politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A big question today is how many voters can’t cast their ballo
Comments
-
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.0 -
It doesn't rule out even a single elector since every elector either has ID or can get it for free.DecrepitJohnL said:
No they won't. That's the point. It rules out some electors -- whether or not by design, whether or not for party advantage -- to solve a problem that barely exists in the first place.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't believe it will reduce anyone's vote. Unless personation is a real issue in which case it will reduce that - if it isn't as claimed then everyone will still get their votes.rkrkrk said:
Not sure about that. Evidence suggests ethnic minorities less likely to have valid ID.nunuone said:
It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.SandraMc said:Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.
Fairly confident the Tories would not be introducing this, in the face of opposition from other parties, if they thought it was going to reduce their own vote.0 -
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.0 -
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.0 -
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.0 -
Makes it more difficult for people to vote, obviously.Richard_Nabavi said:
What problem does it create?
0 -
Tower Hamlets :>Richard_Nabavi said:
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.0 -
Barnet certainly only needs 2 seats to change to go Labour.Richard_Nabavi said:
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.0 -
Marginally, yes. About as difficult as picking up a parcel or taking out a library book.Torby_Fennel said:
Makes it more difficult for people to vote, obviously.Richard_Nabavi said:
What problem does it create?0 -
Fair enough. I feel that voting is pointless at present. I have never felt that way before but to me all I have is a choice between two sets of equally repulsive ideologies and a third party so far up its own backside that daylight is a faint memory.Tykejohnno said:
I voted on which party would be best for my local area and I have some issues with the governing party (labour)with policies, so my vote went elsewhere.Beverley_C said:
I have not voted yet. I do not know whether I will bother. Neither of the main parties deserves a vote and I am not sure that the LibDems deserve one either.Sunil_Prasannan said:I decided not to vote in these elections, just like I didn't bother in the Mayoral election in 2016.
The other option in the ballot paper is English Democrats who I regard as far-right loons0 -
What would be hilarious is if the Conservatives ended the night controlling fewer Boroughs than the LDs - Labour win Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster. LDs gain Sutton and Richmond. K&C goes NOC.Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
I would make that LAB 25, LD 3, CON 2, NOC 2 - how we'd all laugh !!
0 -
I liked the comment on Tower Hamlets from the CityMetric article: "Can’t help but think that this would be quite an interesting election, if only anyone could understand it."Pulpstar said:
Tower Hamlets :>Richard_Nabavi said:
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.0 -
Had a quick look at the Watford mayoralty, will be difficult for the Lib Dems to lose so long as Peter Taylor is in the top two as he is transfer friendly from both the reds and the blues who don't want the blues or reds in as mayor.0
-
Anyway, enough yanking of the Tory chain.
I've been out to vote and in the absence of an LD candidate in my Ward I was able to vote as I saw fit.
I had an enjoyable moment telling one of the activists what I thought about his Mayoral candidate's policy of compulsory sport for 12 hours per week for all secondary school children.
I reminded said activist of the National Curriculum and the amount of power a Mayor had with reference to Academies and other non-LA schools.0 -
I don't see what that has to do with anything. I want as many people to be able to vote as are already able to now. You want to reduce the number of people able to vote. That's the difference.welshowl said:
Ok I'd like my state pension now please. I'm paid up for 35 years. And no I'm not handing over any ID to prove I'm 65 yet.
Ok with you?
0 -
Yes I mean Labour need two gains on Tower Hamlets in order to take control.Pulpstar said:
Tower Hamlets :>Richard_Nabavi said:
Are you mixing up your Haverings with your HillingdonsBarnets? Labour are also-rans in Havering.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Labour need two gains over 2014, one of which they have gained in a by-election since. "Shoo-in" might be too far but I'd be damned surprised if they failed.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
(It was more a response to Pulpstar than you.)0 -
Dorothy Thornhill had a big personal following but I agree the LDs are likely to win again.Pulpstar said:Had a quick look at the Watford mayoralty, will be difficult for the Lib Dems to lose so long as Peter Taylor is in the top two as he is transfer friendly from both the reds and the blues who don't want the blues or reds in as mayor.
0 -
Would work for me, the main bet is Sutton (LD) - I've tried to finesse the Con-Lab swing between Con holding Wandsworth and Lab gaining Barnet; although in think in practice I'll win one bet but not the other as both will go the same way.stodge said:
What would be hilarious is if the Conservatives ended the night controlling fewer Boroughs than the LDs - Labour win Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster. LDs gain Sutton and Richmond. K&C goes NOC.Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
I would make that LAB 25, LD 3, CON 2, NOC 2 - how we'd all laugh !!0 -
Any news on turnout?0
-
+1 ID is a simple requirement here in Spain. Ironically British residents are exempt from photo ID cards because of a stupid EU rule. As a result we miss out of a very useful card!MaxPB said:It's always funny talking to Europeans about voter ID or ID in general.
When I said to a Spanish friend of mine that I could just turn up to the polling station and tell them my name and address with nothing to prove that I was who I said I was, he was very surprised "no wonder Britain voted to leave!"
0 -
On the same bet, but wouldn't be surprised if I won both. The gap in swing (at least on uniform swing) is significant. There's a big 'sweet spot' to aim for.Pulpstar said:
Would work for me, the main bet is Sutton (LD) - I've tried to finesse the Con-Lab swing between Con holding Wandsworth and Lab gaining Barnet; although in think in practice I'll win one bet but not the other as both will go the same way.stodge said:
What would be hilarious is if the Conservatives ended the night controlling fewer Boroughs than the LDs - Labour win Tower Hamlets, Barnet, Hillingdon, Wandsworth and Westminster. LDs gain Sutton and Richmond. K&C goes NOC.Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
I would make that LAB 25, LD 3, CON 2, NOC 2 - how we'd all laugh !!0 -
They are very cheap in Spain.MaxPB said:I also have to say my view is slowly changing on ID cards, having lived in a country with mandatory ID cards, it is starting to make sense. When I came back over the German border once I got stopped and obviously I had my passport with me so it wasn't an issue, but in the centre there were at least 10 "migrants" that had also been stopped without ID and clearly they were going to be sent to some kind of detention/deportation centre.
I think if the UK introduced it, the first one should be free and valid for 10 years, then the renewals should be as cheap as renewing the driving licence.0 -
I agree with all of that but I think it goes even further. It sends out a signal to the politically disengaged that voting is a difficult thing to do. More people will just shrug their shoulders and stay away.DecrepitJohnL said:
No they won't. That's the point. It rules out some electors -- whether or not by design, whether or not for party advantage -- to solve a problem that barely exists in the first place.
0 -
Number 2 is FalklandsPulpstar said:
The Supreme people's assembly manages to get the vote out in the high 99% with ~100% support for the Fatherland Front.welshowl said:
When turnout is more than 100% we can all agree there's an issue!PeterMannion said:With turnout under 50%, we should be encouraging more people to vote twice
Here are some more rather one sided historic votes:
187 : 17900
1,513 : 3
51,773 : 1,039
4,453,912 : 11,9290 -
Steve Hilton goes full whack-job, calling for the American people to fight back against the FBI and beat it...
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/9920393056390553600 -
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections and even in poorer areas like Elm Park and Rainham bordering Dagenham.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating many if any of the the current 19 residents association councillors! Perhaps of more interest is what happens to the UKIP vote - although they are running candidates in most wards there.0 -
187 17900
Gibraltar 20020 -
Here's the solution to personification:
Anyone voting without ID is required to have their photo taken and to provide fingerprints. Spot checks are done afterwards. In the event of a close race, they could all be checked.0 -
Afternoon all
I'm not a huge fan of ID cards and was even less so when the Blair Government proposed charging us £300 for a card which contained little or no personal information.
There is strong cultural resistance to the notion of having to carrying an ID card and having to produce it on demand from some authority figure. There are those who argue we fought and won two World Wars for the principle to be able to not have to carry round identity papers and not to have to prove who you are on demand.
Yes we carry all kinds of ID around with us (or at least many of us do) but there is an assumption we all do and we all have some form of photo ID. I have a driving licence but Mrs Stodge doesn't - she would need to produce her passport - and there are people who don't have driving licences or a passport. Given other forms of ID are open to abuse why wouldn't a national ID card be open to fraud ?
Even with a polling card anyone can say they are someone else at a polling station but that isn't where most of the fraud happens. The fraud is in postal and proxy voting not in what happens at polling stations and that wouldn't be solved by ID cards.
I hope this isn't an overtly political attempt to disenfranchise those of a particular viewpoint - if so, that would be reprehensible. If it's an attempt to combat voter fraud, apart from being the wrong answer to the wrong problem, it's got a lot going for it.0 -
Down North 1959 was the 51773 v 10390
-
Number 4 was Austria post-Anschluss (1938)0
-
12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php0 -
So popular that they have three groups of them! But thanks, I expect you are right and we'll see another NOC.brendan16 said:
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating the residents!0 -
Without looking was the last one the Austrian plebiscite on joining the Reich in 1938 ? It took place after the German troops had moved in with all the "democratic legitimacy" the Nazis could employ.Sunil_Prasannan said:Down North 1959 was the 51773 v 1039
The 11,000 or so who voted NO were incredibly brave as I suspect there weren't the checks and balances we enjoy in terms of the secret ballot.
0 -
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoonbigjohnowls said:12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php0 -
Sensible people, not wise to give unfettered majority rule to any party on a council even if everyone agrees amongst themselves they're broadly centre-right types.Richard_Nabavi said:
So popular that they have three groups of them! But thanks, I expect you are right and we'll see another NOC.brendan16 said:
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating the residents!0 -
Good luckSandyRentool said:
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoonbigjohnowls said:12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php
0 -
O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp
0 -
Quite exciting when you see the Xs by your name :>SandyRentool said:
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoonbigjohnowls said:12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php0 -
Yes it was Austria! I think the ballot paper was remarkable in that the "Ja" was in huge typeface but the "Nein" was tiny!stodge said:
Without looking was the last one the Austrian plebiscite on joining the Reich in 1938 ? It took place after the German troops had moved in with all the "democratic legitimacy" the Nazis could employ.Sunil_Prasannan said:Down North 1959 was the 51773 v 1039
The 11,000 or so who voted NO were incredibly brave as I suspect there weren't the checks and balances we enjoy in terms of the secret ballot.0 -
Actual votes cast in 2014 were as follows:
Lab 35.7%
Con 25.8%
UKIP 15.6%
LD 11.1%
Greens 6.6%
Those figures were converted into these projected national votes shares:
Rallings & Thrasher: Lab 31%, Con 30%, UKIP 18%, LD 11%
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, UKIP 17%, LD 13%
http://electionsetc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/05/22/local-elections-2014-as-it-happens0 -
Good afternoon, my fellow legitimately documented voters.
I wonder if the warm weather will marginally help Labour.0 -
The 'mix' and 'leans' are slightly different to 2014 though, the materiality of change to those vote conversions though I'm not sure.AndyJS said:Actual votes cast in 2014 were as follows:
Lab 35.7%
Con 25.8%
UKIP 15.6%
LD 11.1%
Greens 6.6%
Those figures were converted into these projected national votes shares:
Rallings & Thrasher: Lab 31%, Con 30%, UKIP 18%, LD 11%
BBC: Lab 31%, Con 29%, UKIP 17%, LD 13%
http://electionsetc.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2014/05/22/local-elections-2014-as-it-happens0 -
Much as I don't like to see the countryside being bricked over those houses are sorely needed given the whole price/demand/supply equation around London.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp
And as she points out quite a bit of it isn't picture perfect fields of green.0 -
Lol. The days when weather made a political difference are long gone.Morris_Dancer said:Good afternoon, my fellow legitimately documented voters.
I wonder if the warm weather will marginally help Labour.0 -
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp0 -
Yes - three groups representing their local areas - there used to be one group.Richard_Nabavi said:
So popular that they have three groups of them! But thanks, I expect you are right and we'll see another NOC.brendan16 said:
The resident associations in Havering are very active and popular. They do quite well in some of the most prosperous areas like Upminster which are solidly Tory in general elections.Richard_Nabavi said:
I do wonder about Havering - if the national two-party squeeze on minor parties applies to these elections, maybe the Residents in their various guises will also get squeezed. I have no local knowledge, though, so this might be completely wrong.Pulpstar said:
Is Tower Hamlets that much of a shoo in ?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Havering & Sutton to the Tories...Pulpstar said:What would be funny is if the Tories gained more councils than Labour... in London. Possible if unlikely.
Lab take TH but fail elsewhere?
That I think is probably the only route.
Con Gain Havering being the only change is another route.
So I foresee another Tory residents coalition - I don't see the Conservatives defeating the residents!
The east group represents posh Tory Upminster and Cranham and also Harold Wood - and decided to ally with the Tories to run the council post the last elections. The other groups represent other areas including poorer wards in Hornchurch and Elm Park - where aligning with the Tories isn't as popular as they used to be Labour voting areas.0 -
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp0 -
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp0 -
Housing is actually more or less OK up north though, more the economy and infrastructure that needs developing.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp
Whereas down south and particularly in London the economy is going well but there is insufficient housing.
Just because this development should get the go ahead does not mean that for instance Robin Hood airport ought not to be developed further (To pick a project out in my neck of the woods). We can do both.0 -
This seems very naive to me.Philip_Thompson said:
I don't believe it will reduce anyone's vote. Unless personation is a real issue in which case it will reduce that - if it isn't as claimed then everyone will still get their votes.rkrkrk said:
Not sure about that. Evidence suggests ethnic minorities less likely to have valid ID.nunuone said:
It will hit Leave voters harder then metropolitan Remain voters for sure.SandraMc said:Couldn't this insistence on ID hit older (and therefore possibly more likely to be voting Conservative) voters? My 90-year-old mother no longer has a passport or driving licence.
Fairly confident the Tories would not be introducing this, in the face of opposition from other parties, if they thought it was going to reduce their own vote.
It's definitely going to have some impact on legitimate voters if introduced nationally, especially the first time before people get used to it. 3.5m without a valid photo ID.0 -
If the top two are Tory and Labour it's difficult to say who would win in the final round.Pulpstar said:Had a quick look at the Watford mayoralty, will be difficult for the Lib Dems to lose so long as Peter Taylor is in the top two as he is transfer friendly from both the reds and the blues who don't want the blues or reds in as mayor.
0 -
Moving parliament out would be a good start - you could take the bulk of a bunch of civil service departments with you then.AndyJS said:
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp0 -
Yep. It is ridiculous for example that Google is building a huge HQ at King's Cross.SandyRentool said:
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp
Why on earth do most of these jobs (online content, s/w engineering etc etc) need to be in central London?0 -
Even if parliament was moved out to Wentworth Woodhouse say! there'd still be a need for more housing in the capital.rkrkrk said:
Moving parliament out would be a good start - you could take the bulk of a bunch of civil service departments with you then.AndyJS said:
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp0 -
They are doing that with business rates already via revaluations.SandyRentool said:
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp0 -
Mr. Borough, prestige?0
-
I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.0
-
When I stood I was bricking it a little as I was a paper candidate and did better than expected, coming second, which was the first time we did that in that ward. Next year we put up a proper candidate and he won.Pulpstar said:
Quite exciting when you see the Xs by your name :>SandyRentool said:
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoonbigjohnowls said:12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php0 -
rottenborough said:
Yep. It is ridiculous for example that Google is building a huge HQ at King's Cross.SandyRentool said:
Plus the government should utilise the tax system to encourage more businesses to move out of London and into the regions.DecrepitJohnL said:
I'd rather build new towns (or refurbish old ones) in deprived parts of the country up north. We need to get regional economies moving, not cram everything into London.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp
Why on earth do most of these jobs (online content, s/w engineering etc etc) need to be in central London?
To be near other companies/services they want to visit, to create a 'buzzing' atmosphere, and to have a deeper pool of potential employees.
0 -
I agree, move it to Sheffield or Manchester.rkrkrk said:
Moving parliament out would be a good start - you could take the bulk of a bunch of civil service departments with you then.AndyJS said:
I think the government needs to encourage people to move to the north of England, Scotland and Wales. The south and Midlands are already overcrowded. Maybe a lot of people in the south aren't aware of just how much cheaper housing is in the north of England.Richard_Nabavi said:O/T This seems a very sensible proposal by Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh (although a million houses is going it a bit!):
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/build-million-new-homes-london-green-belt-siobhain-mcdonagh-mp0 -
Sandy will get more X's in one night than Sean T in a prolific lifetime!!!Pulpstar said:
Quite exciting when you see the Xs by your name :>SandyRentool said:
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoonbigjohnowls said:12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php0 -
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
0 -
AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Although it doesn't stop people having pressure put on them to vote a certain way on postal votes, nor will it stop students voting at home and at university.
0 -
There seems to be a general feeling that these local elections aren't very important unless you're an elections obsessive, but in fact they could lead to the removal of May or Corbyn if the results are catastrophic for either main party. That's unlikely - the results are more likely to be so so for both parties.0
-
Nice smear but what evidence is there of anyone at all benefiting from personation? This has the costs of voter suppression with no discernible benefit to the democratic process. There might be electoral fraud connected with postal votes and around spending limits but there is simply no evidence of personation being a problem.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
ETA the figure of 1 in a million you plucked from thin air suggests at best wild optimism.0 -
Actually I don't think that will be the case!bigjohnowls said:
Sandy will get more X's in one night than Sean T in a prolific lifetime!!!Pulpstar said:
Quite exciting when you see the Xs by your name :>SandyRentool said:
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoonbigjohnowls said:12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php0 -
It's crazy that in the year 2018 it's even up for discussion, many of our advanced Western neighbours have much tougher rules than we do regarding identification.AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
Ironically one of the local Labour candidates Charlotte Gerada was one of the main campaigners who fought tooth and nail to keep Lutfur Rahman in office. I don't even believe she lives in Bromley despite her 'supposed' registered address. Even if 1 person votes fraudulently then that's too many. Voter ID gives more weight and value to everyone's vote within the electorate and that's got to be a good thing.0 -
A lucky escape!rpjs said:
When I stood I was bricking it a little as I was a paper candidate and did better than expected, coming second, which was the first time we did that in that ward. Next year we put up a proper candidate and he won.Pulpstar said:
Quite exciting when you see the Xs by your name :>SandyRentool said:
My count is tomorrow - declaration expected early afternoonbigjohnowls said:12.5 hrs till my estimated count time.
http://election.pressassociation.com/Declaration_times/all_2018_by_time.php0 -
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.0 -
So, looking at the PA list how late would you need to stay up to have a good idea how things have gone? 4.00 am seems to be the largest crunch time but that is very late on a school night.0
-
65 people nationally who wouldn't have the required ID!?DecrepitJohnL said:
Nice smear but what evidence is there of anyone at all benefiting from personation? This has the costs of voter suppression with no discernible benefit to the democratic process. There might be electoral fraud connected with postal votes and around spending limits but there is simply no evidence of personation being a problem.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
ETA the figure of 1 in a million you plucked from thin air suggests at best wild optimism.0 -
No part of the country should have a problem with fraudulent voting. It's no pity at all.AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
0 -
-
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...0 -
Well Amber Valley declares at 2:30, Trafford at 2:00, Wandsworth at 3:00 and Barnet at 4:00 so between that lot we should have a pretty good idea of the provinces/Burnham's Tory hinterland and the capital.DavidL said:So, looking at the PA list how late would you need to stay up to have a good idea how things have gone? 4.00 am seems to be the largest crunch time but that is very late on a school night.
0 -
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?rkrkrk said:
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...0 -
They've got a lot more sense than Bercow.Scott_P said:0 -
We currently have a half-baked system where the right to vote is part based on residence and part based on being a unique individual. It ought to be solely one or the other.
For those registered at 2 addresses, sometimes it is OK to vote at both and at other times it is not. For those not registered at any address, for whatever reason, they are denied a vote despite being a living breathing person. (In contrast, those on the register but no longer with us (or who never really existed) still get sent a polling card/postal vote which may or may not be used on their behalf.)0 -
A bit of an odd topic really - many probably supported Bercow's action, but it was a but shitty of him to not even consult the other people who are apparently supposed to be involved in such a decision (never mind that a request had not even come in).Scott_P said:
The story is also odd - it claims he would be invited to speak in a room not within Bercow's control, then says it would be a challenge to Bercow's authority. If the room is not under his authority, then it cannot be a challenge to his control, it's just a loophole.
And as odious as Trump is personally, heck, he might be a Noble Prize Winner someday, best get in there early!0 -
I support ID. On a personal level I bought my first flat in Wandsworth in 1981 under right to buy. A few years later we had a couple of years of zero Community Charge under the wonderful Tory council. I'd be very sad to see it go red especially as London and the rest are becoming too divergent.0
-
Those figures are pure conjecture and there is no evidence of disenfranchisement. There are a lot of scare stories but no evidence. No study looking at the electoral roll to see how many of these people who are claimed not to have any form of Id at all are actually on the register and voting already.rkrkrk said:
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
This is a trial that will be examined to see what effects it has.
Voting should be secure at all steps of the process. Nothing I have seen from anyone changes my view on that basic principle.0 -
I'm presuming the reason no one has replied to this is because it's the perfect solution, and therefore far too simple.rcs1000 said:Here's the solution to personification:
Anyone voting without ID is required to have their photo taken and to provide fingerprints. Spot checks are done afterwards. In the event of a close race, they could all be checked.0 -
This like decrepit John's post is complete nonsense. We were all sent letters (everyone on the electoral roll) ages in advance, it listed all kinds of IDs you could use. Pretty much any kind of bill you could imagine. I could qualify on 15 forms of ID probably. If you somehow could not muster the required identification you had time to sort it or you could have contacted Bromley Civic Centre to get something sorted.rkrkrk said:
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
To be against Voter ID because not much fraud happens is IMO an idiotic approach. Anything that makes it tougher for those not entitled to vote should be applauded and the scheme has gone about things in a helpful way that only those who wilfully ignored instructions have been let down.0 -
314,159,265 times should be a good startRichard_Nabavi said:
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?rkrkrk said:
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...0 -
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
0 -
Beverley_C said:
314,159,265 times should be a good startRichard_Nabavi said:
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?rkrkrk said:
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
You may want that, but it's just a pi in the sky number.
0 -
Indeed. For Yorkshire (or possibly Lancashire) it would only require 2.7182818 ~MarkHopkins said:Beverley_C said:
314,159,265 times should be a good startRichard_Nabavi said:
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?rkrkrk said:
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
You may want that, but it's just a pi in the sky number.0 -
The point is if 1.5m people don't have a bank account - the number of people who are going to find these requirements are difficult is probably quite high and orders of magnitude more than .Richard_Nabavi said:
YOU DON'T NEED A PHOTO ID OR BANK ACCOUNT!!! How many times does this need to be repeated?rkrkrk said:
Disenfranchising thousands/millions is a pretty good reason not to do this.oxfordsimon said:
Why should it be harder to join your town library than it is to register and vote?AndyJS said:
Most parts of the country have never had any problems with fraudulent voting. It's a pity if the whole country has to move to ID voting just because one or two places had a problem with it.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
I don't get the issue. Voting should be secure irrespective of whether there have been prosecutions or problems in the past.
Yes a lot more work needs to be done on postal vote fraud and fraudulent registration. But there is no reason why voting should not be made more secure. None at all.
Just because everyone you know has an ID, doesn't mean everyone has an ID.
Estimate is 3.5m without a photo ID, 1.5m without a bank account...
Looking through the list of things - I'm not sure if I'd have been able to vote as a student - my bank account etc. were all at my home address where I didn't live. I think when I moved to London I'd have been okay because of the utility bill.
Edit - I could have used my passport. Although again that would have my home address on it so not sure if that would have raised complications at the polling station.0 -
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'.Andy_Cooke said:
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....
0 -
Mrs C, your posts are transcending the usual boundaries today 0
-
How many people won't bring it with them and won't bother going back a second time?Brom said:
I picked that number to emphasise how small a figure it must be, and as I've stated those without the ID could 'apply for a certificate of identity, completed applications must be presented in person to Main Reception Bromley Civic Centre by May 2nd'.Andy_Cooke said:
Why do you think that about 40-45 electors nationwide don't have the required ID? Curious as to your methodology.Brom said:I voted in Bromley this morning, I asked the staff and no one had had any problems with ID at that point. We were sent out in the post all the relevant information well in advance. I would estimate 0.0001% of the electorate would not have the required ID. The new system is a step out of the dark ages and it's no surprise that those happy to benefit from dodgy practices are the ones in uproar.
The list of suitable ID is so thorough that even a bus pass is fine so effectively everyone over 60 should at the very least have one of those.
So for those handful of unlucky people they had a letter through their letterbox and a polling card telling them what to do if they didn't have ANY ID. Idiot proof - or apparently not if you believe Momentum....0
