. There was stockpiling, and then the unwinding of sociology
We will only know the true impact in six to nine months time. It may be that Brexit has been a disaster. It may be that it has no measurable impact. It may be that it was positive.
But we cannot know that right now.
Sorry, I replied before I had seen your reply. I suspect the fact that we are now no longer in the Customs Union and the SM with some friction at the border will reduce the Rotterdam effect somewhat with a consequential improvement in our balance of trade with the EU and a deterioration of our position with the RotW. It will be interesting to see how big this is.
I also think on reflection that even in 6 months time our economy is going to be highly distorted by bounce back and growing at a truly exceptional rate (7% according to the Bank) sucking imports in. It may be very difficult to identify the new normal for quite some time.
The drop in GDP, 1.5% in the quarter, was considerably better than expected. Q2 will show a big bounce in GDP.
Nominal GDP at market price was up 0.1%, the headline figures mask what's actually happening on the ground.
It would be funny if there was more voter fraud after voter ID was brought in.
There's so little of it just now that some statistical blip somehow seems possible.
There will inevitably be "more" fraud after any introduction of anti-fraud measures. It just brings the existing fraud into the open. It's like moving from a zero regulation system to one with some or good regulations. The fraud happened before and after, all that changes is the detection rate.
Yep, just ask the Post Office. They found loads of fraud after they introduced that new accounting system...
1. You can't compare 1q to 4q 2. There's a pandemic 3. There was stockpiling, and then the unwinding of sociology
We will only know the true impact in six to nine months time. It may be that Brexit has been a disaster. It may be that it has no measurable impact. It may be that it was positive.
But we cannot know that right now.
Sorry, I replied before I had seen your reply. I suspect the fact that we are now no longer in the Customs Union and the SM with some friction at the border will reduce the Rotterdam effect somewhat with a consequential improvement in our balance of trade with the EU and a deterioration of our position with the RotW. It will be interesting to see how big this is.
I also think on reflection that even in 6 months time our economy is going to be highly distorted by bounce back and growing at a truly exceptional rate (7% according to the Bank) sucking imports in. It may be very difficult to identify the new normal for quite some time.
The drop in GDP, 1.5% in the quarter, was considerably better than expected. Q2 will show a big bounce in GDP.
Not as big as it could have been though, because of the insistence of dragging out lockdown despite there being no excess Covid deaths happening for a couple of months now. We've wasted Q2 to an extent.
Q2 will have a bounce and Q3 another, given the big steps of lifting lockdown are next Monday and then virtually the end of June.
To be fair to Chas, there are two possibilities here
1. He knows it is bollocks and is cynically posting an alternative view. 2. He really is that gullible
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity...
People forget that I’m not a Tory - I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If I trusted the LibDems I would happily vote for them but I don’t like their SDP leanings.
The democratic system is sacrosanct. It should be protected. People should have confidence in it. There have been way too many cases undermining that. I fully accept that most known cases are abuse of postal votes but the whole system needs an overhaul. Voter ID is part of that - but it is important to make sure that people have easy access to an approved form of ID in the event they don’t have a passport or driving license.
I don’t care about the party political impact.
That’s fine Charles. But that isn’t what’s going to happen. That isn’t what is being proposed.
So we’re going to introduce an ID requirement to vote in person which by your own admission will not solve any of our fraud “problems” but will act as an additional barrier to voting.
Mcvities to close their Scottish plant in Glasgow due to excess capacity and concentrate on their RUK plants
This sounds ever so familiar when we were warned the same would happen on Brexit as Companies relocate to the EU
This does raise the serious question of just how much economic damage will Sturgeon's quest for Independence do to future inward investment to Scotland whilst nobody knows it's future status, whilst the RUK does not have that as a problem
when we live in a county where the government can tell you when to hug (but be cautious!) then you worry even more about giving them the power to demand ID .
Mike's blog exposes so much of the complacency of the British Political Classes.One has to wait for the problem of voter fraud to emerge before taking steps to stop it rather taking steps to pre-empt the problem emerging.We should have re-introduced ID cards years ago
That may be true but when I first moved to the UK in 1998, I helped in the 2001 General Elections. I was astonished how easy it was to commit voter fraud with postal voting on demand. Coming from South Africa, I couldn't believe that the system was naively based on trust. There have been several questionable election results such as the Forest Ward by-election in Leytonstone in 2003 where I helped. I knew Labour would lose it but not by over 600 votes. My estimate was around 200 votes based on canvassing returns and I'm usually very accurate.
What was the system you observed in South Africa? How did it work, and how well? And what parts of it would you personally recommend (or not) for UK?
I now live in the UAE but nothing has changed from the time I first helped in elections there in 1994 and 1996. You have to be registered and hold a photo ID document. They also have invisible ink painted on their fingers, which shows up under UV scanners to ensure that they have voted. No other form of ID is allowed such as a passport. The UK is just proposing any form of photo ID, which I think is more than fair. It is then much easier to track voter fraud and all people - even in a poor society like South Africa - accept photo ID to preserve the integrity of the vote. It hasn't suppressed the votes of any party. Parties will just have to ensure that people are educated and get voter ID.
Voter ID is ID cards by the back door.
I have proposed two cheap, essentially 100% effective, methods of eliminating personation, that don't suppress voter turnout, and don't effectively introduce ID cards.
How is compulsory photo ID superior to either of my suggestions?
Simplicity. Just have passports, driving license or if you don’t have either of those a government approved voter ID card that can be issued by banks or post offices.
Don’t link it to anything, don’t over engineer it, just have a simple proof of identity.
Add a date of birth and you can use it to stop your kids going into pubs as well…
People just wont bother. 4 out of 10 people already cant be bothered. The more obstacles, the less people will be bothered.
Yes, I know it isn’t a huge hurdle — I myself carry photo ID wherever I go — but it’s still a hurdle and people wont be arsed. The price is reduced turnout.
And I’m all for measures to increase turnout. Give every voter a lollipop for all I care.
But not at the cost of undermining the integrity of the system
I worry about the number of posters on here who generally self identify as liberal (not in the party sense necessarily ) who support compulsory ID. ID will solve some issues and create some problems but fundamentally it is saying that the government has a right to demand to know who you are (at any time or transaction) and and can decide from that if you are worthy of a service/vote/benefit or privilege.
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way . The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
I come from a position of hating ID cards and actively campaigning against the Labour Government's plans to supporting them.
As it solves a pile of big security flaws that I've encountered over the years
1) Banks could confirm identification prior to performing transactions (bank fraud is way lower elsewhere in Europe including Bulgaria) 2) Right to work would be identifiable - it is currently easier to check a foreign national than a British Citizen. 3) Right to NHS healthcare would be identifiable. 4) Alcohol / lottery / tobacco sales
There are a whole set of similar use cases where a single standardised document (with / without backend validation) would make things easier - and creating the document doesn't instantly mean it carrying it has to be made mandatory - that should be a different piece of legislation.
The issue with the Labour plan is that instead of introducing a standardised document they attempted to create a global database at the same time. The document is disliked by some people, Labours big brother database managed to add millions of other reasons to the debate.
There is something about the left that think so badly about their fellow humans.
Voting ID is about demonstrating the importance of the vote and signalling to everyone that it is secure.
But you assume it is for partisan reasons with no evidence - just your own belief that Tories are evil.
Would you agree that fraudulent postal voting is more of an issue than personation?
I don’t know the stats so wouldn’t be comfortable being definitive but many of the electoral fraud stories I remember reading involve abuse of postal votes.
So I would have no problem going back to the (pre-Blair?) restrictions on who can get postal votes. Even though I’ve used one for as long as I can remember and it makes life far simpler for me personally
That’s great but that isn’t what the government is proposing in their grand crusade against “voter fraud”.
I guess that proves I’m not in government?
Yes but your defending the government’s policy not on what it actually is but what you think it should be. We can only challenge what has actually been proposed.
Simple question: is there going to free photo ID available. A passport is over £100 I believe and a provisional driving license costs £35. Are we really proposing a £30 tax on the ability to vote to tackle fraud that doesn’t exist?
and how often will it need updating, every year every address change.....? The House of Lords will (hopefully) smash this to pieces...
I worry about the number of posters on here who generally self identify as liberal (not in the party sense necessarily ) who support compulsory ID. ID will solve some issues and create some problems but fundamentally it is saying that the government has a right to demand to know who you are (at any time or transaction) and and can decide from that if you are worthy of a service/vote/benefit or privilege.
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way . The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
I come from a position of hating ID cards and actively campaigning against the Labour Government's plans to supporting them.
As it solves a pile of big security flaws that I've encountered over the years
1) Banks could confirm identification prior to performing transactions (bank fraud is way lower elsewhere in Europe including Bulgaria) 2) Right to work would be identifiable - it is currently easier to check a foreign national than a British Citizen. 3) Right to NHS healthcare would be identifiable. 4) Alcohol / lottery / tobacco sales
There are a whole set of similar use cases where a single standardised document (with / without backend validation) would make things easier - and creating the document doesn't instantly mean it carrying it has to be made mandatory - that should be a different piece of legislation.
I am sorry but I think everyone should have the right to work and healthcare . If that (being able to decide who has the right) is put forward has an advantage of ID cards then it is sickening
Mcvities to close their Scottish plant in Glasgow due to excess capacity and concentrate on their RUK plants
This sounds ever so familiar when we were warned the same would happen on Brexit as Companies relocate to the EU
This does raise the serious question of just how much economic damage will Sturgeon's quest for Independence do to future inward investment to Scotland whilst nobody knows it's future status, whilst the RUK does not have that as a problem
I worry about the number of posters on here who generally self identify as liberal (not in the party sense necessarily ) who support compulsory ID. ID will solve some issues and create some problems but fundamentally it is saying that the government has a right to demand to know who you are (at any time or transaction) and and can decide from that if you are worthy of a service/vote/benefit or privilege.
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way . The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
I come from a position of hating ID cards and actively campaigning against the Labour Government's plans to supporting them.
As it solves a pile of big security flaws that I've encountered over the years
1) Banks could confirm identification prior to performing transactions (bank fraud is way lower elsewhere in Europe including Bulgaria) 2) Right to work would be identifiable - it is currently easier to check a foreign national than a British Citizen. 3) Right to NHS healthcare would be identifiable. 4) Alcohol / lottery / tobacco sales
There are a whole set of similar use cases where a single standardised document (with / without backend validation) would make things easier - and creating the document doesn't instantly mean it carrying it has to be made mandatory - that should be a different piece of legislation.
I am sorry but I think everyone should have the right to work and healthcare . If that (being able to decide who as the right) is put forward has an advantage of ID cards then it is sickening
I support Voter and photo ID based on what I experienced as a Lib Dem Leader in Woking Council in 2012 where one of my councillors was found guilty of voter fraud. We knew widespread voter fraud was going on for at least 8 years prior to this - in all parties in Maybury and Sheerwater ward - but it could never be proven because of witnesses being too scared to come forward. My own councillor, who I suspected was guilty, tried to use all sorts of intimidation to undermine me and discredit my leadership with my own party members. It did work where eventually I decided not to restand as leader of the group in 2013. However, my wife and I were proved right in denying party funds be used in his defence. I just felt sorry for the poor suckers who were fooled into funding his legal defence costs on an individual basis.
Woking was one of the pilot councils who implemented voter ID to ensure that elections were free and fair. It hasn't suppressed voter turnout and support for anti-Tory parties actually increased last week in Woking.
Four people have been jailed for electoral fraud after a local by-election in Surrey in 2012.
A fifth person was given a suspended jail term following the Maybury and Sheerwater poll three years ago.
Shaukat Ali, Parveen Akhtar, Shamraiz Ali, Sobia Ali-Akhtar and Abid Hussain, from New Haw, were charged over claims that postal votes were being fraudulently submitted.
They were all convicted of conspiracy to defraud at Reading Crown Court.
Shaukat Ali was jailed for 15 months, Parveen Akhtar and Sobia Ali-Akhtar were both jailed for nine months, and Shamraiz Ali was jailed for six months.
Abid Hussain was given a six-month prison term suspended for 18 months.
That may be true but when I first moved to the UK in 1998, I helped in the 2001 General Elections. I was astonished how easy it was to commit voter fraud with postal voting on demand. Coming from South Africa, I couldn't believe that the system was naively based on trust. There have been several questionable election results such as the Forest Ward by-election in Leytonstone in 2003 where I helped. I knew Labour would lose it but not by over 600 votes. My estimate was around 200 votes based on canvassing returns and I'm usually very accurate.
What was the system you observed in South Africa? How did it work, and how well? And what parts of it would you personally recommend (or not) for UK?
I now live in the UAE but nothing has changed from the time I first helped in elections there in 1994 and 1996. You have to be registered and hold a photo ID document. They also have invisible ink painted on their fingers, which shows up under UV scanners to ensure that they have voted. No other form of ID is allowed such as a passport. The UK is just proposing any form of photo ID, which I think is more than fair. It is then much easier to track voter fraud and all people - even in a poor society like South Africa - accept photo ID to preserve the integrity of the vote. It hasn't suppressed the votes of any party. Parties will just have to ensure that people are educated and get voter ID.
Voter ID is ID cards by the back door.
I have proposed two cheap, essentially 100% effective, methods of eliminating personation, that don't suppress voter turnout, and don't effectively introduce ID cards.
How is compulsory photo ID superior to either of my suggestions?
Simplicity. Just have passports, driving license or if you don’t have either of those a government approved voter ID card that can be issued by banks or post offices.
Don’t link it to anything, don’t over engineer it, just have a simple proof of identity.
Add a date of birth and you can use it to stop your kids going into pubs as well…
People just wont bother. 4 out of 10 people already cant be bothered. The more obstacles, the less people will be bothered.
Yes, I know it isn’t a huge hurdle — I myself carry photo ID wherever I go — but it’s still a hurdle and people wont be arsed. The price is reduced turnout.
And I’m all for measures to increase turnout. Give every voter a lollipop for all I care.
But not at the cost of undermining the integrity of the system
By your own admission the system’s integrity is not undermined by the lack of a requirement for photo ID. Therefore framing them as a necessary evil to “ensure the integrity of the system” is just a nonsense.
Voting should be easy not hard. Making voting hard is a fraud all of its own.
Photo ID us not “hard”
Does it make voting easier or harder?
Should the electoral process be secure or not?
Voting should be secure AND easier. Not just for some, but for all.
You can't make a horse drink, but you can and SHOULD give them a water trough.
Not sure how much easier voting can be here. We have 16 hours of voting, with no queues.
The obvious answer is electronically from your computer or phone, as is used for tons of other votes already, with various single or multi-level verification steps to make sure people are properly entitled to their vote.
I support Voter and photo ID based on what I experienced as a Lib Dem Leader in Woking Council in 2012 where one of my councillors was found guilty of voter fraud. We knew widespread voter fraud was going on for at least 8 years prior to this - in all parties in Maybury and Sheerwater ward - but it could never be proven because of witnesses being too scared to come forward. My own councillor, who I suspected was guilty, tried to use all sorts of intimidation to undermine me and discredit my leadership with my own party members. It did work where eventually I decided not to restand as leader of the group in 2013. However, my wife and I were proved right in denying party funds be used in his defence. I just felt sorry for the poor suckers who were fooled into funding his legal defence costs on an individual basis.
Woking was one of the pilot councils who implemented voter ID to ensure that elections were free and fair. It hasn't suppressed voter turnout and support for anti-Tory parties actually increased last week in Woking.
Over the country as a whole, the problem is very small and hardly ever affects election results.
I wouldn't have a problem with extra ID checks in the few area where problems have taken place — but of course that would be deemed to be unacceptable for discriminating against certain places. The modern religion is "all or nothing" when it comes to this type of problem.
"Hardly ever affects election results" - sorry, but we should have zero tolerance to the possibility of it EVER affecting election results.
I'm appalled that people are so cavalier about this, when there is a very simple step to prevent it.
Problem is NOT stopping fraud - that's GOOD.
Problem is PRETENDING to fix fraud, when vast preponderance of EVIDENCE is that, in order to fix a rare problem, you make voter disenfranchisement a much bigger problem, esp. for the eligible citizens who lose their vote in the process - that's BAD.
Unless you're religion forbids it, killing a pesky fly is a good thing. Using a bazooka to do it is NOT.
Asking someone to show photo ID is reasonable. I know it may seem different from a US perspective because, unfortunately, it all too often goes hand in hand with other voter suppression techniques (eg limiting number of polling stations).
No. It isn’t reasonable because it’s unnecessary and not everyone has photo ID.
The current system works. You turn up and vote. If someone else has voted as you, you’ll know about it immediately. There is not a problem here that needs to be fixed therefore there must be a ulterior motive.
You need to make sure there is an easily accessible approved photo ID that people can get.
The obvious point is if its trivial to get then it is trivial to get for electoral fraudsters too. If it is not trivial to get voters who dont already have qualifying ID are to an extent disenfranchised.
Easily accessible doesn’t mean trivial.
There should be appropriate proofs required (not an expert so not going to opine on what) but I meant that you should be able to go into any bank or post office to organise.
Digging out your passport to vote is a pain in the arse. You can’t pop in to vote any more.
The government should be looking to increase turnout. Nearly 60% of people didn’t bother in Hartlepool. You don’t have to think too hard about why the government doesn’t do anything about that.
Those people didn’t vote because they didn’t believe in the integrity of the system mate. Photo ID is going to solve that. Rejoice.
Why these people didn't vote is an interesting question. Presumably there will be a number of reasons but it is pretty obvious that none of our political parties spoke for them or to them despite all the leafleting and efforts focused in a bye election with both the PM and the LOTO there regularly.
In Scotland I do not think that there is any doubt that the increased turnout was driven by anxiety about Indyref2 on both sides so people cared more. It is troubling that so many really didn't care what either Boris or SKS was offering in Hartlepool.
I no longer vote because there is no one to vote for. The Opposition is useless and I will not vote for Johnson and his English Nationalists.
I think that's sad. Who or what would you vote for?
I voted for the Union. In my area that meant voting Tory but I regard the current party as very much a mixed bag, some good, some bad. It is the least worst of the options. Can you not take such a relative view of the merits? Big tents inevitably contain undesirable elements but that is the nature of the beast and our democratic system.
I have, over the years, voted for all three of the main parties as well as Green (once) Of the three main parties I voted for the Tories and Libs the most often. I had great hopes for Dave & Nick's coalition. Now, the Libs have vanished and the Tories are now just UKIP led by a buffoon. Starmer's catch-phrase should be "I agree with Boris" given the number of times he has simply backed the govt.
There is something about the left that think so badly about their fellow humans.
Voting ID is about demonstrating the importance of the vote and signalling to everyone that it is secure.
But you assume it is for partisan reasons with no evidence - just your own belief that Tories are evil.
Would you agree that fraudulent postal voting is more of an issue than personation?
I don’t know the stats so wouldn’t be comfortable being definitive but many of the electoral fraud stories I remember reading involve abuse of postal votes.
So I would have no problem going back to the (pre-Blair?) restrictions on who can get postal votes. Even though I’ve used one for as long as I can remember and it makes life far simpler for me personally
That’s great but that isn’t what the government is proposing in their grand crusade against “voter fraud”.
I guess that proves I’m not in government?
Yes but your defending the government’s policy not on what it actually is but what you think it should be. We can only challenge what has actually been proposed.
Simple question: is there going to free photo ID available. A passport is over £100 I believe and a provisional driving license costs £35. Are we really proposing a £30 tax on the ability to vote to tackle fraud that doesn’t exist?
I don’t even know what the government is proposing! Im discussing it on a board with a bunch of political nerds…
I think the approved ID should be free. The cost will be marginal in the scheme of things.
I remember back in the 80s when a string of councillors from the Asian community were subject to police investigation and from memory some were prosecuted for voter fraud. Things like 16 voters being registered for a 2-bedroom terrace house.
I am no fan of the "nanny" or "BigBrother" state but with so many things in life now requiring proof of identity, from applying for a bank account to transferring from solicitor to another, there is a very strong argument for having a National Identity Scheme would could encompass proof of age for young folk in pubs and clubs to older people qualifying for bus passes. It would also drive down the cost of e.g. passport renewal because the data would already be on a biometric file. Personally I think we should have to prove who we are to vote. I have to provide my date of birth and signature every time I exercise my postal vote and it is now habit. If properly sold to the population, a scheme could be both popular and successful.
Voting should be easy not hard. Making voting hard is a fraud all of its own.
Photo ID us not “hard”
Does it make voting easier or harder?
Should the electoral process be secure or not?
Voting should be secure AND easier. Not just for some, but for all.
You can't make a horse drink, but you can and SHOULD give them a water trough.
Not sure how much easier voting can be here. We have 16 hours of voting, with no queues.
The obvious answer is electronically from your computer or phone, as is used for tons of other votes already, with various single or multi-level verification steps to make sure people are properly entitled to their vote.
That’s a healthy improvement in the balance of trade
Oh for the days when governments obsessed and were judged on this!
When did that change?
Probably around the Thacther era - For good or bad . It is a bit simplistic as a measure of course but I always loved the imagery the figures gave in my mind of cargo ships sailing this way and that!
I remain a bemused by the shouting on this one. It's all a bit hysterical.
AFAICS:
More than 20 countries in the EU have a form of national ID card. At least 10 EU countries require Voter ID at vote-casting time. One 1 EU country - Austria - has votes for under 16s.
Most of Europe seems to manage reasonable turnouts. My EU friends are baffled.
But requiring voter ID is an end to democracy in the UK, voter supression and all the rest. Presumably the country is also going to turn into a blasted desert populated by cockroaches.
I worry about the number of posters on here who generally self identify as liberal (not in the party sense necessarily ) who support compulsory ID. ID will solve some issues and create some problems but fundamentally it is saying that the government has a right to demand to know who you are (at any time or transaction) and and can decide from that if you are worthy of a service/vote/benefit or privilege.
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way . The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
I come from a position of hating ID cards and actively campaigning against the Labour Government's plans to supporting them.
As it solves a pile of big security flaws that I've encountered over the years
1) Banks could confirm identification prior to performing transactions (bank fraud is way lower elsewhere in Europe including Bulgaria) 2) Right to work would be identifiable - it is currently easier to check a foreign national than a British Citizen. 3) Right to NHS healthcare would be identifiable. 4) Alcohol / lottery / tobacco sales
There are a whole set of similar use cases where a single standardised document (with / without backend validation) would make things easier - and creating the document doesn't instantly mean it carrying it has to be made mandatory - that should be a different piece of legislation.
I am sorry but I think everyone should have the right to work and healthcare . If that (being able to decide who as the right) is put forward has an advantage of ID cards then it is sickening
That isn't what the law says - employing someone without the right to work in the UK is a £20k fine, equally we shouldn't support healthcare tourism where we end up paying for it.
Emergency care will always be free - shipping your Indian based Granny to get a hip operation isn't really on.
And in all those cases the id card is making the life of both the person who has the id card and the person who needs to check it easier.
Voting should be easy not hard. Making voting hard is a fraud all of its own.
Photo ID us not “hard”
Does it make voting easier or harder?
Should the electoral process be secure or not?
Voting should be secure AND easier. Not just for some, but for all.
You can't make a horse drink, but you can and SHOULD give them a water trough.
Not sure how much easier voting can be here. We have 16 hours of voting, with no queues.
The obvious answer is electronically from your computer or phone, as is used for tons of other votes already, with various single or multi-level verification steps to make sure people are properly entitled to their vote.
I wasn't advocating it; I was answering your question (implied question, since what you actually posted was a statement of uncertainty or missing knowledge)
Mcvities to close their Scottish plant in Glasgow due to excess capacity and concentrate on their RUK plants
This sounds ever so familiar when we were warned the same would happen on Brexit as Companies relocate to the EU
This does raise the serious question of just how much economic damage will Sturgeon's quest for Independence do to future inward investment to Scotland whilst nobody knows it's future status, whilst the RUK does not have that as a problem
There is something about the left that think so badly about their fellow humans.
Voting ID is about demonstrating the importance of the vote and signalling to everyone that it is secure.
But you assume it is for partisan reasons with no evidence - just your own belief that Tories are evil.
Would you agree that fraudulent postal voting is more of an issue than personation?
I don’t know the stats so wouldn’t be comfortable being definitive but many of the electoral fraud stories I remember reading involve abuse of postal votes.
So I would have no problem going back to the (pre-Blair?) restrictions on who can get postal votes. Even though I’ve used one for as long as I can remember and it makes life far simpler for me personally
That’s great but that isn’t what the government is proposing in their grand crusade against “voter fraud”.
I guess that proves I’m not in government?
Yes but your defending the government’s policy not on what it actually is but what you think it should be. We can only challenge what has actually been proposed.
Simple question: is there going to free photo ID available. A passport is over £100 I believe and a provisional driving license costs £35. Are we really proposing a £30 tax on the ability to vote to tackle fraud that doesn’t exist?
I don’t even know what the government is proposing! Im discussing it on a board with a bunch of political nerds…
I think the approved ID should be free. The cost will be marginal in the scheme of things.
But we’re discussing the actual policy. It doesn’t matter if the policy would be acceptable with safeguards such as free approved id and suitable ease of access if the policy doesn’t in fact have those things.
The question is: is the policy without those things still acceptable?
I didn't support Id cards at football matches in the 1980s when arguably there was a real hooligan problem to solve so find it incredible so many support them now (in seemingly all situations)
@SeaShantyIrish2 we hardly use “signatures” for anything in the UK anymore. I sign for things so irregularly that my signature never bears any resemblance to itself. It’s not a form of ID at all.
That is an issue, in US also. But not enough of one to scupper the system of sig checks for postal ballots.
For one thing, you have to provide a sig when you initially register to vote. If it's a scrawl, then chances are you will use a similar scrawl when you send back your ballot. Or if your scrawl has altered, you can send a new sig - under oath - to validate your ballot.
Also note that the system is designed NOT to knock people out, but rather to count them in UNLESS it's clear the sigs don't match. General rule in WA is three points of agreement. With double-checks on all challenges BEFORE they get rejected.
Personally am VERY careful how I sign my return ballot envelope! Fully expect one day to have my sig challenged, because I'm slightly superannuated. But it's really not that big a deal - so long as you really are you!
Voting should be easy not hard. Making voting hard is a fraud all of its own.
Photo ID us not “hard”
Does it make voting easier or harder?
Should the electoral process be secure or not?
The most striking thing is that push the (usually Conservative) proponents of voter ID, and you pretty quickly get to what one might call the alleged Tower Hamlets scenario. Yet the proposals themselves don't really offer anything to deal with that. Which means they are being put forward for some other reason.
The blackest scenario is the quasi-GOP voter suppression one. Yet I suspect the impact on turnout will actually be marginal (although I do anticipate it could cause queues and admin chaos at some polling stations), and may well hit the elderly (and new red wall) Tory voters. So I suspect it isn't being put forward for that reason.
The two more likely scenarios are as a stepping-stone to ID cards, or simply the "something must be done" factor as a bone to Tory electioneers, with this being "something" regardless of whether it will make any difference.
A signalling device, box checking vs international recommendations and possibly a dead cat
I support Voter and photo ID based on what I experienced as a Lib Dem Leader in Woking Council in 2012 where one of my councillors was found guilty of voter fraud. We knew widespread voter fraud was going on for at least 8 years prior to this - in all parties in Maybury and Sheerwater ward - but it could never be proven because of witnesses being too scared to come forward. My own councillor, who I suspected was guilty, tried to use all sorts of intimidation to undermine me and discredit my leadership with my own party members. It did work where eventually I decided not to restand as leader of the group in 2013. However, my wife and I were proved right in denying party funds be used in his defence. I just felt sorry for the poor suckers who were fooled into funding his legal defence costs on an individual basis.
Woking was one of the pilot councils who implemented voter ID to ensure that elections were free and fair. It hasn't suppressed voter turnout and support for anti-Tory parties actually increased last week in Woking.
Over the country as a whole, the problem is very small and hardly ever affects election results.
I wouldn't have a problem with extra ID checks in the few area where problems have taken place — but of course that would be deemed to be unacceptable for discriminating against certain places. The modern religion is "all or nothing" when it comes to this type of problem.
"Hardly ever affects election results" - sorry, but we should have zero tolerance to the possibility of it EVER affecting election results.
I'm appalled that people are so cavalier about this, when there is a very simple step to prevent it.
Problem is NOT stopping fraud - that's GOOD.
Problem is PRETENDING to fix fraud, when vast preponderance of EVIDENCE is that, in order to fix a rare problem, you make voter disenfranchisement a much bigger problem, esp. for the eligible citizens who lose their vote in the process - that's BAD.
Unless you're religion forbids it, killing a pesky fly is a good thing. Using a bazooka to do it is NOT.
Asking someone to show photo ID is reasonable. I know it may seem different from a US perspective because, unfortunately, it all too often goes hand in hand with other voter suppression techniques (eg limiting number of polling stations).
No. It isn’t reasonable because it’s unnecessary and not everyone has photo ID.
The current system works. You turn up and vote. If someone else has voted as you, you’ll know about it immediately. There is not a problem here that needs to be fixed therefore there must be a ulterior motive.
You need to make sure there is an easily accessible approved photo ID that people can get.
The obvious point is if its trivial to get then it is trivial to get for electoral fraudsters too. If it is not trivial to get voters who dont already have qualifying ID are to an extent disenfranchised.
Easily accessible doesn’t mean trivial.
There should be appropriate proofs required (not an expert so not going to opine on what) but I meant that you should be able to go into any bank or post office to organise.
I am not an expert either but can see that if you dont have any acceptable ID in the first place it is going to be hard for the bank or post office to know if they should give a voting photo ID card to you, but not to someone pretending to be you. That difficulty will inevitably mean that new ID wont be easily accessible.
If the PM was really interested in cracking down on electoral fraud he'd make obtaining a postal vote much harder but that's not going to happen given how many Tories use postals.
The more the left whine at the injustice of it all and how it is going to adversely affect the voters Boris courts, the more likely one is attracted to looking at the doublethink aspect to their attack.
Eventually the Tories will lose power and then the left take power and then make it harder for Tories to vote then you'll have no moral ground to complain.
Quite so. The Labour response would be straightforward - instruct the Boundary Commission to base population not on registered voters but on eligible population (cf. the census). It wouldn't make it harder for Tories to vote (I'd be against that just as much as this), but it would remove the bias to people with settled addresses, who are disproportionately older and more Tory.
I've been saying this for years.... So many news articles where the obvious is not stated, so many interviews where the clueless journalist omits to point out the obvious, so many opposition politicians unable to see the open goal in front of them, and finally I find I am not alone!! Hurray.
Voting should be easy not hard. Making voting hard is a fraud all of its own.
Photo ID us not “hard”
Does it make voting easier or harder?
Should the electoral process be secure or not?
Yes it should be. But as far as voter ID fraud is concerned it is. So nothing to fix. See my posts of the last few days where I detail out why and how. The process makes it pretty well impossible to carry out voter ID fraud over a handful of votes without getting caught.
There are plenty of other flaws in the electoral law that need fixing.
@SeaShantyIrish2 we hardly use “signatures” for anything in the UK anymore. I sign for things so irregularly that my signature never bears any resemblance to itself. It’s not a form of ID at all.
That is an issue, in US also. But not enough of one to scupper the system of sig checks for postal ballots.
For one thing, you have to provide a sig when you initially register to vote. If it's a scrawl, then chances are you will use a similar scrawl when you send back your ballot. Or if your scrawl has altered, you can send a new sig - under oath - to validate your ballot.
Also note that the system is designed NOT to knock people out, but rather to count them in UNLESS it's clear the sigs don't match. General rule in WA is three points of agreement. With double-checks on all challenges BEFORE they get rejected.
Personally am VERY careful how I sign my return ballot envelope! Fully expect one day to have my sig challenged, because I'm slightly superannuated. But it's really not that big a deal - so long as you really are you!
I worry about the number of posters on here who generally self identify as liberal (not in the party sense necessarily ) who support compulsory ID. ID will solve some issues and create some problems but fundamentally it is saying that the government has a right to demand to know who you are (at any time or transaction) and and can decide from that if you are worthy of a service/vote/benefit or privilege.
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way . The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
I come from a position of hating ID cards and actively campaigning against the Labour Government's plans to supporting them.
As it solves a pile of big security flaws that I've encountered over the years
1) Banks could confirm identification prior to performing transactions (bank fraud is way lower elsewhere in Europe including Bulgaria) 2) Right to work would be identifiable - it is currently easier to check a foreign national than a British Citizen. 3) Right to NHS healthcare would be identifiable. 4) Alcohol / lottery / tobacco sales
There are a whole set of similar use cases where a single standardised document (with / without backend validation) would make things easier - and creating the document doesn't instantly mean it carrying it has to be made mandatory - that should be a different piece of legislation.
I am sorry but I think everyone should have the right to work and healthcare . If that (being able to decide who as the right) is put forward has an advantage of ID cards then it is sickening
That isn't what the law says - employing someone without the right to work in the UK is a £20k fine, equally we shouldn't support healthcare tourism where we end up paying for it.
Emergency care will always be free - shipping your Indian based Granny to get a hip operation isn't really on.
And in all those cases the id card is making the life of both the person who has the id card and the person who needs to check it easier.
If shipping your Indian granny to get her hip done, be prepared to keep her for over a year! Cheaper to get it done in Gujerat.
That’s a healthy improvement in the balance of trade
Oh for the days when governments obsessed and were judged on this!
Back in the 1980’s, the government used to directly control the delivery schedules of BA’s new 747s, such was the impact of a couple of £100m items on the balance of payments numbers!
There is something about the left that think so badly about their fellow humans.
Voting ID is about demonstrating the importance of the vote and signalling to everyone that it is secure.
But you assume it is for partisan reasons with no evidence - just your own belief that Tories are evil.
Would you agree that fraudulent postal voting is more of an issue than personation?
I don’t know the stats so wouldn’t be comfortable being definitive but many of the electoral fraud stories I remember reading involve abuse of postal votes.
So I would have no problem going back to the (pre-Blair?) restrictions on who can get postal votes. Even though I’ve used one for as long as I can remember and it makes life far simpler for me personally
That’s great but that isn’t what the government is proposing in their grand crusade against “voter fraud”.
I guess that proves I’m not in government?
Yes but your defending the government’s policy not on what it actually is but what you think it should be. We can only challenge what has actually been proposed.
Simple question: is there going to free photo ID available. A passport is over £100 I believe and a provisional driving license costs £35. Are we really proposing a £30 tax on the ability to vote to tackle fraud that doesn’t exist?
I don’t even know what the government is proposing! Im discussing it on a board with a bunch of political nerds…
I think the approved ID should be free. The cost will be marginal in the scheme of things.
But we’re discussing the actual policy. It doesn’t matter if the policy would be acceptable with safeguards such as free approved id and suitable ease of access if the policy doesn’t in fact have those things.
The question is: is the policy without those things still acceptable?
Yes because the issue stems from international observers who recommended that asking for voter ID could improve the integrity of polls.
While it really doesn't do that - remember Boris and this Government do not think through the consequences so for them it's a point scoring political exercise with international justification.
We may not like it (we could do use the cards for so much more with little additional effort) but that isn't what is happening here.
To be fair to Chas, there are two possibilities here
1. He knows it is bollocks and is cynically posting an alternative view. 2. He really is that gullible
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity...
People forget that I’m not a Tory - I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If I trusted the LibDems I would happily vote for them but I don’t like their SDP leanings.
The democratic system is sacrosanct. It should be protected. People should have confidence in it. There have been way too many cases undermining that. I fully accept that most known cases are abuse of postal votes but the whole system needs an overhaul. Voter ID is part of that - but it is important to make sure that people have easy access to an approved form of ID in the event they don’t have a passport or driving license.
I don’t care about the party political impact.
That’s fine Charles. But that isn’t what’s going to happen. That isn’t what is being proposed.
So we’re going to introduce an ID requirement to vote in person which by your own admission will not solve any of our fraud “problems” but will act as an additional barrier to voting.
You have not thought this through.
You are misinterpreting me.
It will solve some but not all. That is an improvement.
It will also act as a signalling device that builds confidence in the result.
There have been accusations in the past that specific electoral malpractice techniques have been imported by some communities (eg IIRC there is a link to Mirapur in many cases). Putting in place protective measures eliminates any validity to that accusation which can be used to drive a wedge between communities
I worry about the number of posters on here who generally self identify as liberal (not in the party sense necessarily ) who support compulsory ID. ID will solve some issues and create some problems but fundamentally it is saying that the government has a right to demand to know who you are (at any time or transaction) and and can decide from that if you are worthy of a service/vote/benefit or privilege.
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way . The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
I come from a position of hating ID cards and actively campaigning against the Labour Government's plans to supporting them.
As it solves a pile of big security flaws that I've encountered over the years
1) Banks could confirm identification prior to performing transactions (bank fraud is way lower elsewhere in Europe including Bulgaria) 2) Right to work would be identifiable - it is currently easier to check a foreign national than a British Citizen. 3) Right to NHS healthcare would be identifiable. 4) Alcohol / lottery / tobacco sales
There are a whole set of similar use cases where a single standardised document (with / without backend validation) would make things easier - and creating the document doesn't instantly mean it carrying it has to be made mandatory - that should be a different piece of legislation.
I am sorry but I think everyone should have the right to work and healthcare . If that (being able to decide who as the right) is put forward has an advantage of ID cards then it is sickening
That isn't what the law says - employing someone without the right to work in the UK is a £20k fine, equally we shouldn't support healthcare tourism where we end up paying for it.
Emergency care will always be free - shipping your Indian based Granny to get a hip operation isn't really on.
And in all those cases the id card is making the life of both the person who has the id card and the person who needs to check it easier.
If shipping your Indian granny to get her hip done, be prepared to keep her for over a year! Cheaper to get it done in Gujerat.
Granted it wasn't the best example, I was trying to think of one that wasn't maternity care.
I remain a bemused by the shouting on this one. It's all a bit hysterical.
AFAICS:
More than 20 countries in the EU have a form of national ID card. At least 10 EU countries require Voter ID at vote-casting time. One 1 EU country - Austria - has votes for under 16s.
Most of Europe seems to manage reasonable turnouts. My EU friends are baffled.
But requiring voter ID is an end to democracy in the UK, voter supression and all the rest. Presumably the country is also going to turn into a blasted desert populated by cockroaches.
The argument about ID cards cutting underage drinkers /smokers/gamblers is overegged as well given nearly everyone on here that supports it probably has done these things when under 18 and occasionally almost brag about it in a fond way as a nostalgic anecdote. My daughter drinks underage (she is 17 ) but is fine and balanced . We really have become a pompous bossy culture full of petty rules (cautious hugging FFS) and sometimes mean rules
One side point I wonder re: ID cards, which I don't know the answer to, is whether the WIndrush Generation loss of records would have happened in the same manner.
The argument about ID cards cutting underage drinkers /smokers/gamblers is overegged as well given nearly everyone on here that supports it probably has done these things when under 18 and occasionally almost brag about it in a fond way as a nostalgic anecdote. My daughter drinks underage (she is 17 ) but is fine and balanced . We really have become a pompous bossy culture full of petty rules (cautious hugging FFS) and sometimes mean rules
If the PM was really interested in cracking down on electoral fraud he'd make obtaining a postal vote much harder but that's not going to happen given how many Tories use postals.
The more the left whine at the injustice of it all and how it is going to adversely affect the voters Boris courts, the more likely one is attracted to looking at the doublethink aspect to their attack.
Eventually the Tories will lose power and then the left take power and then make it harder for Tories to vote then you'll have no moral ground to complain.
Quite so. The Labour response would be straightforward - instruct the Boundary Commission to base population not on registered voters but on eligible population (cf. the census). It wouldn't make it harder for Tories to vote (I'd be against that just as much as this), but it would remove the bias to people with settled addresses, who are disproportionately older and more Tory.
You are however making the assumption there that the principal effect of transient population on the register total is that new arrivals aren't added promptly (or at all) to the list.
My experience of trying to canvass such areas of East London is that the principal effect is tons of people still on the register who are no longer there.
edit/ in any event, the net effect of double registrations - students, landlords, second home owners etc - is probably bigger.
And while people who see "students" will think "that must benefit Labour", actually it doesn't, for the areas with the extra registrations - and hence marginally "more" MPs than they are strictly entitled to - are the areas where the students' parents live, which are biased towards the Tory Home Counties.
That may be true but when I first moved to the UK in 1998, I helped in the 2001 General Elections. I was astonished how easy it was to commit voter fraud with postal voting on demand. Coming from South Africa, I couldn't believe that the system was naively based on trust. There have been several questionable election results such as the Forest Ward by-election in Leytonstone in 2003 where I helped. I knew Labour would lose it but not by over 600 votes. My estimate was around 200 votes based on canvassing returns and I'm usually very accurate.
What was the system you observed in South Africa? How did it work, and how well? And what parts of it would you personally recommend (or not) for UK?
I now live in the UAE but nothing has changed from the time I first helped in elections there in 1994 and 1996. You have to be registered and hold a photo ID document. They also have invisible ink painted on their fingers, which shows up under UV scanners to ensure that they have voted. No other form of ID is allowed such as a passport. The UK is just proposing any form of photo ID, which I think is more than fair. It is then much easier to track voter fraud and all people - even in a poor society like South Africa - accept photo ID to preserve the integrity of the vote. It hasn't suppressed the votes of any party. Parties will just have to ensure that people are educated and get voter ID.
Voter ID is ID cards by the back door.
I have proposed two cheap, essentially 100% effective, methods of eliminating personation, that don't suppress voter turnout, and don't effectively introduce ID cards.
How is compulsory photo ID superior to either of my suggestions?
Simplicity. Just have passports, driving license or if you don’t have either of those a government approved voter ID card that can be issued by banks or post offices.
Don’t link it to anything, don’t over engineer it, just have a simple proof of identity.
Add a date of birth and you can use it to stop your kids going into pubs as well…
People just wont bother. 4 out of 10 people already cant be bothered. The more obstacles, the less people will be bothered.
Yes, I know it isn’t a huge hurdle — I myself carry photo ID wherever I go — but it’s still a hurdle and people wont be arsed. The price is reduced turnout.
And I’m all for measures to increase turnout. Give every voter a lollipop for all I care.
But not at the cost of undermining the integrity of the system
By your own admission the system’s integrity is not undermined by the lack of a requirement for photo ID. Therefore framing them as a necessary evil to “ensure the integrity of the system” is just a nonsense.
It just doesn’t make sense.
“By [my] own admission the system’s integrity is not undermined by the lack of a requirement for photo ID”
Please post… I may have mistyped or been misunderstood but improving the integrity of the system is exactly why I support this measure. It may be curing an issue or it may be preemptive- that doesn’t bother me
I remain a bemused by the shouting on this one. It's all a bit hysterical.
AFAICS:
More than 20 countries in the EU have a form of national ID card. At least 10 EU countries require Voter ID at vote-casting time. One 1 EU country - Austria - has votes for under 16s.
Most of Europe seems to manage reasonable turnouts. My EU friends are baffled.
But requiring voter ID is an end to democracy in the UK, voter supression and all the rest. Presumably the country is also going to turn into a blasted desert populated by cockroaches.
Time to calm down a touch, perhaps.
The issue is a combination of
1) what problem are you trying to fix - as voter fraud doesn't exist where you are trying to implement this fix but it is an international observer recommendation 2) a complete hatred of ID cards due to its use when Labour attempted to create a global citizenship database.
I was very much against Labours plans but the ID card itself isn't a problem - it's just part of an x factor authentication process.
I didn't support Id cards at football matches in the 1980s when arguably there was a real hooligan problem to solve so find it incredible so many support them now (in seemingly all situations)
Robert's suggestion is a possible compromise methinks that avoids requiring photo ID.
My assumption is that the government is determined to put some kind of measure through, and has the votes to do it barring massive revolt from its own backbenchers. Which is not out of the realm of possibility but also not likely IMHO.
What is MORE likely, is that the proposed legislation be amended - in the Commons and/or the Lords, to incorporate alternatives to presenting photo ID on polling day, and otherwise seek to avoid disenfranchisement of ANY eligible elector, and also skewing for or against any demographic or political group.
Which methinks will be a fundamental test of the government's good faith.
AND also potential fodder for litigation? I note in this context that the House of Commons used to be the sole judge of it's own elections - just as Congress is today in the US. However, the gross partisanship of THAT process left a stench in the nostrils of the Great British Public, and Parliament decided in its wisdom to turn the whole business of contested elections to the courts.
Suggestion - what if Parliament granted some independent commission the duty and authority of determining and monitoring procedures for registration and voting? Under judicial oversight?
There is something about the left that think so badly about their fellow humans.
Voting ID is about demonstrating the importance of the vote and signalling to everyone that it is secure.
But you assume it is for partisan reasons with no evidence - just your own belief that Tories are evil.
Lol. Blatant hypocrisy and partisanship.
The whole voter id thing is premised on the belief that everyone voting is on the take. The current system is about self-policing and trust. The current system is incredibly British.
Must try harder Charles
The change is about signalling that voting is secure
Oh, the squealing when you say that - from people who must assume part of their vote is based on fraud, to be so worried....
So juvenile. You can do better than this.
Juvenile? The desire to make the result reflect the true will of the electorate, not debased by fraud? Riiiiiight.......
You’re still being juvenile. We know that the result already reflects the true will of the electorate and isn’t debased by fraud but of course you have to come here with arrogant triumphalism to blindly defend the government without engaging in any of the actual arguments.
The question is: is there enough fraud or perceived fraud to justify putting obstacles in the way of voting? No matter your opinion, it is still an obstacle that doesn’t currently exist.
You may believe that obstacle is worth it. Fine. But that’s an actual argument rather than simply screaming “THE LEFT SUPPORTS FRAUD” like a child.
You protest too much.
I'm sure your stand here is entirely consistent with the best for democracy.
I support Voter and photo ID based on what I experienced as a Lib Dem Leader in Woking Council in 2012 where one of my councillors was found guilty of voter fraud. We knew widespread voter fraud was going on for at least 8 years prior to this - in all parties in Maybury and Sheerwater ward - but it could never be proven because of witnesses being too scared to come forward. My own councillor, who I suspected was guilty, tried to use all sorts of intimidation to undermine me and discredit my leadership with my own party members. It did work where eventually I decided not to restand as leader of the group in 2013. However, my wife and I were proved right in denying party funds be used in his defence. I just felt sorry for the poor suckers who were fooled into funding his legal defence costs on an individual basis.
Woking was one of the pilot councils who implemented voter ID to ensure that elections were free and fair. It hasn't suppressed voter turnout and support for anti-Tory parties actually increased last week in Woking.
Four people have been jailed for electoral fraud after a local by-election in Surrey in 2012.
A fifth person was given a suspended jail term following the Maybury and Sheerwater poll three years ago.
Shaukat Ali, Parveen Akhtar, Shamraiz Ali, Sobia Ali-Akhtar and Abid Hussain, from New Haw, were charged over claims that postal votes were being fraudulently submitted.
They were all convicted of conspiracy to defraud at Reading Crown Court.
Shaukat Ali was jailed for 15 months, Parveen Akhtar and Sobia Ali-Akhtar were both jailed for nine months, and Shamraiz Ali was jailed for six months.
Abid Hussain was given a six-month prison term suspended for 18 months.
Voting fraud is a non-issue for over 95% of this country.
Voting fraud is a problem in some areas dominated by people of Pakistani heritage.
Sort out the problem in the latter areas before making needless changes in the rest.
I suspect that is the aim. Introduce it as a proposal to ensure that it looks like it is neutral, then get to the amendment stage where people kick up a fuss and say it is only one part of the system, and then the Govt changes courses and focuses the attention on postal votes. I think saying directly, we are going after postal voters makes it look as though it is targeted. Frame it in this way, and then amend later, takes away the edge.
To be fair to Chas, there are two possibilities here
1. He knows it is bollocks and is cynically posting an alternative view. 2. He really is that gullible
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity...
People forget that I’m not a Tory - I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If I trusted the LibDems I would happily vote for them but I don’t like their SDP leanings.
The democratic system is sacrosanct. It should be protected. People should have confidence in it. There have been way too many cases undermining that. I fully accept that most known cases are abuse of postal votes but the whole system needs an overhaul. Voter ID is part of that - but it is important to make sure that people have easy access to an approved form of ID in the event they don’t have a passport or driving license.
I don’t care about the party political impact.
That’s fine Charles. But that isn’t what’s going to happen. That isn’t what is being proposed.
So we’re going to introduce an ID requirement to vote in person which by your own admission will not solve any of our fraud “problems” but will act as an additional barrier to voting.
You have not thought this through.
You are misinterpreting me.
It will solve some but not all. That is an improvement.
It will also act as a signalling device that builds confidence in the result.
There have been accusations in the past that specific electoral malpractice techniques have been imported by some communities (eg IIRC there is a link to Mirapur in many cases). Putting in place protective measures eliminates any validity to that accusation which can be used to drive a wedge between communities
Well, fair enough.
I personally believe they will cause more problems than they solve and will fundamentally undermine a proud tradition of British democracy — the ease of voting and the lack of administrative burden.
One side point I wonder re: ID cards, which I don't know the answer to, is whether the WIndrush Generation loss of records would have happened in the same manner.
Nope - because there would have been a current record that would have remained in place.
The Windrush records were removed because no one understood they were the only source of truth for some information prior to their destruction for being out of date, historic and not required.
With an ID card yes the old records would still have been destroyed but there still would have been a valid source of truth showing they were allowed to be here.
That may be true but when I first moved to the UK in 1998, I helped in the 2001 General Elections. I was astonished how easy it was to commit voter fraud with postal voting on demand. Coming from South Africa, I couldn't believe that the system was naively based on trust. There have been several questionable election results such as the Forest Ward by-election in Leytonstone in 2003 where I helped. I knew Labour would lose it but not by over 600 votes. My estimate was around 200 votes based on canvassing returns and I'm usually very accurate.
What was the system you observed in South Africa? How did it work, and how well? And what parts of it would you personally recommend (or not) for UK?
I now live in the UAE but nothing has changed from the time I first helped in elections there in 1994 and 1996. You have to be registered and hold a photo ID document. They also have invisible ink painted on their fingers, which shows up under UV scanners to ensure that they have voted. No other form of ID is allowed such as a passport. The UK is just proposing any form of photo ID, which I think is more than fair. It is then much easier to track voter fraud and all people - even in a poor society like South Africa - accept photo ID to preserve the integrity of the vote. It hasn't suppressed the votes of any party. Parties will just have to ensure that people are educated and get voter ID.
Voter ID is ID cards by the back door.
I have proposed two cheap, essentially 100% effective, methods of eliminating personation, that don't suppress voter turnout, and don't effectively introduce ID cards.
How is compulsory photo ID superior to either of my suggestions?
Simplicity. Just have passports, driving license or if you don’t have either of those a government approved voter ID card that can be issued by banks or post offices.
Don’t link it to anything, don’t over engineer it, just have a simple proof of identity.
Add a date of birth and you can use it to stop your kids going into pubs as well…
People just wont bother. 4 out of 10 people already cant be bothered. The more obstacles, the less people will be bothered.
Yes, I know it isn’t a huge hurdle — I myself carry photo ID wherever I go — but it’s still a hurdle and people wont be arsed. The price is reduced turnout.
And I’m all for measures to increase turnout. Give every voter a lollipop for all I care.
But not at the cost of undermining the integrity of the system
By your own admission the system’s integrity is not undermined by the lack of a requirement for photo ID. Therefore framing them as a necessary evil to “ensure the integrity of the system” is just a nonsense.
It just doesn’t make sense.
“By [my] own admission the system’s integrity is not undermined by the lack of a requirement for photo ID”
Please post… I may have mistyped or been misunderstood but improving the integrity of the system is exactly why I support this measure. It may be curing an issue or it may be preemptive- that doesn’t bother me
Based on what you've written here, would I be correct in thinking that you would be in favor of exploring various issues that have been raised, in order to make sure that safeguards and improvements really ARE that, and to prevent or at least mitigate obvious downsides, esp. those with even more potential for harm, to individuals, groups AND the good of the order?
BTW how do your family & friends in OC cast their votes? In person or by mail or (if you have them) ballot box?
Comments
Ask the fishermen...
Yes, I know it isn’t a huge hurdle — I myself carry photo ID wherever I go — but it’s still a hurdle and people wont be arsed. The price is reduced turnout.
a. Dont prosecute anyone at all from before the Good Friday agreement
or
b. Have a truth and reconciliation committee. Anything confessed to that committee is no longer a convictable offence. Anything else can be prosecuted.
The reality is as others have said the improvement in our trade is probably temporary, because there was a major stockpiling effect in Q4 and a major unwind effect in January.
What would be more interesting is to compare eg March to eg Q3, stripping out the January unwind and the Q4 stockpiling.
One reason that I prefer to vote in person is knowing that the vote is going to be counted. I only voted by post in one GE (2010) as I was in Malawi at the time, which incidentally made following the outcomes a bit tricky.
Not cheap but use of technology can reduce per unit cost.
Way its done in WA, is that all sigs are checked. Then sigs that are flagged as problematic are double-checked by a supervisor. And only rejected IF the supervisor agrees it does NOT match.
At that point, voters are sent a letter, telling them of the problem, and giving them opportunity to submit a new signature. Which is then compared to the one on the ballot. If the new sig matches, it's counted. IF not, not.
BTW, all these signatures are to legally-required voter oath, with voters informed that forging signatures or submitting false info is punishable as perjury.
I voted for the Union. In my area that meant voting Tory but I regard the current party as very much a mixed bag, some good, some bad. It is the least worst of the options. Can you not take such a relative view of the merits? Big tents inevitably contain undesirable elements but that is the nature of the beast and our democratic system.
Simple question: is there going to free photo ID available. A passport is over £100 I believe and a provisional driving license costs £35. Are we really proposing a £30 tax on the ability to vote to tackle fraud that doesn’t exist?
1. -8.7% this is the modelled output figure, the one that is the least internationally comparable and gold plates a lot of unnecessary recommendations on measuring state output instead of inputs.
2. -5.9% this is based on the monthly index of market price GDP and is relatively internationally comparable but it still uses an index based measurement which is unnecessary.
3. -2.9% this is nominal GDP and easily the most comparable to how the rest of the world measures GDP, one number divided by the other.
So there's something for everyone. The third measure probably most closely reflects what is happening on the ground as it is simply a mathematical measure of GDP at the end of March 2021 compared to GDP at the end of Feb 2020. Some would argue that the first measure is most accurate but ultimately a doctor getting paid £120k still gets paid £120k whether they're seeing hundreds of patients (a high level of output) or no patients (zero output). The first measure downrates that doctor's output from ~£120k to zero, the third measure doesn't. Same as teachers and other state sector employees who are inherently less productive because their place of work is closed.
It’s amazing that it still persists, with few online options or VIP fast track services.
Carries on like this for a more quarters and we'll soon be in surplus in our trade with the EU.
This is especially important in very close elections, in particular where it looks like a recount is possible, or a virtual certainty. At that point, campaigns start matching the challenged list against IDed supporters, to urge them to take the steps needed to "cure" their ballots so they can and will be counted.
We call this a "signature chase" and it is open and done by both sides - though mine tends to do it slightly better! Was a key reason why Christine Gregoire beat Dino Rossi by +133 votes in 2004 govenors race.
Have seen these votes turn out to be THE difference between the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.
Acceptable photo id
It makes me want to vomit frankly . We are born not as property of the state and should be that way as adults. The Earth is only divided into sections or countries due to power grabs in that past. The state has no right to treat humans differently when going about routine or daily business
The democratic system is sacrosanct. It should be protected. People should have confidence in it. There have been way too many cases undermining that. I fully accept that most known cases are abuse of postal votes but the whole system needs an overhaul. Voter ID is part of that - but it is important to make sure that people have easy access to an approved form of ID in the event they don’t have a passport or driving license.
I don’t care about the party political impact.
Anyone 18 or older who is US citizen applying for a drivers license (or ID card) is given opportunity to register to vote. In fact, that is how most new registrations are received in WA, via the state Department of Licensing.
You can get your photo ID and get on the voter rolls in one fell swoop.
If it was the other way around I'm fairly sure they'd be making a big deal about it.
The blackest scenario is the quasi-GOP voter suppression one. Yet I suspect the impact on turnout will actually be marginal (although I do anticipate it could cause queues and admin chaos at some polling stations), and may well hit the elderly (and new red wall) Tory voters. So I suspect it isn't being put forward for that reason.
The two more likely scenarios are as a stepping-stone to ID cards, or simply the "something must be done" factor as a bone to Tory electioneers, with this being "something" regardless of whether it will make any difference.
Q2 will have a bounce and Q3 another, given the big steps of lifting lockdown are next Monday and then virtually the end of June.
So we’re going to introduce an ID requirement to vote in person which by your own admission will not solve any of our fraud “problems” but will act as an additional barrier to voting.
You have not thought this through.
This looks like the work of Vladimir Putin not a Great British Churchillian hero
"However, the ONS said the construction industry had grown strongly and was now above its pre-pandemic level"
You can't make a horse drink, but you can and SHOULD give them a water trough.
But not at the cost of undermining the integrity of the system
As it solves a pile of big security flaws that I've encountered over the years
1) Banks could confirm identification prior to performing transactions (bank fraud is way lower elsewhere in Europe including Bulgaria)
2) Right to work would be identifiable - it is currently easier to check a foreign national than a British Citizen.
3) Right to NHS healthcare would be identifiable.
4) Alcohol / lottery / tobacco sales
There are a whole set of similar use cases where a single standardised document (with / without backend validation) would make things easier - and creating the document doesn't instantly mean it carrying it has to be made mandatory - that should be a different piece of legislation.
The issue with the Labour plan is that instead of introducing a standardised document they attempted to create a global database at the same time. The document is disliked by some people, Labours big brother database managed to add millions of other reasons to the debate.
Really?
The House of Lords will (hopefully) smash this to pieces...
(X - M) has improved considerably.
A fifth person was given a suspended jail term following the Maybury and Sheerwater poll three years ago.
Shaukat Ali, Parveen Akhtar, Shamraiz Ali, Sobia Ali-Akhtar and Abid Hussain, from New Haw, were charged over claims that postal votes were being fraudulently submitted.
They were all convicted of conspiracy to defraud at Reading Crown Court.
Shaukat Ali was jailed for 15 months, Parveen Akhtar and Sobia Ali-Akhtar were both jailed for nine months, and Shamraiz Ali was jailed for six months.
Abid Hussain was given a six-month prison term suspended for 18 months.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-33070604
Voting fraud is a non-issue for over 95% of this country.
Voting fraud is a problem in some areas dominated by people of Pakistani heritage.
Sort out the problem in the latter areas before making needless changes in the rest.
It just doesn’t make sense.
There should be appropriate proofs required (not an expert so not going to opine on what) but I meant that you should be able to go into any bank or post office to organise.
I think the approved ID should be free. The cost will be marginal in the scheme of things.
I am no fan of the "nanny" or "BigBrother" state but with so many things in life now requiring proof of identity, from applying for a bank account to transferring from solicitor to another, there is a very strong argument for having a National Identity Scheme would could encompass proof of age for young folk in pubs and clubs to older people qualifying for bus passes. It would also drive down the cost of e.g. passport renewal because the data would already be on a biometric file. Personally I think we should have to prove who we are to vote. I have to provide my date of birth and signature every time I exercise my postal vote and it is now habit. If properly sold to the population, a scheme could be both popular and successful.
https://xkcd.com/2030/
AFAICS:
More than 20 countries in the EU have a form of national ID card.
At least 10 EU countries require Voter ID at vote-casting time.
One 1 EU country - Austria - has votes for under 16s.
Most of Europe seems to manage reasonable turnouts. My EU friends are baffled.
But requiring voter ID is an end to democracy in the UK, voter supression and all the rest. Presumably the country is also going to turn into a blasted desert populated by cockroaches.
Time to calm down a touch, perhaps.
Emergency care will always be free - shipping your Indian based Granny to get a hip operation isn't really on.
And in all those cases the id card is making the life of both the person who has the id card and the person who needs to check it easier.
The question is: is the policy without those things still acceptable?
For one thing, you have to provide a sig when you initially register to vote. If it's a scrawl, then chances are you will use a similar scrawl when you send back your ballot. Or if your scrawl has altered, you can send a new sig - under oath - to validate your ballot.
Also note that the system is designed NOT to knock people out, but rather to count them in UNLESS it's clear the sigs don't match. General rule in WA is three points of agreement. With double-checks on all challenges BEFORE they get rejected.
Personally am VERY careful how I sign my return ballot envelope! Fully expect one day to have my sig challenged, because I'm slightly superannuated. But it's really not that big a deal - so long as you really are you!
There are plenty of other flaws in the electoral law that need fixing.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf_file/Forensic-Science-guidance.pdf
While it really doesn't do that - remember Boris and this Government do not think through the consequences so for them it's a point scoring political exercise with international justification.
We may not like it (we could do use the cards for so much more with little additional effort) but that isn't what is happening here.
It will solve some but not all. That is an improvement.
It will also act as a signalling device that builds confidence in the result.
There have been accusations in the past that specific electoral malpractice techniques have been imported by some communities (eg IIRC there is a link to Mirapur in many cases). Putting in place protective measures eliminates any validity to that accusation which can be used to drive a wedge between communities
My experience of trying to canvass such areas of East London is that the principal effect is tons of people still on the register who are no longer there.
edit/ in any event, the net effect of double registrations - students, landlords, second home owners etc - is probably bigger.
And while people who see "students" will think "that must benefit Labour", actually it doesn't, for the areas with the extra registrations - and hence marginally "more" MPs than they are strictly entitled to - are the areas where the students' parents live, which are biased towards the Tory Home Counties.
Please post… I may have mistyped or been misunderstood but improving the integrity of the system is exactly why I support this measure. It may be curing an issue or it may be preemptive- that doesn’t bother me
1) what problem are you trying to fix - as voter fraud doesn't exist where you are trying to implement this fix but it is an international observer recommendation
2) a complete hatred of ID cards due to its use when Labour attempted to create a global citizenship database.
I was very much against Labours plans but the ID card itself isn't a problem - it's just part of an x factor authentication process.
My assumption is that the government is determined to put some kind of measure through, and has the votes to do it barring massive revolt from its own backbenchers. Which is not out of the realm of possibility but also not likely IMHO.
What is MORE likely, is that the proposed legislation be amended - in the Commons and/or the Lords, to incorporate alternatives to presenting photo ID on polling day, and otherwise seek to avoid disenfranchisement of ANY eligible elector, and also skewing for or against any demographic or political group.
Which methinks will be a fundamental test of the government's good faith.
AND also potential fodder for litigation? I note in this context that the House of Commons used to be the sole judge of it's own elections - just as Congress is today in the US. However, the gross partisanship of THAT process left a stench in the nostrils of the Great British Public, and Parliament decided in its wisdom to turn the whole business of contested elections to the courts.
Suggestion - what if Parliament granted some independent commission the duty and authority of determining and monitoring procedures for registration and voting? Under judicial oversight?
I'm sure your stand here is entirely consistent with the best for democracy.
/IronyMode.
I personally believe they will cause more problems than they solve and will fundamentally undermine a proud tradition of British democracy — the ease of voting and the lack of administrative burden.
It just isn't how we do things in Britain.
Wall Street trading platforms mostly benefitted
https://buff.ly/3f9W8ZP
#CityofLondon #derivatives #WallStreet #SquareMile #Trading #Clearing #ClearingHouses #BoE #CanaryWharf #Brexit https://twitter.com/CityAM/status/1392385314975518722/photo/1
The Windrush records were removed because no one understood they were the only source of truth for some information prior to their destruction for being out of date, historic and not required.
With an ID card yes the old records would still have been destroyed but there still would have been a valid source of truth showing they were allowed to be here.
BTW how do your family & friends in OC cast their votes? In person or by mail or (if you have them) ballot box?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/more-than-2m-voters-may-lack-photo-id-required-under-new-uk-bill