Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Should Some Groups Need to Pay to Vote? – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Chameleon said:

    Any credence to the rumours that Sage want to delay the 21 June unlock because of the Indian variant??

    I will be extremely displeased if they bottle this. Johnson won't be so stupid.
    Mood music on Twitter (yes, I know) is that it’s probably just laying the groundwork for surge vaccinations in and around Bolton. Almost all the new cases are in the unvaccinated cohorts up there apparently...
    Yes. Andy Burnham is suggesting it.
    And as he's the LOTO, the government will implement any of his sensible ideas.
    It's a very sensible idea, that can happen under the radar with minimal of fuss given we're in the home stretch now anyway. We're already into the 30-somethings so won't take much juice to finish this off in areas of concern.

    A vaccine centre has nearby has said they have 800 first doses to give ANYONE who wants them. No age requirements.
    Which one out of interest?
    Have friends in Bolton.
    I don't know sorry, my wife told me in passing. She didn't name it, I didn't ask, was just an interesting factoid that showed we're in the home straight.

    800 doses for within a week, for anyone.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,800
    Evening all :)

    Always interesting to read another perspective on the "Voter ID" issue.

    The old adage of "vote early and often" always got a giggle but I was musing on this last week and the current system, in terms of attending polling stations, probably works quite well.

    I don't see how easily I could pretend to be someone else and allowing for the inevitability of administrative error by the polling clerks (and we know it happens), it's not a bad system and I see no argument for changing it.

    For those who choose not to attend the polling station and have a postal vote, I do accept and recognise there have been serious issues of fraudulent practice especially around the votes of elderly relatives or residents in a care home. This is where efforts to combat fraud should be concentrated rather than at polling stations where fraud seems to this observer to be extremely difficult to perpetuate and extremely limited in impact.

    How then to combat postal vote fraud?

    It's very difficult - once the ballot paper is outside the polling station, it falls out of the control of the presiding officer and his/her staff and into the hands of whoever and however. We've seen with the vaccination rollout programme that it's possible to bring vaccinations to the people so why can't we bring elections to the people and have a "virtual" or "portable" polling station to visit residential homes or perhaps people's houses in the week before the election and bring some transparency to the process?

    I don't have the full answer but I think the Government is aiming at the wrong target and the cynic in me is of the view this is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise portions of the electorate which might not normally vote for the Conservative Party candidate.

    As supporters of democracy, the Conservatives and indeed all parties should be working to maximise participation and increase voter turnout - the more who vote the healthier our democracy (in my view). We should be breaking down barriers to voting not putting them up - that's not to ignore or downplay electoral fraud which I accept happens (it probably always has to some degree) though I think the extent of the fraud is much less than the proponents of the current Government's proposals would have us believe.

    In December 2019, over 32 million votes were cast - it's disappointing some 16 million eligible voters chose not to vote and that is a far bigger issue than the infinitesimally small proportion of the 32 million which might have been fraudulent.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 22,703

    Pulpstar said:

    Any credence to the rumours that Sage want to delay the 21 June unlock because of the Indian variant??

    Oh FFS. Will we ever be free of this bug?
    Indian variant looks to be nasty...
    It's just more transmissable is all, hotspots will appear where people haven't bothered to get vaxxed.
    Or haven't been offered yet.

    We really could do with getting the remaining adult population first dosed tout de suite.
    If it was me running the show, at this stage would be giving everyone who showed up for a jab a free toaster oven, or whatever the kids want these days of comparable value.

    PLUS a ticket to win

    > 1st prize - £10,000 per year for life AND same for one person you select when you pass (so that IF the jab gets you at least not a total loss).

    > 2nd prize (several) - One week, all expenses paid luxury holiday to sunny Gibraltar OR any other appealing destination that will take a fully vaxed-up Brit.

    > 3rd prize (say 50) - Personal, guided tour of newly-refurbished No. 10 Downing Street conducted by Carrie herself (a la Jackie Kennedy) including complementary English champagne, Welsh rarebit, Scotch egg (only good in parts) and English mushy peas on brioche PLUS several samples of new No. 10 draperies, carpets and . . . wait for it . . . wallpaper!

    That's the CARROTS.

    STICKS could include requiring all non-vaccinated to travel to South Shetland Islands for two week attitude adjustment campaign, shortened & concluded as soon as participants/victims get jabbed with one-shot J&J.

    Or possibly a ten-hour seminar in a sealed-room with the entire Shadow Cabinet?
    That's very Green Party.

    Hosing tax money around, when there's little or no indication that it is necessary. AFAICS.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080

    Leon said:

    This should substantially increase Labour's chance of winning in Batley & Spen, if they're sensible enough to run with her candidacy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57090767

    Why? She's the sister of the woman that was murdered. It's a sad sad story, but it doesn't make her the right person to be the MP by itself, in any way or form. It's patronising and insulting to Batley and Spen voters to say it DOES. It is sentimental cant and gestural bollocks.
    Exploiting sentimental cant and gestural bollocks?

    Maybe Labour have got some life in them yet.
    They haven't chosen her as the candidate yet.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585
    edited May 2021
    Leon said:

    Floater said:

    Leon said:

    The Calderdale grooming case is unspeakable

    It would surely be blistering headline news if the "ethnic" details were in any way reversed

    Compile a list of all similar cases - it is a national scandal and disgrace

    Never forget the powers that be tried to cover it up too
    There is a website that does that. Compiles all of these cases. It is horrendous, the scale of it. Tens of thousands of victims is not an exaggeration

    Unfortunately the website has a far right slant, so it severely taints the data (even tho it seems true to me). This is a phenomenon which has bedevilled reportage of this from the off: most mainstream media are STILL too nervous to really go heavy on this story, even though it is probably the greatest "scandal" in postwar British history.

    I cannot think of anything that remotely compares, in sheer size
    Most times, when there is a cover up, it's because powerful interests stand to gain, or to lose if the truth is revealed.
    This cover up was solely because the powers that be didn't want it to be true, because it didn't suit their worldview.
    The utter arrogance of it is profoundly depressing.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Loyalist paramilitaries to David Frost: Protocol isn't gonna work. You need to change it.
    Later, Frost to EU: Protocol isn't gonna work, we need to change it.


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/12/uk-ministers-meet-representatives-of-ni-paramilitaries-to-discuss-brexit

    Good on Frost. 👍

    Shame the EU didn't want to listen to both sides during the divorce. Time to face reality now though.
    Boris has played it right. There is no solution to Ireland on current red lines. It was too much of a risk to leave without a deal. So leave on a deal you know will unfold, then you are negotiating both with a deal which in general is workable, and you are not locked into the EU for ever because you have left. And there is a level playing field over who will in the end give way over Irish red lines.

    And as a plus it gives him, and all British unionists, a massive piece of ammunition in the argument against Scotland creating an EU land border at Berwick and Gretna.

    Of course he's played it right. Plus NI represents less than 3% of the population of the UK but was being deliberately weaponised and abused to keep the entire UK in a Hotel California nightmare.

    Boris has rightly reversed the "sort out NI first" negotiating order that the EU foolishly insisted upon and May foolishly agreed to. The deal has been resolved for the 97% of the country already, now its time to sort out Northern Ireland with a real deal to replace the temporary one he agreed to - but without holding the whole of Great Britain hostage in the meantime.

    It always made sense to do the deal first and sort out NI based upon the deal not the other way around, now we can do it right.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    This should substantially increase Labour's chance of winning in Batley & Spen, if they're sensible enough to run with her candidacy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57090767

    Quite surprising it was 60/40 Leave in the aftermath of Cox’s murder really. Was it likely to be more Leavey before she was killed?
    Not necessarily - the Tories lost Eastbourne, after all:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Eastbourne_by-election
    Same with the Swedish eurozone referendum and the death of Anna Lindh.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,679
    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Any credence to the rumours that Sage want to delay the 21 June unlock because of the Indian variant??

    Oh FFS. Will we ever be free of this bug?
    I think a couple of obessives of sage placed their views ahead of the meeting
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    Worldview again. They wanted it to be true...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    Yep, nothing wrong in that tweet is there. How people can take offence at it is astonishing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    I think she cancelled herself by not allowing replies to her tweet.

    (Sorry, that's something that annoys me as much as the likes of Matt Goodwin and others deleting their old tweets that makes their analysis/predictions look bad.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,679
    edited May 2021

    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    Worldview again. They wanted it to be true...
    This goes beyond that.

    This is someone just sitting down and desperately making shit up to harm a Tory government. Surreally bad

    Also, this level of "wrongness" is surely a sackable offence for a journalist. Boris himself was sacked for less
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Chameleon said:

    Any credence to the rumours that Sage want to delay the 21 June unlock because of the Indian variant??

    I will be extremely displeased if they bottle this. Johnson won't be so stupid.
    Mood music on Twitter (yes, I know) is that it’s probably just laying the groundwork for surge vaccinations in and around Bolton. Almost all the new cases are in the unvaccinated cohorts up there apparently...
    Yes. Andy Burnham is suggesting it.
    And as he's the LOTO, the government will implement any of his sensible ideas.
    It's a very sensible idea, that can happen under the radar with minimal of fuss given we're in the home stretch now anyway. We're already into the 30-somethings so won't take much juice to finish this off in areas of concern.

    A vaccine centre has nearby has said they have 800 first doses to give ANYONE who wants them. No age requirements.
    Which one out of interest?
    Have friends in Bolton.
    I don't know sorry, my wife told me in passing. She didn't name it, I didn't ask, was just an interesting factoid that showed we're in the home straight.

    800 doses for within a week, for anyone.
    Np. You aren't my personal Google :smiley:
    Having Googled. The outbreak is TENTH on the Bolton News website. No deaths since April 26.

    In other news. "Bolton's most wanted" are not a pretty picture.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited May 2021
    There was a UUP MP murdered by the IRA in the 1980s and in the subsequent by election the UUP lost circa 25% of the vote.

    Mostly thanks to the DUP standing in that seat.

    Edit - Belfast South 1982.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Belfast_South_by-election
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    Their default position of being shameless lefty smear merchants probably had something to do with it...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342

    Leon said:

    This should substantially increase Labour's chance of winning in Batley & Spen, if they're sensible enough to run with her candidacy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57090767

    Why? She's the sister of the woman that was murdered. It's a sad sad story, but it doesn't make her the right person to be the MP by itself, in any way or form. It's patronising and insulting to Batley and Spen voters to say it DOES. It is sentimental cant and gestural bollocks.
    Exploiting sentimental cant and gestural bollocks?

    Maybe Labour have got some life in them yet.
    They haven't chosen her as the candidate yet.
    Probably someone sounder on Palestine.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460
    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    Sounds like some of the fake news stories about Kate Bingham and other members of the vaccine task force.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428
    edited May 2021

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    I think she cancelled herself by not allowing replies to her tweet.

    (Sorry, that's something that annoys me as much as the likes of Matt Goodwin and others deleting their old tweets that makes their analysis/predictions look bad.)
    I can't say I blame her, going off some of the tweets in response.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    No wonder the UK government said no....

    The Champions League final will now be staged in Porto in Portugal after the UK government and UEFA could not reach agreement over quarantine exemptions for more than 2,000 VIPs, staff and media for the match to be played at Wembley.

    Well done them. Turned down the chance to be populist
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Any credence to the rumours that Sage want to delay the 21 June unlock because of the Indian variant??

    Oh FFS. Will we ever be free of this bug?
    Indian variant looks to be nasty...
    It's just more transmissable is all, hotspots will appear where people haven't bothered to get vaxxed.
    Or haven't been offered yet.

    We really could do with getting the remaining adult population first dosed tout de suite.
    If it was me running the show, at this stage would be giving everyone who showed up for a jab a free toaster oven, or whatever the kids want these days of comparable value.

    PLUS a ticket to win

    > 1st prize - £10,000 per year for life AND same for one person you select when you pass (so that IF the jab gets you at least not a total loss).

    > 2nd prize (several) - One week, all expenses paid luxury holiday to sunny Gibraltar OR any other appealing destination that will take a fully vaxed-up Brit.

    > 3rd prize (say 50) - Personal, guided tour of newly-refurbished No. 10 Downing Street conducted by Carrie herself (a la Jackie Kennedy) including complementary English champagne, Welsh rarebit, Scotch egg (only good in parts) and English mushy peas on brioche PLUS several samples of new No. 10 draperies, carpets and . . . wait for it . . . wallpaper!

    That's the CARROTS.

    STICKS could include requiring all non-vaccinated to travel to South Shetland Islands for two week attitude adjustment campaign, shortened & concluded as soon as participants/victims get jabbed with one-shot J&J.

    Or possibly a ten-hour seminar in a sealed-room with the entire Shadow Cabinet?
    That's very Green Party.

    Hosing tax money around, when there's little or no indication that it is necessary. AFAICS.
    It's both smart economics AND smart public health. And would save X number of lives?

    IT that's "Green Party" then more power to their arm.

    The con-jobs, Cameron cronies and other well-connected, assorted land pirates have made a freaking killing out of COVID.

    All the Great Unwashed British Public got was a free coupon for a Rishi meal, complete with subsequent lock down. About time the lower orders got something other than cut-rate masks and a load of crap.

    The soon-to-be rising economic tide is gonna float a LOT of boats, and fears of rampant post-pandemic inflation seem (to me & I DID study economics at one of West Virginia's finest community colleges) to be overblown.

    Certain willing to take a bit of risk for a LOT of gain = boosting vax rate as high as possible without deploying blowguns.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069
    Thanks for this @rcs1000; the value of time queuing up for extra ID is the sort of thing that will get lost in the harrumphing, but is potentially a good measure of whether this is a good faith (but idiotic) plan or blatant evil. Apply online or by post- maybe OK, have to go to a council office in working hours- not OK at all.

    How seriously should we take the issue that car drivers will be unaffected by this? I want to think that it's just idiotic, but it could be Machiavellian genius. It hadn't occurred to me before you mentioned it, but once you see it, it's hard to unsee.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    GPs told to stop seeing patients face-to-face says Telegraph in an exclusive.

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    I think she cancelled herself by not allowing replies to her tweet.

    (Sorry, that's something that annoys me as much as the likes of Matt Goodwin and others deleting their old tweets that makes their analysis/predictions look bad.)
    Isn't there an Archive of Deleted Tweets out there somewhere. Sorta like the Island of Lost Toys?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342

    This magnificent.

    On the news about the Wings Over Scotland ending.

    Bath man pulls plug

    https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1392559104451915776

    Cork man drowns.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    GPs told to stop seeing patients face-to-face says Telegraph in an exclusive.

    Eh?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Always interesting to read another perspective on the "Voter ID" issue.

    The old adage of "vote early and often" always got a giggle but I was musing on this last week and the current system, in terms of attending polling stations, probably works quite well.

    I don't see how easily I could pretend to be someone else and allowing for the inevitability of administrative error by the polling clerks (and we know it happens), it's not a bad system and I see no argument for changing it.

    For those who choose not to attend the polling station and have a postal vote, I do accept and recognise there have been serious issues of fraudulent practice especially around the votes of elderly relatives or residents in a care home. This is where efforts to combat fraud should be concentrated rather than at polling stations where fraud seems to this observer to be extremely difficult to perpetuate and extremely limited in impact.

    How then to combat postal vote fraud?

    It's very difficult - once the ballot paper is outside the polling station, it falls out of the control of the presiding officer and his/her staff and into the hands of whoever and however. We've seen with the vaccination rollout programme that it's possible to bring vaccinations to the people so why can't we bring elections to the people and have a "virtual" or "portable" polling station to visit residential homes or perhaps people's houses in the week before the election and bring some transparency to the process?

    I don't have the full answer but I think the Government is aiming at the wrong target and the cynic in me is of the view this is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise portions of the electorate which might not normally vote for the Conservative Party candidate.

    As supporters of democracy, the Conservatives and indeed all parties should be working to maximise participation and increase voter turnout - the more who vote the healthier our democracy (in my view). We should be breaking down barriers to voting not putting them up - that's not to ignore or downplay electoral fraud which I accept happens (it probably always has to some degree) though I think the extent of the fraud is much less than the proponents of the current Government's proposals would have us believe.

    In December 2019, over 32 million votes were cast - it's disappointing some 16 million eligible voters chose not to vote and that is a far bigger issue than the infinitesimally small proportion of the 32 million which might have been fraudulent.

    Disagreed sorry. Choosing not to vote is as much a choice as choosing to vote. In Australia were compulsory voting exists being top of the list gets the candidate upto 2% extra in the vote due to the "donkey vote" phenomenon. Easily enough to swing marginal constituencies.

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud. Personation is incredibly easy to do, especially when fraudsters have easy access to past marked registers to be able to identify likely non-voters. A small gang of fraudsters can cast a couple of thousand (let alone a few hundred) votes via personation without raising any alarm or red flags.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,576

    Calderdale child sexual exploitation: 29 men charged

    Twenty-nine men have been charged in connection with the sexual exploitation and rape of a girl over a seven-year period in West Yorkshire. The offences are said to have taken place in and around Calderdale and Bradford between 2003 and 2010 when the victim was aged between 13 and 20.

    The men are due to appear at Bradford Magistrates' Court on 7 and 9 July

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57093267

    There appears these men might have something in common.

    Is it that they were all on the last thread?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705

    GPs told to stop seeing patients face-to-face says Telegraph in an exclusive.

    They're ahead of the game on that one then
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    This should substantially increase Labour's chance of winning in Batley & Spen, if they're sensible enough to run with her candidacy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57090767

    Why? She's the sister of the woman that was murdered. It's a sad sad story, but it doesn't make her the right person to be the MP by itself, in any way or form. It's patronising and insulting to Batley and Spen voters to say it DOES. It is sentimental cant and gestural bollocks.
    Exploiting sentimental cant and gestural bollocks?

    Maybe Labour have got some life in them yet.
    They haven't chosen her as the candidate yet.
    Probably someone sounder on Palestine.
    Do we know whether Labour are having the candidate chosen by the centre, or will there be a local contest?

    Not good for Labour if a selection contest becomes embroiled in an argument over Palestine.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,401
    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Leon said:

    Floater said:

    Leon said:

    The Calderdale grooming case is unspeakable

    It would surely be blistering headline news if the "ethnic" details were in any way reversed

    Compile a list of all similar cases - it is a national scandal and disgrace

    Never forget the powers that be tried to cover it up too
    There is a website that does that. Compiles all of these cases. It is horrendous, the scale of it. Tens of thousands of victims is not an exaggeration

    Unfortunately the website has a far right slant, so it severely taints the data (even tho it seems true to me). This is a phenomenon which has bedevilled reportage of this from the off: most mainstream media are STILL too nervous to really go heavy on this story, even though it is probably the greatest "scandal" in postwar British history.

    I cannot think of anything that remotely compares, in sheer size
    Phone hacking?





    (For the avoidance of doubt this is a wry comment about priorities wrapped up as a tasteless remark)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    Their default position of being shameless lefty smear merchants probably had something to do with it...
    Forensic Sir Keir was all over it at PMQs too, does he have to apologise?

    “ Citing correspondence between Dyson and Johnson over tax breaks, Sir Keir told the Commons: “What does the prime minister think is the right thing to do if he receives a text message from a billionaire Conservative supporter asking him to fix tax rules?”

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/boris-johnson-on-james-dyson-tax-breaks-7914334

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    This magnificent.

    On the news about the Wings Over Scotland ending.

    Bath man pulls plug

    https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/1392559104451915776

    There is a very famous (if problematic) old newspaper headline re: 2 small Louisiana towns -

    Waterproof Negro Drowns at Dry Prong
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    edited May 2021

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,679
    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    Great. So it will empower the worst people in the world: GP surgery receptionists, to be even more power mad.

    It will be their mission to be Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring. YOU SHALL NOT PASS.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,576
    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    From that link:-
    We wish to make clear that Sir James contacted Number 10 in response to the Prime Minister’s direct request to him for assistance in relation to the urgent need for ventilators and incurred costs of £20 million which his company voluntarily absorbed in trying to assist in the national emergency. His text messages to the Prime Minister were also later sent to officials.

    Question is, how did Dyson get Boris's number in order to text him before contacting officials? Alternatively, how did Boris get Dyson's number? On an unrelated note, is it true Boris's brother recently joined the board of a Dyson subsidiary?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    GPs told to stop seeing patients face-to-face says Telegraph in an exclusive.

    Stop? When did they start?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    Great. So it will empower the worst people in the world: GP surgery receptionists, to be even more power mad.

    It will be their mission to be Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring. YOU SHALL NOT PASS.
    Can't we just replace them with AI?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,173

    Leon said:

    This should substantially increase Labour's chance of winning in Batley & Spen, if they're sensible enough to run with her candidacy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57090767

    Why? She's the sister of the woman that was murdered. It's a sad sad story, but it doesn't make her the right person to be the MP by itself, in any way or form. It's patronising and insulting to Batley and Spen voters to say it DOES. It is sentimental cant and gestural bollocks.
    Sentimental cant and gestural bollocks - when it's of the right sort - goes down well with voters.

    But more importantly, the work she's done since Cox's death, with the Jo Cox Foundation and More In Common, is very impressive and by itself more than justifies her place as a parliamentary nominee.

    Also, if she is the candidate, it'll be bloody hard to run any kind of effective negative campaign against Labour.
    Hopefully voters will reject sentimental cant and gestural bollocks, starting with this by-election.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    I think she cancelled herself by not allowing replies to her tweet.

    (Sorry, that's something that annoys me as much as the likes of Matt Goodwin and others deleting their old tweets that makes their analysis/predictions look bad.)
    Seems fair enough to put out a message but not have replies when the pondscum on Twitter are the ones who reply.

    That's a very sound message that she wrote, very even handed. For which the sewerlife that dwell on Twitter are replying by quoting her calling her a war criminal and worse. Seriously WTF.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,080
    I think for many people an online or phone appointment would be better than having to traipse into the GP, and introducing that as additional flexibility would be good.

    However, the emphasis seems to be about forcing people not to have face-to-face appointments, and I fear that will lead to lots of wasted time, at best, and lots of delayed/missed diagnoses at worst.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,576

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    GPs will soon be replaced by AI chat bots at this rate.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,705

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    Great. So it will empower the worst people in the world: GP surgery receptionists, to be even more power mad.

    It will be their mission to be Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring. YOU SHALL NOT PASS.
    I had to contact my GP recently.

    Of course I engaged with the online system first, went through all the questions of symptoms etc., at which point it cranked a few cogs and gears, thought for a second and went "meh, don't know, you're not dying so contact your GP".

    First question from the receptionist was "have you tried the online system?"

    SIGH
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,342
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    This should substantially increase Labour's chance of winning in Batley & Spen, if they're sensible enough to run with her candidacy.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-57090767

    Why? She's the sister of the woman that was murdered. It's a sad sad story, but it doesn't make her the right person to be the MP by itself, in any way or form. It's patronising and insulting to Batley and Spen voters to say it DOES. It is sentimental cant and gestural bollocks.
    Sentimental cant and gestural bollocks - when it's of the right sort - goes down well with voters.

    But more importantly, the work she's done since Cox's death, with the Jo Cox Foundation and More In Common, is very impressive and by itself more than justifies her place as a parliamentary nominee.

    Also, if she is the candidate, it'll be bloody hard to run any kind of effective negative campaign against Labour.
    Hopefully voters will reject sentimental cant and gestural bollocks, starting with this by-election.
    Just got to identify which Party.
    Nope. Not easy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,679

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    TBH, I think only the arrival of aliens would end the Israeli-Islamic ding-dong. On the upside, chances of that happening in the next 12 months are about 40%
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578
    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    Nah, iSam is a top bloke, I've even met him at a PB bash :)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,576
    FPT re E.On complaints

    Without knowing the people involved, I'd be wary of involving anyone with mental health issues in a media campaign.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    No details, but bollocks it obviously is.

    Especially for the fully vaccinated who are seeing a fully vaccinated medico.

    Unless of course HMG is telling all & sundry that the vax is crap?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    She said Israel has the right to exist…
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    TBH, I think only the arrival of aliens would end the Israeli-Islamic ding-dong. On the upside, chances of that happening in the next 12 months are about 40%
    Sadly on twitter I saw some Jewish folk lynching a Israeli Arab and I thought well this isn't the usual fare.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    GPs will soon be replaced by AI chat bots at this rate.
    Amazon's system very good. It asks lots of sensible questions to resolve things and if you do need to speak to a human it has already collated the information required based on your answers so far, so none of this what's wrong, why, what do you want to do etc when you speak to somebody.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2021
    Arsenal beat Chelsea - does that mean its back in Liverpool's hands to qualify for the Top 4 if we win our remaining games including at Old Trafford?

    EDIT: No, damn.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    TBH, I think only the arrival of aliens would end the Israeli-Islamic ding-dong. On the upside, chances of that happening in the next 12 months are about 40%
    But how would that affect Johnson's and Starmer's prospects? One one hand, it might be a welcome distraction for both of them- especailly SKS. On the other, I can imagine a significant chunk of the population wanting Quarg the Tenticled for Prime Minister.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    She looks OK :)
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,173
    It should be compulsory for GPs to see patients face-to-face, unless the patient decides otherwise.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,585

    I think for many people an online or phone appointment would be better than having to traipse into the GP, and introducing that as additional flexibility would be good.

    However, the emphasis seems to be about forcing people not to have face-to-face appointments, and I fear that will lead to lots of wasted time, at best, and lots of delayed/missed diagnoses at worst.

    Agree entirely with both points.

    Over the past year, with the availability of online appointments, I have consulted my GP three times with things which I either wouldn't have wanted to in person or wouldn't have thought worthy of taking up a GP's time. (In the latter category, I had a strange lump on the back of my head. Took a photo of it and sent it in - was reassured that it was 'probably nothing'; and indeed it went away. But there will be occasions where this sort of thing gets picked up where it wouldn't without having this way of dealing with 'it's probably nothing but...)
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,662
    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    "
    "This the 6 o'clock news from.the BBC... and this is what we want you to think.....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    TBH, I think only the arrival of aliens would end the Israeli-Islamic ding-dong. On the upside, chances of that happening in the next 12 months are about 40%
    Sadly on twitter I saw some Jewish folk lynching a Israeli Arab and I thought well this isn't the usual fare.
    There is apparently tit for tat going on in various Israeli cities.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,599

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    GPs will soon be replaced by AI chat bots at this rate.
    Surely some of a GP's workload can be moved online and dealt with nationally for economies of scale and to free up the GP for other work?

    Online isn't a panacea but nor is inevitably wrong.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928

    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Always interesting to read another perspective on the "Voter ID" issue.

    The old adage of "vote early and often" always got a giggle but I was musing on this last week and the current system, in terms of attending polling stations, probably works quite well.

    I don't see how easily I could pretend to be someone else and allowing for the inevitability of administrative error by the polling clerks (and we know it happens), it's not a bad system and I see no argument for changing it.

    For those who choose not to attend the polling station and have a postal vote, I do accept and recognise there have been serious issues of fraudulent practice especially around the votes of elderly relatives or residents in a care home. This is where efforts to combat fraud should be concentrated rather than at polling stations where fraud seems to this observer to be extremely difficult to perpetuate and extremely limited in impact.

    How then to combat postal vote fraud?

    It's very difficult - once the ballot paper is outside the polling station, it falls out of the control of the presiding officer and his/her staff and into the hands of whoever and however. We've seen with the vaccination rollout programme that it's possible to bring vaccinations to the people so why can't we bring elections to the people and have a "virtual" or "portable" polling station to visit residential homes or perhaps people's houses in the week before the election and bring some transparency to the process?

    I don't have the full answer but I think the Government is aiming at the wrong target and the cynic in me is of the view this is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise portions of the electorate which might not normally vote for the Conservative Party candidate.

    As supporters of democracy, the Conservatives and indeed all parties should be working to maximise participation and increase voter turnout - the more who vote the healthier our democracy (in my view). We should be breaking down barriers to voting not putting them up - that's not to ignore or downplay electoral fraud which I accept happens (it probably always has to some degree) though I think the extent of the fraud is much less than the proponents of the current Government's proposals would have us believe.

    In December 2019, over 32 million votes were cast - it's disappointing some 16 million eligible voters chose not to vote and that is a far bigger issue than the infinitesimally small proportion of the 32 million which might have been fraudulent.

    Disagreed sorry. Choosing not to vote is as much a choice as choosing to vote. In Australia were compulsory voting exists being top of the list gets the candidate upto 2% extra in the vote due to the "donkey vote" phenomenon. Easily enough to swing marginal constituencies.

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud. Personation is incredibly easy to do, especially when fraudsters have easy access to past marked registers to be able to identify likely non-voters. A small gang of fraudsters can cast a couple of thousand (let alone a few hundred) votes via personation without raising any alarm or red flags.
    Hang on...

    It's easy enough after the fact to identify people voting on behalf of non-voters.

    The files of voters, and who's voted, are easily available and parsable by anyway who knows a little bit of Python.

    Step 1. Find a constituency where there has been suspiciously high turnout.
    Step 2. Download the last four elections worth of turnout.
    Step 3. Find people who voted in last election, but not the previous three.

    Visit them.

    Heck, you probably don't even need to visit them to feel pretty sure: you'd see that across the UK the rate of DNV-DNV-DNV-V was 0.1%, but in Stickport Central it was 12.5%.

    Worth noting mind, that you probably don't even need to do this. The reality is that such a mass personation scheme is fundamentally very risky, as you only need a couple of people who turned up to vote for the first time in years for you to get caught doing this. (Or the polling station employee - who'll tend to be local - will peg you as not Mrs Miggins.)

    Now, I agree that electoral fraud happens. But I suggest that 99+% of it happens with postal votes. Because (a) it's much easier that personation and (b) has a much, much lower chance of getting you a prison sentence.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,428

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
    Feel free to share evidence of this endemic electoral fraud. I'll wait.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,828

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    Great. So it will empower the worst people in the world: GP surgery receptionists, to be even more power mad.

    It will be their mission to be Gandalf in the Fellowship of the Ring. YOU SHALL NOT PASS.
    Can't we just replace them with AI?
    Computer says no.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    Eid bah gum!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,576
    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    1400 years? You do not buy into theories about Nazi propaganda flooding the Middle East during ww2 then?
    Google finds this. I've not read it.
    https://commons.emich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context=theses
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,679
    edited May 2021

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    TBH, I think only the arrival of aliens would end the Israeli-Islamic ding-dong. On the upside, chances of that happening in the next 12 months are about 40%
    Sadly on twitter I saw some Jewish folk lynching a Israeli Arab and I thought well this isn't the usual fare.
    There is apparently tit for tat going on in various Israeli cities.
    Indeed. The BBC just showed distressing footage of some Arab Israeli youths kicking seven shades out of an older Jewish guy, just for being Jewish. Horrible echoes of 30s Germany

    Meanwhile Israel rains death on Gaza. What a mess. Make it go away. I really do want them to just finish it, now; let there be a winner, and call it a day
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 4,556
    edited May 2021
    isam said:

    Leon said:

    A truly grovelling apology from the BBC, to James Dyson. How did they get it so wrong?

    https://order-order.com/2021/05/12/bbc-apologises-to-james-dyson-over-smears/

    Their default position of being shameless lefty smear merchants probably had something to do with it...
    Forensic Sir Keir was all over it at PMQs too, does he have to apologise?

    “ Citing correspondence between Dyson and Johnson over tax breaks, Sir Keir told the Commons: “What does the prime minister think is the right thing to do if he receives a text message from a billionaire Conservative supporter asking him to fix tax rules?”

    https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news/westminster-news/boris-johnson-on-james-dyson-tax-breaks-7914334

    Has Sir Keir been lying to the House again? I thought he was against that sort of thing.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177
    Andy_JS said:

    It should be compulsory for GPs to see patients face-to-face, unless the patient decides otherwise.

    It’s got all the makings of the ‘appointments must be within x time’ nonsense, which just led to no one being able to get an appointment. Was it Blair who found out the hard way about the unintended consequences?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,460

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    GPs will soon be replaced by AI chat bots at this rate.
    Surely some of a GP's workload can be moved online and dealt with nationally for economies of scale and to free up the GP for other work?

    Online isn't a panacea but nor is inevitably wrong.
    Out of hours GP service surely is primed for this. Resolve simple issues rather than turning up at A&E or the GP clinics.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    No details, but bollocks it obviously is.

    Especially for the fully vaccinated who are seeing a fully vaccinated medico.

    Unless of course HMG is telling all & sundry that the vax is crap?
    More likely, there's a perceived efficiency gain in doing this sort of thing online. You don't need a waiting room and so on. Patients don't have to spend time with other germy patients. It could be worth keeping, as long as we don't move to a GP Call Centre model.

    To be fair, school parents' evenings have moved online over the last year. It's a bit odd, but parents and teachers all seem to prefer it that way, as long as they have the technology. Not sure that it works quite so well if you're poorly and you want a doctor to examine you.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
    Feel free to share evidence of this endemic electoral fraud. I'll wait.
    Who said endemic? Just that people are willing and able to do it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arshad_Ali_(UK_politician)

    Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
  • FossFoss Posts: 992

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    GPs will soon be replaced by AI chat bots at this rate.
    Surely some of a GP's workload can be moved online and dealt with nationally for economies of scale and to free up the GP for other work?

    Online isn't a panacea but nor is inevitably wrong.
    Out of hours GP service surely is primed for this. Resolve simple issues rather than turning up at A&E or the GP clinics.
    I think it’ll be popular with working age men.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,177

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    No details, but bollocks it obviously is.

    Especially for the fully vaccinated who are seeing a fully vaccinated medico.

    Unless of course HMG is telling all & sundry that the vax is crap?
    More likely, there's a perceived efficiency gain in doing this sort of thing online. You don't need a waiting room and so on. Patients don't have to spend time with other germy patients. It could be worth keeping, as long as we don't move to a GP Call Centre model.

    To be fair, school parents' evenings have moved online over the last year. It's a bit odd, but parents and teachers all seem to prefer it that way, as long as they have the technology. Not sure that it works quite so well if you're poorly and you want a doctor to examine you.
    Like a lot of this stuff, it will work for 80 % of the population, but will be hated by the rest. Folk such as my mother in law, who hates even having to call the surgery.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    TBH, I think only the arrival of aliens would end the Israeli-Islamic ding-dong. On the upside, chances of that happening in the next 12 months are about 40%
    Sadly on twitter I saw some Jewish folk lynching a Israeli Arab and I thought well this isn't the usual fare.
    There is apparently tit for tat going on in various Israeli cities.
    I have a few Jewish friends and their big worry is that Israel goes full apartheid and then they get cut off from the world as Israel becomes a full pariah state.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873
    TimT said:

    Perhaps we should go the whole hog and require voters be land owners?

    Always agreed with Henry Ireton on that. Though he was clearly a long winded chap.

    I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and in determining or choosing those that shall determine what laws we shall be ruled by here—no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom, and those persons together are properly the represented of this kingdom, and consequently are [also] to make up the representers of this kingdom, who taken together do comprehend whatsoever is of real or permanent interest in the kingdom
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,069

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    Eid bah gum!
    Doesn't that depend on what's in the gum?

    I used to work at a school in East London where the porcine origin of gelatine was an issue. One of my colleagues came up with the idea of an alternative set of jelly sweets called Halalibo.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,679
    BBC News at Ten finally gets to Calderdale.

    27 minutes in. After the "child killed by lightning", it sees fit to mention the girl who was systematically raped over 7 years, from the age of 13, by 29 men

    The item lasts one minute. There is no mention of the ethnicity or religion of the accused
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    Looks like Gal Gadot has been cancelled for this tweet, which seems entirely reasonable to me: https://twitter.com/GalGadot/status/1392496742822776839?s=20

    She was already on thin ice for thinking it was ok for her to play Cleopatra.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,873

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
    Feel free to share evidence of this endemic electoral fraud. I'll wait.
    Who said endemic? Just that people are willing and able to do it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arshad_Ali_(UK_politician)

    Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
    And is this level of action necessary in response?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,928

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
    Feel free to share evidence of this endemic electoral fraud. I'll wait.
    Who said endemic? Just that people are willing and able to do it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arshad_Ali_(UK_politician)

    Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
    But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.

    Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    No details, but bollocks it obviously is.

    Especially for the fully vaccinated who are seeing a fully vaccinated medico.

    Unless of course HMG is telling all & sundry that the vax is crap?
    More likely, there's a perceived efficiency gain in doing this sort of thing online. You don't need a waiting room and so on. Patients don't have to spend time with other germy patients. It could be worth keeping, as long as we don't move to a GP Call Centre model.

    To be fair, school parents' evenings have moved online over the last year. It's a bit odd, but parents and teachers all seem to prefer it that way, as long as they have the technology. Not sure that it works quite so well if you're poorly and you want a doctor to examine you.
    Have zero problem with on-line doctors visits IF that's agreeable to both the patient and their doc.

    Requiring on-line is what I'm objecting to. Especially risk to anyone is at the vanishing point.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578

    Leon said:

    Israel and Islam should just have it out. Once and for all. This has been going on 1400 years, it's time for a finale

    It is Eid tomorrow so that should calm things down.
    Eid bah gum!
    Doesn't that depend on what's in the gum?

    I used to work at a school in East London where the porcine origin of gelatine was an issue. One of my colleagues came up with the idea of an alternative set of jelly sweets called Halalibo.
    https://www.veganfriendly.org.uk/is-it-vegan/chewing-gum/

    Wrigley -All brands of their gum are vegan, though some of their other products are not
    Hubba Bubba -Like Wrigley, it’s owned by Mars and is also vegan
    Dubble Bubble -Vegan
    Orbit -Another under the Mars umbrella, some flavours contain gelatine but many are vegan
    Extra -One more gum ultimately owned by Mars and another where most flavours are vegan but some (containing gelatine) are not
    Eclipse -Yet another Wrigley/Mars brand and also vegan
    Pur -Vegan
    Mentos Gum -Mentos Pure Fresh Peppermint and Spearmint, Mentos Sugar Free Gum Peppermint, Spearmint & Mentos Air Action are vegan friendly. Mentos 3 Layer, Strawberry Squeeze and Juice Burst gum are non-vegan.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,576

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
    Feel free to share evidence of this endemic electoral fraud. I'll wait.
    Who said endemic? Just that people are willing and able to do it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arshad_Ali_(UK_politician)

    Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
    There is electoral fraud but mostly involving postal votes and/or fictitious voters. The specific fraud of personation is vanishingly rare. It is only the latter which the government's photo ID proposal addresses; by coincidence, the one likely to disadvantage people who might vote for Opposition parties (although as @TheScreamingEagles has reported, some Conservative activists are worried it might also impact Tory voters).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2021

    Arsenal beat Chelsea - does that mean its back in Liverpool's hands to qualify for the Top 4 if we win our remaining games including at Old Trafford?

    EDIT: No, damn.

    Actually I think it is, isn't it? Since Chelsea and Leicester need to play each other.

    Liverpool have 4 remaining games so could get 69 points.

    Chelsea and Leicester both have 2 games.
    If they draw then Chelsea can only get 68
    If Chelsea win then Leicester can get 69 so comes to goal difference (which if Leicester lose a game and we win all 4, we should win on)
    If Leicester win then Chelsea can only get 67

    West Ham have only three games left so can only get to 67

    We'll probably not win our remaining games, but if we do its in our hands, right?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,302
    This is how bad an idea the voter ID proposals are, the GOP are praising them.




    If I remember my history correctly The Queen was cancelled in 1776.
  • AlwaysSingingAlwaysSinging Posts: 464

    I think GPs not seeing people face-to-face is going to end up biting Johnson very very hard in the near future.

    If Starmer or Burnham wants an issue to really hammer the government here it is. And I suspect the people most unhappy are core tory voters over 50 who see their doctors more than the young.

    Coincidentally, I'm sure, I've had texts this week from my GP reminding that you can book appointments online but they will only be telephone based and will not give a time other than am or pm.

    It's bollocks at first glance. We need the choice. Sometimes I don't need to see the GP and a phone call or even an email is appropriate. Other times I absolutely need to see the GP.

    Does anyone have the details?
    GPs have been told to discourage patients from face-to-face appointments, in order to force the use of virtual consultations, under new NHS guidance.

    The guidance sent to family doctors instructs them to embed a system of “total triage” – so that anyone seeking to see their GP has to undergo a telephone or online discussion first.

    Practices were first told to introduce temporary systems at the start of the first lockdown, when they were encouraged to provide as much care as possible remotely, in order to stop the spread of infection.

    The updated NHS guidance now instructs practices to make this the default permanently.

    Crucially, it says those patients who do attempt to secure face-to-face appointments should be deterred, in order to prevent “disincentivising use of the online system”.

    However the guidance makes clear that anyone who is deemed by the GP to require a face-to-face consultation should still receive one, but says some cases can be dealt with entirely over the telephone or online.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/05/12/exclusive-gps-told-stop-seeing-patients-face-to-face/
    If that system had been in place 10 years ago, I'd probably be dead. Oh well.

    --AS
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578

    Arsenal beat Chelsea - does that mean its back in Liverpool's hands to qualify for the Top 4 if we win our remaining games including at Old Trafford?

    EDIT: No, damn.

    Actually I think it is, isn't it? Since Chelsea and Leicester need to play each other.

    Liverpool have 4 remaining games so could get 69 points.

    Chelsea and Leicester both have 2 games.
    If they draw then Chelsea can only get 68
    If Chelsea win then Leicester can get 69 so comes to goal difference (which if Leicester lose a game and we win all 4, we should win on)
    If Leicester win then Chelsea can only get 67

    West Ham have only three games left so can only get to 67

    We'll probably not win our remaining games, but if we do its in our hands, right?
    I would love it, just love it, if West Ham finish above Liverpool!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 51,578

    This is how bad an idea the voter ID proposals are, the GOP are praising them.




    If I remember my history correctly The Queen was cancelled in 1776.

    Queen of England? :lol:
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
    Feel free to share evidence of this endemic electoral fraud. I'll wait.
    Who said endemic? Just that people are willing and able to do it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arshad_Ali_(UK_politician)

    Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
    But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.

    Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
    It shows that people are prepared to commit fraud. And ability to scale fraud via personation is absolute massive if you're organised about it.

    Its worth remembering why voter ID was introduced, by the Labour Party, in Northern Ireland. It wasn't due to voter suppression.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,549
    rcs1000 said:

    The problem is we've seen for years now that people are willing and able to commit electoral fraud.

    Except we haven't.
    Except we have.
    Feel free to share evidence of this endemic electoral fraud. I'll wait.
    Who said endemic? Just that people are willing and able to do it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutfur_Rahman_(politician)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arshad_Ali_(UK_politician)

    Just a couple of examples - and that's what's been caught.
    But did either involve personation? That seems like a *really* risky way of committing electoral fraud, as well as not being very scalable.

    Much, much easier to either (a) steal postal ballots (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 100%), or (b) use "community leaders" or patriarchs to put pressure on people to make sure votes are as they should be (risk of getting caught 0%, ability to scale 75%), than to send people to polling stations to vote on behalf of others (risk 80%, ability to scale 0%).
    But as was explained last night/early this morning (have lost track of time, esp BST) in UK elections there IS a check of postal signatures.

    This from the official advice to election officials from Electoral Commisison:

    Returning Officers and Counting Officers must check the signature on the postal voting statement against the signature contained in the personal identifier record (‘the control signature’). They may also refer to other sources, for example the signature provided on a registration form.

    So notion that risk of forging sigs on postal ballots is zero is NOT correct.

    Most certainly IF you sign scores or more with same hand using same pen, which is kinda the norm for this kinda shit. As for example was discovered in a few instances by WA Secretary of State in checking sigs on ballot measure petitions.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Does voter fraud happen in the UK: yes.
    Will voter Id for in person voting stop it to any appreciable degree: no.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    This is how bad an idea the voter ID proposals are, the GOP are praising them.




    If I remember my history correctly The Queen was cancelled in 1776.

    Since when could the Queen of England vote?
This discussion has been closed.