Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
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).
How do you know its vanishingly rare if we're not looking for it and have no checks on it and there's a history of it being successfully used within our country?
Unless it was also very well targeted at known none voters, the presence of queues of people who turned up to vote, to find they had apparently already done so might be a give away. It's also necessarily self limiting by the fact that polling staff are going to recognise you if you keep coming back with a different name and address, so you are talking one vote per conspirator per polling station tops.
In 2019, there was only one seat with a margin of under a hundred, which I'd think is well above the realistic maximum effect any serious attempt at personation could possibly achieve without being totally obvious to all (if you attempted to vote on behalf of 100 random voters, it would be realistic to expect over 50 of them to show up later to try to vote and then make a fuss about it - that's going to end up in the press).
All in all, if you want to rig uk elections, postal votes are the obvious answer - but for some strange reason, governments seem far lass keen on tightening up on these. Personally I think they should only be available to those who are actually unable to physically turn up and vote, rather than the current free for all. Even if it was just done by self declaration, it might then ring the alarm bells and prompt some further investigation when Tower Hamlets turns out to suddenly be full of flats with 20 bedbound people in each!
Being an obvious flaming idiot AND a-hole (as opposed to simply wrong, wrong-headed, wrong-intended or just a Cnut) is indeed an electoral liability.
Johnson is WAY less idiotic or assholotic than Bolasario and certainly Trumpsky (in a class all by his own esp for a President of the United States of America)
My guess is that Orban in Hungary could survive, also Erdogan in Turkey and . . . wait for it . . . Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
Who is less "populist"than his late brother Rob Ford, who while Mayor of Toronto was memorably filmed smoking crack cocaine; sadly he passed away due to complications from substance abuse just age 47.
After losing race to succeed his brother as mayor, Doug Ford won the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, then the 2018 provincial election to become Premier. He's had his share of ups and down, but mostly ups certainly compared with his bro.
Doug is also a personality in his own right, just toned down a tad. His pandemic has not been huge success but could have been worse, and he's been more decisive & (reasonably) consistent than some leaders (such as Boris Johnson for example).
Current polling show Premier Ford behind provincial Liberal Party under Steven De Luca, but the next election is not scheduled until June 2022.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
As it is, indeed, in many US interstates (via EZ-Pass lanes)
The EZ-Pass being awarded based NOT on civic virtue, but just on filthy lucre!
Thought that was the same thing in the US? (Ducks and takes cover)
You live in very shadow of the volcano! One of the very handmaidens of Mall (DC version of Baal)!!
Of course from your perspective money definitely is a civic indeed constitutional virtue!!!
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
If I understand you, your proposals would operate under the same rules across UK? Perhaps with modifications for Wales & Scotland, or (perhaps) a few other regional variations. However you've still got the issue of multiple qualifications however you slice it, which is indeed key to NOT having just one type of civic good placed above all the rest, so that donors to the National Trust can vote, but school crossing-guard volunteers cannot (or visa versa).
Another related consideration, is that in early & mid 19th century fancy franchises and their often arcane rules & reg led to the growth - cottage industry really - of squads of lawyers hired by both main political parties to challenge the qualifications of opposition voters (or those presumed to be such) and (to a lesser extent) qualifying their own partisans for the vote.
Fascinating history, that indicates some potential challenges & pitfalls. In theory NOT insurmountable. But can be difficult in practices, and certainly there are costs to the exchequer AND electors however you slice it.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Prior to the franchise becoming universal in 1928, one of the main activities of the grass-roots local organisations of the main political parties was policing the electoral rolls: challenging the qualification of electors who they knew or suspected of supporting their opponents.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
Or perhaps the media...and now like the FT story about the government spending 6 trillion quid on COVID testing equipment, it will be fact.
Cruel of the Mail to remind readers of Boris's other travails in its third paragraph, before revealing the CCJ is worthless:-
It initially appeared to be a fresh embarrassment for Mr Johnson, who is already facing an investigation by the Westminster watchdog over who paid for his £15,000 holiday to Mustique and three separate inquiries into who funded the lavish redecoration of his Downing Street flat.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
Think you are correct re: Fancy Franchises, and that I conflated pre 1832 with Dizzy 1867 as you say. And later were rather similar to thrust of Pagan2 proposal.
Being compared with Benjamin Disraeli is NOT the worst thing that can befall a PBer!
However re: there were plenty of electors as late as 1945 IIRC, who had one vote in more than one place and constituency (esp. boroughs) due to property qualifications. Pretty common for businessmen who lived and also in another town where there ship or factory or whatever was.
All this rather reinforces the point that these complexities are neither cheap OR neutral in operation & oversight.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
However re: there were plenty of electors as late as 1945 IIRC, who had one vote in more than one place and constituency (esp. boroughs) due to property qualifications. Pretty common for businessmen who lived and also in another town where there ship or factory or whatever was.
Was that for Parliamentary elections though? I know business votes persisted until quite late for local elections, and I think still exist in the City of London.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
However re: there were plenty of electors as late as 1945 IIRC, who had one vote in more than one place and constituency (esp. boroughs) due to property qualifications. Pretty common for businessmen who lived and also in another town where there ship or factory or whatever was.
Was that for Parliamentary elections though? I know business votes persisted until quite late for local elections, and I think still exist in the City of London.
Ah, a quick furtle around t’web suggests that such plural voting was abolished for Westminster constituencies in 1918 and at local elections excluding the City in 1969.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
However re: there were plenty of electors as late as 1945 IIRC, who had one vote in more than one place and constituency (esp. boroughs) due to property qualifications. Pretty common for businessmen who lived and also in another town where there ship or factory or whatever was.
Was that for Parliamentary elections though? I know business votes persisted until quite late for local elections, and I think still exist in the City of London.
Ah, a quick furtle around t’web suggests that such plural voting was abolished for Westminster constituencies in 1918 and at local elections excluding the City in 1969.
Tis a fascinating AND complex topic.
As Lord Palmerston is reputed to have commented re: the Schleswig-Holstein Question (2nd cousin once removed from Heligoland Question) -
Only three people understood it: Prince Albert who is dead, a Danish (or German) professor whom has gone mad, and myself who has forgotten all about it.
1948 Representation of the People Act removed university seats and plural voting for different Wesrminster seats. So one person, one vote is very new to the UK.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
It would be a big boost for Keir Starmer if Labour could take back John Smith's old seat in Airdrie & Shotts, previously known as Monklands East. SNP majority is 5,201 votes.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Okay, so it's about preventing actual abuse and therefore it's not quite as I've parodied it but it's still a worrying notion that you would sentence someone before they get to the point of committing a crime. In the case of child abuse it's clearly complex because intent to commit may involve, for example, possession of images which are themselves abuse. However, what if it's just fantasy? Should someone be given a 14-year prison term for that? We could end up with a situation where people are sentenced for wayward thoughts. The end result of this is a dystopian nightmare.
Why not go the whole Minority Report hog and eliminate people for thinking a crime before they commit it?
Intent to commit does exist in other areas of the law but I don't want to see this idea spreading. Intent to protest? Intent to demonstrate? Intent to tear down a slavery statue? Intent to speed? Intent to turn up at a polling station without photo ID?
From "Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition (2019)
Introduction to the constituent parts of Parliament
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
Comment - Her Majesty the Queen is part of Parliament by her own right, and as such is not and CAN not be either a member of the House of Lords OR represented in the House of Commons. Thus she does NOT have a vote for MP.
"Queen in Parliament" is the formula.
Unless of course Boris has made some (more) constitutional changes without telling anyone!
And what is :"Erskine May"? According to wiki -
Erskine May is considered to be the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and the constitutional conventions affecting Parliament which form a major part of the uncodified UK constitution. It is not a rigid set of rules but a description of how the procedure evolved and of the conventions. Such is the authority of the text that it is regarded as analogous to part of the constitution itself.
An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament.
Okay, so it's about preventing actual abuse and therefore it's not quite as I've parodied it but it's still a worrying notion that you would sentence someone before they get to the point of committing a crime. In the case of child abuse it's clearly complex because intent to commit may involve, for example, possession of images which are themselves abuse. However, what if it's just fantasy? Should someone be given a 14-year prison term for that? We could end up with a situation where people are sentenced for wayward thoughts. The end result of this is a dystopian nightmare.
Why not go the whole Minority Report hog and eliminate people for thinking a crime before they commit it?
Intent to commit does exist in other areas of the law but I don't want to see this idea spreading. Intent to protest? Intent to demonstrate? Intent to tear down a slavery statue? Intent to speed? Intent to turn up at a polling station without photo ID?
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
Okay, so it's about preventing actual abuse and therefore it's not quite as I've parodied it but it's still a worrying notion that you would sentence someone before they get to the point of committing a crime. In the case of child abuse it's clearly complex because intent to commit may involve, for example, possession of images which are themselves abuse. However, what if it's just fantasy? Should someone be given a 14-year prison term for that? We could end up with a situation where people are sentenced for wayward thoughts. The end result of this is a dystopian nightmare.
Why not go the whole Minority Report hog and eliminate people for thinking a crime before they commit it?
Intent to commit does exist in other areas of the law but I don't want to see this idea spreading. Intent to protest? Intent to demonstrate? Intent to tear down a slavery statue? Intent to speed? Intent to turn up at a polling station without photo ID?
We’d lose about 50 posters here, as SeanT would be in big trouble.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
Yep.
You wanna vote, bring your ID. It should be for the voter to sort out their ID not the poor election officials on the day. They have quite enough to do during polling. The last thing we need is pouring more bureaucracy into this.
It's really not an issue Robert. We have to show ID to pick up a package at a post office!!
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes you can. My son has one. They're quite 'in'. But not for poor election officials who have quite enough to deal with.
You are incorrect about multiple franchises. Until 1918 if you met the qualification (I.e. were a ratepayer) in more than one seat you could vote in all seats where you met the franchise. It was less common than it had been before 1832, but it was still a known abuse of the system and a longstanding target for reform.
After 1918, the property qualification was replaced by a (nearly) universal male suffrage with a residency qualification, so you could only vote twice if you were a university graduate. The university seats were abolished in 1948 leading to the ‘one person one vote system’ we have now.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story.
I don't give a shit about whether it's "a story" or not. The question is "is it the moral and right thing to do"?
And it is not.
The only question is this: do all citizens incur broadly the same cost in exercising their right to vote? And there are plenty of ways that one can implement compulsory Photo ID while maintaining basic fairness. I've suggested three:
1. Compulsory ID cards 2. Polaroids of those without ID 3. Separation of ballots from those without ID into a "provisional" pile which are only checked in the event there is a sufficient number to affect to the result.
There are probably others.
But here's the thing. Compulsory Photo ID means more postal voting. And postal voting is genuinely problematic from a fraud perspective. If you really want to make voting fairer, clamping down on that would be your number one priority.
Instead we have a measure that will result in more postal voting, resulting in greater opportunities for fraud.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes you can. My son has one. They're quite 'in'. But not for poor election officials who have quite enough to deal with.
Wow. That genuinely surprises me. Who would buy a Polaroid in the age of smartphones? Quality of the photos is shit and the cartridges weren’t cheap.
Having had two days when these very wet weather systems have pivoted around south Devon, I can now officially vouch for the fact that the garden doesn't need any more rain.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes you can. My son has one. They're quite 'in'. But not for poor election officials who have quite enough to deal with.
Wow. That genuinely surprises me. Who would buy a Polaroid in the age of smartphones? Quality of the photos is shit and the cartridges weren’t cheap.
Novelty value in a digital age - a thing to hold and own.
It's what drives vinyl, in an age of having 1,000 LP's on a small device and millions more at the touch of a search button.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
Yep.
You wanna vote, bring your ID. It should be for the voter to sort out their ID not the poor election officials on the day. They have quite enough to do during polling. The last thing we need is pouring more bureaucracy into this.
It's really not an issue Robert. We have to show ID to pick up a package at a post office!!
Yes. And I am not opposed to measures that would increase security of voting. What I am opposed to is measures that make it more expensive (in time and money terms) for some people to vote relative to others.
This is not a complicated point.
But you seem to think that taking a photo of someone is somehow difficult or time consuming. I ask this in all seriousness: are you retarded?
Are you really suggesting the time and intelligence required to confirm if someone is the person in their photo ID, and that the photo ID is genuine, is greater than that required to take a photograph of someone?
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
Okay, so it's about preventing actual abuse and therefore it's not quite as I've parodied it but it's still a worrying notion that you would sentence someone before they get to the point of committing a crime. In the case of child abuse it's clearly complex because intent to commit may involve, for example, possession of images which are themselves abuse. However, what if it's just fantasy? Should someone be given a 14-year prison term for that? We could end up with a situation where people are sentenced for wayward thoughts. The end result of this is a dystopian nightmare.
Why not go the whole Minority Report hog and eliminate people for thinking a crime before they commit it?
Intent to commit does exist in other areas of the law but I don't want to see this idea spreading. Intent to protest? Intent to demonstrate? Intent to tear down a slavery statue? Intent to speed? Intent to turn up at a polling station without photo ID?
Very sinister I agree. Terrible idea.
I think that this is being misread. These people have already committed a crime in the attempt. So they may have been caught in a sting operation where they were intending to meet up with a minor for sexual purposes, for example.
The consultation is not about whether they have committed a crime but how they should be sentenced for it. So, for example, the sentence for an attempted murder is less than it would be for a completed murder. In the case of child sex offenders the primary consideration in sentencing is public protection and they are consulting about whether public protection requires the same level of sentencing for an attempt as for a completed crime. This would be a change in sentencing policy but I can see the logic.
IANAE on this but my understanding is that the recidivism rate for pedophiles is high because unless they are treated it is a compulsion that they find very hard to resist. Given this risk does public protection require those who attempted to commit the crime to be kept out of circulation every bit as much as those who succeeded? I think it would be wrong to have a universal rule on this but I can see the argument that the court should have that power in appropriate cases.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
We do not need photo ID to collect a parcel from the Post Office. Just ID. And that is an important distinction because many people do not have photo ID.
Okay, so it's about preventing actual abuse and therefore it's not quite as I've parodied it but it's still a worrying notion that you would sentence someone before they get to the point of committing a crime. In the case of child abuse it's clearly complex because intent to commit may involve, for example, possession of images which are themselves abuse. However, what if it's just fantasy? Should someone be given a 14-year prison term for that? We could end up with a situation where people are sentenced for wayward thoughts. The end result of this is a dystopian nightmare.
Why not go the whole Minority Report hog and eliminate people for thinking a crime before they commit it?
Intent to commit does exist in other areas of the law but I don't want to see this idea spreading. Intent to protest? Intent to demonstrate? Intent to tear down a slavery statue? Intent to speed? Intent to turn up at a polling station without photo ID?
Good luck opposing a bill to punish paedophiles, even if it does mean the police will soon be locking up anyone who imagines asking Boris a serious question during an election campaign, or who looks like they might.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
From "Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition (2019)
Introduction to the constituent parts of Parliament
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
Comment - Her Majesty the Queen is part of Parliament by her own right, and as such is not and CAN not be either a member of the House of Lords OR represented in the House of Commons. Thus she does NOT have a vote for MP.
"Queen in Parliament" is the formula.
Unless of course Boris has made some (more) constitutional changes without telling anyone!
And what is :"Erskine May"? According to wiki -
Erskine May is considered to be the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and the constitutional conventions affecting Parliament which form a major part of the uncodified UK constitution. It is not a rigid set of rules but a description of how the procedure evolved and of the conventions. Such is the authority of the text that it is regarded as analogous to part of the constitution itself.
An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament.
My understanding is that the Sovereign is permanently represented by the government (hence they exercise the royal prerogative). Hence “The Sovereign” as a concept is part of parliament but “The Sovereign” as an individual is not.
Although I believe the Prince of Wales is a member of the Lords
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
You'd have thought Labour would have waited and actually checked it wasn't a bogus case before jumping on it.
A cunning trap laid by Boris, since Number 10 could have explained all this when the story first emerged. Three cheers for the Prime Minister.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
I am going to guess because it was sent to the wrong name and wrong address, somebody thought it was a fake / wind up.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Yes, there are people paid to wade through Boris's letters, which is why it is odd that it was missed. That is why I doubt it was missed, and ask if there was a cunning plan to let the story run.
And Boris Johnson is his name, even if lots of other things are as well.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes. They are a bit of a fad among school kids at the moment
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.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes. They are a bit of a fad among school kids at the moment
Interestingly, the same trend is here in LA: both my daughter and a bunch of her friends have analog instant cameras (all of which are dubbed "polaroids").
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
Yep.
You wanna vote, bring your ID. It should be for the voter to sort out their ID not the poor election officials on the day. They have quite enough to do during polling. The last thing we need is pouring more bureaucracy into this.
It's really not an issue Robert. We have to show ID to pick up a package at a post office!!
Yes. And I am not opposed to measures that would increase security of voting. What I am opposed to is measures that make it more expensive (in time and money terms) for some people to vote relative to others.
This is not a complicated point.
But you seem to think that taking a photo of someone is somehow difficult or time consuming. I ask this in all seriousness: are you retarded?
Are you really suggesting the time and intelligence required to confirm if someone is the person in their photo ID, and that the photo ID is genuine, is greater than that required to take a photograph of someone?
Really?
completely agree with your latter point. The actual problem with voting security is in postal voting not in personation so this bill seems to be aimed at the wrong target.
I am less persuaded by your primary point. My son voted for the first time last week. Because he had been part of our household he was fairly automatically put on the electoral register. My daughter was previously on the electoral register in Edinburgh but is now back at home so she had to apply to get herself back on the register here. Was the fact that it was more time consuming for one than the other material? Was it undemocratic? I don't think so. It simply reflected their circumstances.
Those who don't have photo ID such as a driving licence need to get some for this purpose. Provided it is free and not unduly burdensome I don't think this undermines our democracy, it simply reflects their particular circumstance.
But it is the wrong target aimed at a fairly non existent problem.
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.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
They're Irish 'nt they? Just a different sort of Irish.
From "Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition (2019)
Introduction to the constituent parts of Parliament
Parliament is composed of the Sovereign, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Collectively they form the legislature and as distinct constituent parts of the constitution exercise functions and enjoy privileges peculiar to each.
Comment - Her Majesty the Queen is part of Parliament by her own right, and as such is not and CAN not be either a member of the House of Lords OR represented in the House of Commons. Thus she does NOT have a vote for MP.
"Queen in Parliament" is the formula.
Unless of course Boris has made some (more) constitutional changes without telling anyone!
And what is :"Erskine May"? According to wiki -
Erskine May is considered to be the most authoritative and influential work on parliamentary procedure and the constitutional conventions affecting Parliament which form a major part of the uncodified UK constitution. It is not a rigid set of rules but a description of how the procedure evolved and of the conventions. Such is the authority of the text that it is regarded as analogous to part of the constitution itself.
An interesting example of how an error can become entrenched because of who makes it. Although now it’s held because of Erskine May’s balls up that the Crown is part of parliament, it is not one of the three estates and therefore historically was not part of parliament.
My understanding is that the Sovereign is permanently represented by the government (hence they exercise the royal prerogative). Hence “The Sovereign” as a concept is part of parliament but “The Sovereign” as an individual is not.
Although I believe the Prince of Wales is a member of the Lords
Yes, but that’s a comparatively recent development, and separate from the composition of Parliament as an institution.
Edit - incidentally, also not quite right on the Prince of Wales. He was entitled to be a member of the Lords until 1999, but I think the last royal in the direct line of succession to actually take his seat (I.e. be a member of the Lords) was the man who later became William IV and V.
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.
Its hardly a surprise. The UK no longer exists from a customs perspective. Its now GB, and separately NI. Can't think why NI maniacs would be upset by it.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
They're Irish 'nt they? Just a different sort of Irish.
One of the curious things about Brexit is the anger from Remainers directed towards Brexit voters for not caring enough about Scotland and Ireland.
It is hardly a surprise that a voter in Hartlepool has little sympathy for the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland when you consider how much more money has been spent on those places compared to their own areas.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
Yep.
You wanna vote, bring your ID. It should be for the voter to sort out their ID not the poor election officials on the day. They have quite enough to do during polling. The last thing we need is pouring more bureaucracy into this.
It's really not an issue Robert. We have to show ID to pick up a package at a post office!!
Yes. And I am not opposed to measures that would increase security of voting. What I am opposed to is measures that make it more expensive (in time and money terms) for some people to vote relative to others.
This is not a complicated point.
But you seem to think that taking a photo of someone is somehow difficult or time consuming. I ask this in all seriousness: are you retarded?
Are you really suggesting the time and intelligence required to confirm if someone is the person in their photo ID, and that the photo ID is genuine, is greater than that required to take a photograph of someone?
Really?
completely agree with your latter point. The actual problem with voting security is in postal voting not in personation so this bill seems to be aimed at the wrong target.
I am less persuaded by your primary point. My son voted for the first time last week. Because he had been part of our household he was fairly automatically put on the electoral register. My daughter was previously on the electoral register in Edinburgh but is now back at home so she had to apply to get herself back on the register here. Was the fact that it was more time consuming for one than the other material? Was it undemocratic? I don't think so. It simply reflected their circumstances.
Those who don't have photo ID such as a driving licence need to get some for this purpose. Provided it is free and not unduly burdensome I don't think this undermines our democracy, it simply reflects their particular circumstance.
But it is the wrong target aimed at a fairly non existent problem.
There are two fundamental points here:
1. At least 99% of voter fraud is postal vote related, so this isn't targeting the real issue. 2. It imposes a cost (albeit a small one) on people who don't have photo ID.
I'm all in favour of measures that would stamp out personation. But it seems it can be achieved without - how to put this... - suppression of certain demographic segments.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes. They are a bit of a fad among school kids at the moment
Interestingly, the same trend is here in LA: both my daughter and a bunch of her friends have analog instant cameras (all of which are dubbed "polaroids").
My daughter was buying packs of film and charging for individual photos…
I hear that in Japan they are quietly pulling up the plans for holding the Olympics whilst still insisting they are holding the Olympics. The latest is that dozens of towns who were to host foreign delegations have pulled out.
At which point does reality sink in? It is not shame to have to postpone the games again whilst Covid still runs rampant around the globe. It is sanity.
Before I go to bed, can I just say how lucky PB is to have posters as interesting and insightful as (and excuse me if I have forgotten your name): @ydoethur@DavidL@Charles@tlg86@RochdalePioneers
It's a shame that some former denizens as Louise Bagshaw and Yvette Cooper no longer post, and that Christopher Monckton is here so rarely.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes. They are a bit of a fad among school kids at the moment
Interestingly, the same trend is here in LA: both my daughter and a bunch of her friends have analog instant cameras (all of which are dubbed "polaroids").
My daughter was buying packs of film and charging for individual photos…
Soon learnt about credit control…
My daughter discovered that mum doesn't log out of Amazon and that one can order new film without asking.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The House of Lords in an embarrassing anachronism that should have been abolished in 1911, if not earlier. I do not want Ministers appointed to it just so they could serve but I would not want them in the Commons without being elected either.
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
I hear that in Japan they are quietly pulling up the plans for holding the Olympics whilst still insisting they are holding the Olympics. The latest is that dozens of towns who were to host foreign delegations have pulled out.
At which point does reality sink in? It is not shame to have to postpone the games again whilst Covid still runs rampant around the globe. It is sanity.
Betfair: will the opening ceremony take place on 23rd July? Yes 1.25; No 4.4. It is a fairly thin market though.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
Yep.
You wanna vote, bring your ID. It should be for the voter to sort out their ID not the poor election officials on the day. They have quite enough to do during polling. The last thing we need is pouring more bureaucracy into this.
It's really not an issue Robert. We have to show ID to pick up a package at a post office!!
Yes. And I am not opposed to measures that would increase security of voting. What I am opposed to is measures that make it more expensive (in time and money terms) for some people to vote relative to others.
This is not a complicated point.
But you seem to think that taking a photo of someone is somehow difficult or time consuming. I ask this in all seriousness: are you retarded?
Are you really suggesting the time and intelligence required to confirm if someone is the person in their photo ID, and that the photo ID is genuine, is greater than that required to take a photograph of someone?
Really?
completely agree with your latter point. The actual problem with voting security is in postal voting not in personation so this bill seems to be aimed at the wrong target.
I am less persuaded by your primary point. My son voted for the first time last week. Because he had been part of our household he was fairly automatically put on the electoral register. My daughter was previously on the electoral register in Edinburgh but is now back at home so she had to apply to get herself back on the register here. Was the fact that it was more time consuming for one than the other material? Was it undemocratic? I don't think so. It simply reflected their circumstances.
Those who don't have photo ID such as a driving licence need to get some for this purpose. Provided it is free and not unduly burdensome I don't think this undermines our democracy, it simply reflects their particular circumstance.
But it is the wrong target aimed at a fairly non existent problem.
There are two fundamental points here:
1. At least 99% of voter fraud is postal vote related, so this isn't targeting the real issue. 2. It imposes a cost (albeit a small one) on people who don't have photo ID.
I'm all in favour of measures that would stamp out personation. But it seems it can be achieved without - how to put this... - suppression of certain demographic segments.
1,Yes. 2. Totally agree that we must ensure that any such requirement does not have that effect. The US is a salutary warning in that respect.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The House of Lords in an embarrassing anachronism that should have been abolished in 1911, if not earlier. I do not want Ministers appointed to it just so they could serve but I would not want them in the Commons without being elected either.
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The House of Lords in an embarrassing anachronism that should have been abolished in 1911, if not earlier. I do not want Ministers appointed to it just so they could serve but I would not want them in the Commons without being elected either.
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
Completely agree. I would probably go for a directly elected PM with freedom to select his/her own cabinet but subject as you say to parliamentary oversight.
It might also get away from the view that legislation is the answer to everything and allow parliament more time to focus on scrutiny and holding the government to account.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
One could just as well argue that a good command of English grammar should be a prerequisite for voting.
No you couldnt because a good grasp of english grammar does absolutely fuck all to make the country better
In fact give me someone who cant read or write but spends there weekends picking up litter on the beach over some metropolitan leftie tosspot spouting about grammar as a net contributor anyday
can’t
their
Yawns at the pedantic leftie who fails to address the argument so instead attacks the messenger
Ah but I am addressing your argument, that’s the point.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes. They are a bit of a fad among school kids at the moment
Interestingly, the same trend is here in LA: both my daughter and a bunch of her friends have analog instant cameras (all of which are dubbed "polaroids").
My daughter was buying packs of film and charging for individual photos…
Soon learnt about credit control…
My daughter discovered that mum doesn't log out of Amazon and that one can order new film without asking.
At least that used to be the case...
One of our granddaughters discovered that my wife did much the same. Not for polaroid film, but pens and pencils. Again, a stop was soon put!
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
I repeat my question:
Can you still buy Polaroids?
Yes. They are a bit of a fad among school kids at the moment
Interestingly, the same trend is here in LA: both my daughter and a bunch of her friends have analog instant cameras (all of which are dubbed "polaroids").
My daughter was buying packs of film and charging for individual photos…
Soon learnt about credit control…
Shows an excellent entrepreneurial spirit though. My son did similarly in his earlier years at school running what was in effect a tuck shop from his locker from which he was able to supply the products that Mums didn't seem to think should be in their kids packed lunches anymore. Cash on the nail in his case.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The House of Lords in an embarrassing anachronism that should have been abolished in 1911, if not earlier. I do not want Ministers appointed to it just so they could serve but I would not want them in the Commons without being elected either.
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
Completely agree. I would probably go for a directly elected PM with freedom to select his/her own cabinet but subject as you say to parliamentary oversight.
It might also get away from the view that legislation is the answer to everything and allow parliament more time to focus on scrutiny and holding the government to account.
There is somewhere that does that isn't there? Directly elects the PM. Be a bit difficult if, say, Boris J was elected PM with a Labour controlled Parliament.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
Mr P, I don't THINK our PM has to go to Wonga (or similar, nowadays) for a loan. I suspect there's someone in Tory Central Office who arranges these things.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
The voting ID is a non-story. Like Wallpaper. And I'm sorry Robert but making election officials get involved in polaroid identity checks on the day and during the count and verification is adding a whole layer of bureaucracy. Save that sort of thing for the EU please. They love it in Brussels. In Britain we're on a roll these days for doing things with efficiency.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
So, you want them to check photo IDs, but not be able to take Polaroids?
Yep.
You wanna vote, bring your ID. It should be for the voter to sort out their ID not the poor election officials on the day. They have quite enough to do during polling. The last thing we need is pouring more bureaucracy into this.
It's really not an issue Robert. We have to show ID to pick up a package at a post office!!
Will cost significant dollah to scale up the electoral staff at cash-strapped councils. As long as you're willing to foot your share of the bill thats ok.
As I said a few threads back, mandatory ID will largely kill off the overnight count as councils won't be able to afford the overtime bill.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
Mr P, I don't THINK our PM has to go to Wonga (or similar, nowadays) for a loan. I suspect there's someone in Tory Central Office who arranges these things.
He will of course have declared such an arrangement in the proper manner and timescale...
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Good comparison with Alba.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Potentially. But as the Labour divorce is happening anyway, may as well do it quickly and positively. Alba could have made ground had handy Alex given himself sufficient time to grease enough shoulders. The Greens were the established Yes party on the list and switching to Alba meant risking that and having to associate yourself with *that*.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Good comparison with Alba.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Potentially. But as the Labour divorce is happening anyway, may as well do it quickly and positively. Alba could have made ground had handy Alex given himself sufficient time to grease enough shoulders. The Greens were the established Yes party on the list and switching to Alba meant risking that and having to associate yourself with *that*.
I doubt there's any incentive for anyone to divorce now following the shambolic TIG. That's scorched that earth.
Blair (or those like him) and the TIGgers and more moderates defecting directly to the Liberal Democrats while Corbyn was PM could have been transformative. Instead it was shambolic and now there's no real chance of real change.
Ok totally on thread topic and undoubtedly unpopular
Yes absolutely people should pay to vote. A vote unearned isnt valued. When I say pay to vote I doin't mean financial contribution either all I suggest is that you earn your vote by making the country a better place....that mean financial via tax....or it could mean volunteering etc. The thought that my vote counts the same as those that care nothing about making the country better makes me actually nauseous.....why should the vote of someone that sits on their arse doing nothing except watching jeremy kyle count the same as mine who goes out and pays tax and works to a better nhs , or someone that pays no tax because they earn too little but on the weekends goes out as a volunteer and plants trees for a rewilding project?
Think of that the idle shit stain gets the same say as you
Ah, the old social credit scheme.
I've always felt that you should get the equivalent of frequent flyer miles for good behaviour - volunteering, paying your taxes on time, etc.
The fast lane on motorways could then be reserved (among other things) for higher tier citizens.
You should know me better than I would propose a social credit scheme.....I dont think however its unfair to ask those that want a vote to put something into the society they are voting for the direction of.....those that arent invested in the direction of the state except what they can take being a large proportion is not a good thing (and while they are not currently a majority it is likely to grow)
So, selective disenfrachisement according to criteria set out by @Pagan2 ?
And how does this differ from a social credit scheme? (Except in that the right to vote is the thing kicked out.)
There's a reason we don't have this, and that's because it often disenfranchises those most in needing to have a voice. Let's say it is based on net taxes paid. Well, if you grow up in an area where the steel plant shuts down, and there are suddenly no jobs, well that means you are now without a say.
And if you're struggling to feed your family, do you really need another set of obligations, just to ensure you get a vote?
(While well off rcs1000 in Hampstead, safe in the knowledge he's paid taxes in the past, can help with policies that help maintain his social and financial status.)
I pointed out it shouldnt just be on taxes paid, but on making a contribution. I would no doubt fail on taxes paid but I still do voluntary stuff. Some voters neither pay taxes work or do voluntary work. They sit on the sofa and take....justify why you think they should have an equal say in the running of the country.
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
One problematic aspect of your proposal - not the only one, but one I don't think has been mentioned and is operational rather than ideological - is the requirement (or necessity) for having many different qualifications for the franchise, many overlapping and different standards and challenges for determining eligibility. Which of course would have significant potential and actual consequences for individual voters, social groups and political parties & candidates.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
IIRC the “fancy franchises” label was for Disraeli’s proposals during the process that led to the 1867 Reform Act. He proposed giving “deserving” men extra votes for various qualifications such as university degrees, being a member of the professions or even having sufficient capital. Gladstone’s opposition saw those proposals dropped from the final bill.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I can see some merit in rotten boroughs… hear me out before you all pile on…
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The House of Lords in an embarrassing anachronism that should have been abolished in 1911, if not earlier. I do not want Ministers appointed to it just so they could serve but I would not want them in the Commons without being elected either.
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
Completely agree. I would probably go for a directly elected PM with freedom to select his/her own cabinet but subject as you say to parliamentary oversight.
It might also get away from the view that legislation is the answer to everything and allow parliament more time to focus on scrutiny and holding the government to account.
There is somewhere that does that isn't there? Directly elects the PM. Be a bit difficult if, say, Boris J was elected PM with a Labour controlled Parliament.
No more difficult than gridlock in the US.
But I have no problem with the PM having to persuade legislators of the merits of their argument
The 2020s version of Tony Blair speaks a lot of sense. In reality the "reconstruction" of Labour he speaks of needs a new name. So how about this:
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Good comparison with Alba.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Potentially. But as the Labour divorce is happening anyway, may as well do it quickly and positively. Alba could have made ground had handy Alex given himself sufficient time to grease enough shoulders. The Greens were the established Yes party on the list and switching to Alba meant risking that and having to associate yourself with *that*.
Wasn’t greasing part of why got him in trouble in the first place…
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
Looks like the media have been duped by a crazy....I think the Metro is going to have to publish an apology.
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
No no no. Her name may well be Miss Hobbs, but her claim against the PM was from her company "Sin Slaves in Leather Ltd". When you don't pay the bill, the court sets the bailiffs upon you.
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
He'll get it set aside. It won't then appear on his credit rating.
Probably. But its on his credit rating NOW. He's allegedly just taken out a loan. With who - Ocean Finance?
A CCJ is not a blanket ban on getting a loan. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister is incapable of getting a loan? 🤔
Not only that, but the actual judgement is - how to put this - utter bullshit.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
"This is bullshit. I don't owe a penny" as a defence seems to cut no mustard with the high court bailiffs on that telly programme.
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?
Comments
Wouldn't be like the Lancet to be peddling dodgy untruths related to vaccines now, would it?
Personally( because it suits me) I would say anyone paying more that 2000£ tax and national insurance or anyone doing more that 300 hours voluntary work a year with a pro rata between them so you can balance it out. Hardly onerous
In 2019, there was only one seat with a margin of under a hundred, which I'd think is well above the realistic maximum effect any serious attempt at personation could possibly achieve without being totally obvious to all (if you attempted to vote on behalf of 100 random voters, it would be realistic to expect over 50 of them to show up later to try to vote and then make a fuss about it - that's going to end up in the press).
All in all, if you want to rig uk elections, postal votes are the obvious answer - but for some strange reason, governments seem far lass keen on tightening up on these. Personally I think they should only be available to those who are actually unable to physically turn up and vote, rather than the current free for all. Even if it was just done by self declaration, it might then ring the alarm bells and prompt some further investigation when Tower Hamlets turns out to suddenly be full of flats with 20 bedbound people in each!
Johnson is WAY less idiotic or assholotic than Bolasario and certainly Trumpsky (in a class all by his own esp for a President of the United States of America)
My guess is that Orban in Hungary could survive, also Erdogan in Turkey and . . . wait for it . . . Ontario Premier Doug Ford.
Who is less "populist"than his late brother Rob Ford, who while Mayor of Toronto was memorably filmed smoking crack cocaine; sadly he passed away due to complications from substance abuse just age 47.
After losing race to succeed his brother as mayor, Doug Ford won the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, then the 2018 provincial election to become Premier. He's had his share of ups and down, but mostly ups certainly compared with his bro.
Doug is also a personality in his own right, just toned down a tad. His pandemic has not been huge success but could have been worse, and he's been more decisive & (reasonably) consistent than some leaders (such as Boris Johnson for example).
Current polling show Premier Ford behind provincial Liberal Party under Steven De Luca, but the next election is not scheduled until June 2022.
Of course from your perspective money definitely is a civic indeed constitutional virtue!!!
Downing Street believes the claim is completely bogus and the CCJ should not have been issued.
The case was brought by an Yvonne Hobbs against 'The Rt Hon Boris Johnson' and she gave her reason for the debt as: 'Committed repeated defamation.'
She used the Online Civil Money Claims service to state that the Prime Minister owed her £535.
But the Mail can reveal Miss Hobbs, 59, of Leicestershire, is a Covid conspiracy theorist who has launched multiple claims against Mr Johnson and public institutions. She often sends copies of her complaints to the Queen, the BBC, the House of Commons and House of Lords.
She has launched legal actions against Marks and Spencer, Royal Mail, Chancellor Rishi Sunak and numerous public companies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9572541/Boris-Johnsons-535-county-court-ruling-came-Covid-conspiracy-theorists-slander-allegation.html
As somebody pointed out earlier today, a red flag should have been that it was for a Mr Boris Johnson, which is not his legal name.
Note that before AND after the Great Reform Act of 1832 there was a plethora of "fancy franchises" that qualified persons who could prove they met them - or just as often produce evidence to refute challenges against their right to vote.
These fancy franchises often varied from constituency to constituecy (esp. boroughs) and led to numerous situations where one man would have several votes in different places, while his neighbor - who might in fact have a higher income, education, etc) had no vote at all.
If I understand you, your proposals would operate under the same rules across UK? Perhaps with modifications for Wales & Scotland, or (perhaps) a few other regional variations. However you've still got the issue of multiple qualifications however you slice it, which is indeed key to NOT having just one type of civic good placed above all the rest, so that donors to the National Trust can vote, but school crossing-guard volunteers cannot (or visa versa).
Another related consideration, is that in early & mid 19th century fancy franchises and their often arcane rules & reg led to the growth - cottage industry really - of squads of lawyers hired by both main political parties to challenge the qualifications of opposition voters (or those presumed to be such) and (to a lesser extent) qualifying their own partisans for the vote.
Fascinating history, that indicates some potential challenges & pitfalls. In theory NOT insurmountable. But can be difficult in practices, and certainly there are costs to the exchequer AND electors however you slice it.
The pre-1832 franchise was uniform in the counties but did indeed vary radically in borough constituencies: notwithstanding the rotten boroughs where the landowner effectively chose the MP, some boroughs nigh on enfranchised every male householder while others restricted it to just the members of the corporation.
I think that pre (and post) 1832 the only multiple franchises were exercised by graduates of the ancient (and eventually some modern) universities who could vote in both their constituency of residence and university constituency. Otherwise it was (if the man qualified at all) one man, one vote everywhere.
I expect @ydoethur can correct me if I’m wrong.
Though it leaves open the question, why wasn't the CCJ letter spotted earlier?
It initially appeared to be a fresh embarrassment for Mr Johnson, who is already facing an investigation by the Westminster watchdog over who paid for his £15,000 holiday to Mustique and three separate inquiries into who funded the lavish redecoration of his Downing Street flat.
I can only imagine the amount of crap that gets sent to "Boris Johnson, #10 Downing Street" every day.
Some poor sod has to wade through it all.
Being compared with Benjamin Disraeli is NOT the worst thing that can befall a PBer!
However re: there were plenty of electors as late as 1945 IIRC, who had one vote in more than one place and constituency (esp. boroughs) due to property qualifications. Pretty common for businessmen who lived and also in another town where there ship or factory or whatever was.
All this rather reinforces the point that these complexities are neither cheap OR neutral in operation & oversight.
Who must be sent to rest homes periodically, after reading esp. lurid or abuse missives from PM's former innamorate.
As Lord Palmerston is reputed to have commented re: the Schleswig-Holstein Question (2nd cousin once removed from Heligoland Question) -
Only three people understood it: Prince Albert who is dead, a Danish (or German) professor whom has gone mad, and myself who has forgotten all about it.
I also think you're missing the mood music of the nation. Things have moved on here. People accept that things have changed and the nostalgic naive days are gone. If the new normal means we show photo ID to vote, as we have to when we go to pick up a package from the post office, well ... meh.
I see that Jo Cox's sister is hoping to stand in Batley & Spen. That may well give Labour the edge.
That's the worrying part of this
Okay, so it's about preventing actual abuse and therefore it's not quite as I've parodied it but it's still a worrying notion that you would sentence someone before they get to the point of committing a crime. In the case of child abuse it's clearly complex because intent to commit may involve, for example, possession of images which are themselves abuse. However, what if it's just fantasy? Should someone be given a 14-year prison term for that? We could end up with a situation where people are sentenced for wayward thoughts. The end result of this is a dystopian nightmare.
Why not go the whole Minority Report hog and eliminate people for thinking a crime before they commit it?
Intent to commit does exist in other areas of the law but I don't want to see this idea spreading. Intent to protest? Intent to demonstrate? Intent to tear down a slavery statue? Intent to speed? Intent to turn up at a polling station without photo ID?
That's pretty odd, because the Border Force has a whole training process around identifying features, and how to make sure people are the same as their photo id. That's genuinely hard work.
Taking a Polaroid? Not so much.
Can you still buy Polaroids?
"The Prime Minister and First Lord of The Treasury, 10 Downing Street..."
You wanna vote, bring your ID. It should be for the voter to sort out their ID not the poor election officials on the day. They have quite enough to do during polling. The last thing we need is pouring more bureaucracy into this.
It's really not an issue Robert. We have to show ID to pick up a package at a post office!!
You are incorrect about multiple franchises. Until 1918 if you met the qualification (I.e. were a ratepayer) in more than one seat you could vote in all seats where you met the franchise. It was less common than it had been before 1832, but it was still a known abuse of the system and a longstanding target for reform.
After 1918, the property qualification was replaced by a (nearly) universal male suffrage with a residency qualification, so you could only vote twice if you were a university graduate. The university seats were abolished in 1948 leading to the ‘one person one vote system’ we have now.
https://twitter.com/donie/status/1390777133799251971?s=20
I don't give a shit about whether it's "a story" or not. The question is "is it the moral and right thing to do"?
And it is not.
The only question is this: do all citizens incur broadly the same cost in exercising their right to vote? And there are plenty of ways that one can implement compulsory Photo ID while maintaining basic fairness. I've suggested three:
1. Compulsory ID cards
2. Polaroids of those without ID
3. Separation of ballots from those without ID into a "provisional" pile which are only checked in the event there is a sufficient number to affect to the result.
There are probably others.
But here's the thing. Compulsory Photo ID means more postal voting. And postal voting is genuinely problematic from a fraud perspective. If you really want to make voting fairer, clamping down on that would be your number one priority.
Instead we have a measure that will result in more postal voting, resulting in greater opportunities for fraud.
It's what drives vinyl, in an age of having 1,000 LP's on a small device and millions more at the touch of a search button.
This is not a complicated point.
But you seem to think that taking a photo of someone is somehow difficult or time consuming. I ask this in all seriousness: are you retarded?
Are you really suggesting the time and intelligence required to confirm if someone is the person in their photo ID, and that the photo ID is genuine, is greater than that required to take a photograph of someone?
Really?
At the moment the government appoints Lords to make sure they have a sufficiently deep bench to fill ministerial posts. These are for life, no matter how long you actually do the work for. How about this specific class of “working peers” being appointed using rotten boroughs until the next general election (it should be limited in number just to provide a ministerial bench and other peers should continue to be appointed fir life - you wouldn’t want ministers having too much sway over the upper house’s composition)
The consultation is not about whether they have committed a crime but how they should be sentenced for it. So, for example, the sentence for an attempted murder is less than it would be for a completed murder. In the case of child sex offenders the primary consideration in sentencing is public protection and they are consulting about whether public protection requires the same level of sentencing for an attempt as for a completed crime. This would be a change in sentencing policy but I can see the logic.
IANAE on this but my understanding is that the recidivism rate for pedophiles is high because unless they are treated it is a compulsion that they find very hard to resist. Given this risk does public protection require those who attempted to commit the crime to be kept out of circulation every bit as much as those who succeeded? I think it would be wrong to have a universal rule on this but I can see the argument that the court should have that power in appropriate cases.
And, good morning, everybody.
prerogative). Hence “The Sovereign” as a concept is part of parliament but “The Sovereign” as an individual is not.
Although I believe the Prince of Wales is a member of the Lords
And Boris Johnson is his name, even if lots of other things are as well.
Their problem is that the good burghers of Hartlepool etc don't give a fuck about foreigners like in NI. Their proclaimed British patriotism doesn't include NI, and doesn't really include the colonies like Scotland or Wales either.
"Britain doesn't want you" is a hard reality for the loyalists to grasp. Do they shoot / bomb their way back into our affections?
I am less persuaded by your primary point. My son voted for the first time last week. Because he had been part of our household he was fairly automatically put on the electoral register. My daughter was previously on the electoral register in Edinburgh but is now back at home so she had to apply to get herself back on the register here. Was the fact that it was more time consuming for one than the other material? Was it undemocratic? I don't think so. It simply reflected their circumstances.
Those who don't have photo ID such as a driving licence need to get some for this purpose. Provided it is free and not unduly burdensome I don't think this undermines our democracy, it simply reflects their particular circumstance.
But it is the wrong target aimed at a fairly non existent problem.
Edit - incidentally, also not quite right on the Prince of Wales. He was entitled to be a member of the Lords until 1999, but I think the last royal in the direct line of succession to actually take his seat (I.e. be a member of the Lords) was the man who later became William IV and V.
It is hardly a surprise that a voter in Hartlepool has little sympathy for the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland when you consider how much more money has been spent on those places compared to their own areas.
1. At least 99% of voter fraud is postal vote related, so this isn't targeting the real issue.
2. It imposes a cost (albeit a small one) on people who don't have photo ID.
I'm all in favour of measures that would stamp out personation. But it seems it can be achieved without - how to put this... - suppression of certain demographic segments.
Soon learnt about credit control…
At which point does reality sink in? It is not shame to have to postpone the games again whilst Covid still runs rampant around the globe. It is sanity.
It's a shame that some former denizens as Louise Bagshaw and Yvette Cooper no longer post, and that Christopher Monckton is here so rarely.
At least that used to be the case...
What is required is a mechanism by which an appointed Minister can be held to account by the Commons without being in Parliament. Lots of other countries seem to manage this without problems. So, members of Biden's cabinet appear before Congress without being a member of either House, for example.
Why can't we do the same even although our constitution is built around the executive being in Parliament rather than merely accountable to it? Clearly there has to be limits on this and I do not think that such appointed Ministers could hold cabinet rank, for example. But if someone is appointed because they actually know something about the area that they are to be a Minister in I would have thought select committees are the answer in terms of accountability.
2. Totally agree that we must ensure that any such requirement does not have that effect. The US is a salutary warning in that respect.
It might also get away from the view that legislation is the answer to everything and allow parliament more time to focus on scrutiny and holding the government to account.
Let’s call it a blue eye, brown eye experiment...
In all seriousness - Johnson has a legal CCJ against him. I read on here that he is basically pig ignorant about money, but doesn't a CCJ have actual impacts on things like you ability to borrow? Supposedly he has paid off CCHQ/Donors with a loan. How does he get a loan with a CCJ against him?
As I said a few threads back, mandatory ID will largely kill off the overnight count as councils won't be able to afford the overtime bill.
Tony Blair founds the Progress party (other less poncey names are available). Goes on a post-Covid tour of the red wall speaking to all the people who even as they voted Tory said they missed Blair. Understand their issues. Propose less self-destructive solutions.
As with Alba, I would expect Blair to attract believers to defect, though in a much larger less utterly shit way than handy Alex did. Blair winning the plaudits (again) of the working class whilst challenging ferret-sack-fighting Labour would cause a real dilemma for so many members and activists. Follow Him again having reconnected with the electorate? Or stay in the ferret sack?
Come on Tony. Do it. You're only 68.
Would probably get a similar number of seats.
Alexander Boris de.... whatever... doesn't owe a penny.
Blair (or those like him) and the TIGgers and more moderates defecting directly to the Liberal Democrats while Corbyn was PM could have been transformative. Instead it was shambolic and now there's no real chance of real change.
But I have no problem with the PM having to persuade legislators of the merits of their argument
It may be a spurious claim against him. But it's how a legal judgement until it gets set aside. Unless as with the legal requirement to properly declare loans and gifts the law doesn't apply if you are the PM?