Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
It's a blatantly and unashamedly Repubican-inspired, Dominic-Cummings-era Trumpian fad to restrain democracy. Even though forms of it were earlier considered, rhetorically and theoretically , as a possible way of throwing red meat to the right of the party, if Johnson had gone straight to the Carrie/Stratton era without him, it's very likely it wouldn't be on the manifesto now at all.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
No it isn’t. It’s fundamentally unBritish. Like vaccine passports.
And I suspect is being introduced for the same reason - to bring in ID cards by stealth.
Which is (a) a sign of cowardly this government is that it doesn’t have the fortitude to admit it and (b) will mean that all the safeguards we would need against our very corrupt and ineffectual civil service misusing them will not be put in place.
Let's not jump the gun too quickly, you might get disqualified...
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
No it isn’t. It’s fundamentally unBritish. Like vaccine passports.
And I suspect is being introduced for the same reason - to bring in ID cards by stealth.
Which is (a) a sign of cowardly this government is that it doesn’t have the fortitude to admit it and (b) will mean that all the safeguards we would need against our very corrupt and ineffectual civil service misusing them will not be put in place.
Let's not jump the gun too quickly, you might get disqualified...
I’ve always said I’m in favour of ID cards, if the following conditions are met:
1) They’re issued for free
2) You don’t have to carry them at all times
3) You can use them chip and pin to access all government services - so they would replace passports and driving licences, not augment them
4) That you had the power to access all information the government holds on you, and amend it where it is wrong
5) That civil servants who access your data are logged, and you can see who they are and why they accessed it
6) That if somebody has accessed your data inappropriately you have the right to take legal action against them, funded by the government.
And numbers 4-6 will not happen while any civil servant breathes air.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Who gives a shit if it is popular?
The question is "is it morally right? Or is it a cyclical measure designed to prevent the wrong people voting?"
There is a simple solution to personation. If you wish to vote, and do not have ID, the returning officer takes your photo with a Polaroid camera. You sign and affirm you are the person you claim you are. If personation is discovered later, well at least there's a photo of the person committing the offence.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Who gives a shit if it is popular?
The question is "is it morally right? Or is it a cyclical measure designed to prevent the wrong people voting?"
There is a simple solution to personation. If you wish to vote, and do not have ID, the returning officer takes your photo with a Polaroid camera. You sign and affirm you are the person you claim you are. If personation is discovered later, well at least there's a photo of the person committing the offence.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
And like Donald Trump successfully redefining "fake news".
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Who gives a shit if it is popular?
The question is "is it morally right? Or is it a cyclical measure designed to prevent the wrong people voting?"
There is a simple solution to personation. If you wish to vote, and do not have ID, the returning officer takes your photo with a Polaroid camera. You sign and affirm you are the person you claim you are. If personation is discovered later, well at least there's a photo of the person committing the offence.
In what universe is it morally right to have MY vote, carefully considered after reading all the manifestos/putting a cross in the box I also do, to have that vote cancelled out by some cheating git who has no right to vote?
Any measure that can prevent that is good for democracy. End of.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
But woke is all about.. you are either with us or against us.
Do pollsters ask punters how they will vote in the Constituency and on the List? Unless they are asking twice they will miss all of the split ticket voting that goes on.
On Scotland, Cameron's old tutor at Oxford Vernon Bogdanor suggests partitioning Scotland if it ever voted for independence and enabling some Unionist areas to stay in the UK
That's never going to happen, it's just a tactic to try to worry the SNP.
And in any case do we want to open that door given its one of the reasons used as to why Scotland should separate from the UK, in that some remainer areas should have been allowed to stay in the EU?
That is the main reason the SNP argues there should be indyref2 so Scotland can vote for independence from the UK to stay in the EU having voted Remain, on the same logic no reason Unionist voting areas like the Scottish Borders could not vote to leave an independent Scotland to stay in the UK
As long as you apply the same "logic" in England and watch London secede...
The scale of this criminality is remarkable. One of interest to young Smithson, perhaps? Would you be paying out in those postcodes? Would you give cover in any of them?
"The IFB said there were 2.7 million motor insurance claims across the UK from October 2019 to the end of last year, of which 170,000 could be linked to suspected crash for cash networks.
It said the main hotspots were the B25, B34 and B8 postcode areas of Birmingham, and the BD7 and BD3 areas of Bradford."
That's very good. The right mix of positivity and moaning. He's lost the Bambi cartoon prettiness and seems real. I'm sure it's all fake but it's very well faked, he has a good media team
Yes, he could be a new kind of Labour leader, and win
I've known Andy Burnham slightly for over 2 decades. This is him. The fake was the one crafted for him by New Labour handlers, to be the rising star of the fag end of a dying regime. Armani suits, eyeliner, and platitudes. His moaning is reasonable. Why is it double or more the price to use public transport outside London? Why, if it is so wonderful, was TFL never privatised? It is a pertinent question to which I have never heard an answer.
Conversion to Metrolink was seen as an early privatisation success. So no integration of tickets at all. Its better now for day tickets but still awful if you want to make a multi-mode single journey.
People want connected and co-ordinated public transport with through fares. The Tory orthodoxy of the time was competing service providers and if that meant the public paid more money and more often then that was what the market demanded. What was good for public transport was irrelevant - remember that only failures used the bus.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
Saw the Andy Burnham video. Good but not convinced, watching him interact with the bloke at the tram stop, that he is necessarily in the upper quartile of people you'd want to have a beer with.
On Scotland, Cameron's old tutor at Oxford Vernon Bogdanor suggests partitioning Scotland if it ever voted for independence and enabling some Unionist areas to stay in the UK
That's never going to happen, it's just a tactic to try to worry the SNP.
And in any case do we want to open that door given its one of the reasons used as to why Scotland should separate from the UK, in that some remainer areas should have been allowed to stay in the EU?
It will not worry the SNP because it is start raving bonkers.
To even try an engage with it is a level of idiocy that cannot be conceived.
It betrays a lack of understanding of the South of Scotland so total that there is no point talking about it.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
Mind you, the risk to Burnham is that Boris says “I agree” and supercharges Transport for the North, chaired by Ben Houchen...
If that delivers a fully integrated and locally accountable public transport system I doubt Burnham would complain! The problem is that despite all the "levelling up" bullshit the Tories are spending more money on social media announcing "WE ARE LEVELLING UP" than on actually doing so.
You mention Houchen - a case in point. Spends the little money there is buying a disused airport and now a refurb of that disused airport and covering the operating losses of said disused airport. Public transport - the stuff that people actually use - gets nothing.
The scale of this criminality is remarkable. One of interest to young Smithson, perhaps? Would you be paying out in those postcodes? Would you give cover in any of them?
"The IFB said there were 2.7 million motor insurance claims across the UK from October 2019 to the end of last year, of which 170,000 could be linked to suspected crash for cash networks.
It said the main hotspots were the B25, B34 and B8 postcode areas of Birmingham, and the BD7 and BD3 areas of Bradford."
The post office scandal should have taught us to be wary of an algorithm declaring a remarkable proportion of cases "could be" fraud. As far as I can see they have provided no evidence beyond asserting it could be 170k.
I'd have thought the biggest issue for fraud would occur on postal votes inside the household.
It's very easy for the dominant householder to open all the ballots, complete them, insist on signatures and send them off again.
That’s intimidation, not fraud.
Eh? You what? Someone's ballot being taken away and denied to them and then completed on false pretences?
Fraud. It's just that person is guilty of two offences.
Postal ballots have virtually no checks on them. A better way might be to make them available for completion in advance but only at post offices or at council sites by the voter.
If they can't travel (at all) to vote due to disability or other issue then that needs assuring.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
An issue that matters to and affects millions - social care - where we were told the PM already had a worked up solution, has been shamelessly parked, yet again.
Meanwhile an issue that matters to next to no-one, where there is no proven problem of any scale to solve, goes into the Queen’s Speech. Despite independent experts advising that the proposal is misguided and damaging. Despite the government’s own trials having failed, by any objective assessment, to demonstrate any benefit while having the effect of turning hundreds away and denying them their rightful vote.
The requirement that anyone without a passport or driving license must apply to their local council, in advance, for a special voting ID card, or have their vote taken away, is straight out of the US Republican playbook.
Are you a communist? I can assure you that all the people heavily affected by the lack of a social care system are happy to vote Tory knowing that Boris has A Plan, a Brilliant Plan that one glorious day they will get to see. You can't possibly suggest they are voting against their own best interests just because they are voting against their own best interests. Like the vox pops guy from Pools who said he voted Tory cos Labour took away the police station and there's no coppers left and we didn't have food banks before but the Tories have given us 9.
Amazing insight. The Tories are laughing all the way to their private bank.
Mr. Mark, it's a long time ago (maybe a decade) but I remember reading something pretty similar about car insurance crashes being staged deliberately on a large scale.
On Scotland, Cameron's old tutor at Oxford Vernon Bogdanor suggests partitioning Scotland if it ever voted for independence and enabling some Unionist areas to stay in the UK
That's never going to happen, it's just a tactic to try to worry the SNP.
And in any case do we want to open that door given its one of the reasons used as to why Scotland should separate from the UK, in that some remainer areas should have been allowed to stay in the EU?
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
That's very good. The right mix of positivity and moaning. He's lost the Bambi cartoon prettiness and seems real. I'm sure it's all fake but it's very well faked, he has a good media team
Yes, he could be a new kind of Labour leader, and win
I've known Andy Burnham slightly for over 2 decades. This is him. The fake was the one crafted for him by New Labour handlers, to be the rising star of the fag end of a dying regime. Armani suits, eyeliner, and platitudes. His moaning is reasonable. Why is it double or more the price to use public transport outside London? Why, if it is so wonderful, was TFL never privatised? It is a pertinent question to which I have never heard an answer.
He is two leagues above any other active Labour politician. As part of the shadow cabinet reshuffle he should have been asked to be their national spokesman on something perhaps localism or transport, despite not being in parliament.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Be careful what you wish for. ID cards to vote is explicitly designed to disenfranchise the poor. The problem is that the poor now vote Tory, so looking at this from a purely pro-Tory position it is Fucking Stupid. "Ah but you can download an ID form for free from your council" I hear supporters saying.
Have you ever campaigned? Knocked on doors? Tried to persuade the "I don't vote mate" crown to vote. Stick another barrier in front and they absolutely won't bother. The Tories problem is that post Brexit they have converted a decent number of non-voters to voting Tory. They all drop off at the next election. Along with the angry pensioners who traditionally sustain them.
You may say it will be popular. And you're right, amongst your kind of mainstream voters. Until you see the effect on your party. Then it won't be popular.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Who gives a shit if it is popular?
The question is "is it morally right? Or is it a cyclical measure designed to prevent the wrong people voting?"
There is a simple solution to personation. If you wish to vote, and do not have ID, the returning officer takes your photo with a Polaroid camera. You sign and affirm you are the person you claim you are. If personation is discovered later, well at least there's a photo of the person committing the offence.
In what universe is it morally right to have MY vote, carefully considered after reading all the manifestos/putting a cross in the box I also do, to have that vote cancelled out by some cheating git who has no right to vote?
Any measure that can prevent that is good for democracy. End of.
Would be a valid point if there was a risk that some cheating git was going to get an illegal vote. Fraud rate is very very very small. This move isn't to stop fraud. It is to virtue signal. And in doing so they are going to disenfranchise their own voters.
King Cole, during the trial there were around two dozen accepted forms of ID, including one you could specifically request if you didn't have any of the others, which would be provided by the local council free of charge.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
Do pollsters ask punters how they will vote in the Constituency and on the List?
Yes - see this from YouGov:
Voting intentions in the constituency vote stand at: SNP 52%, Conservative 20%, Labour 19%, Lib Dem 6%. In the regional vote support stands at: SNP 38%, Conservative 22%, Labour 16%, Green 13%, Lib Dem 5%, Alba 3%.
The scale of this criminality is remarkable. One of interest to young Smithson, perhaps? Would you be paying out in those postcodes? Would you give cover in any of them?
"The IFB said there were 2.7 million motor insurance claims across the UK from October 2019 to the end of last year, of which 170,000 could be linked to suspected crash for cash networks.
It said the main hotspots were the B25, B34 and B8 postcode areas of Birmingham, and the BD7 and BD3 areas of Bradford."
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
"A recent YouGov poll found that 67 per cent felt that “Too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use” came closer to their view than “People need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds”."
----
The irony here is I agree with the first statement, but for me the people who seem most easily offended are the anti woke, complaining every day about some woke lunatic on twitter who no-one would listen and I would never even hear of without the oxygen they are provided by the culture war.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
Political correctness covers those things, but it's also now routinely used against such a large range of things, well beyond that, as to have become increasingly rhetorical and meaningless. The same is happening with woke, which is where we came in with the conversation today.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Be careful what you wish for. ID cards to vote is explicitly designed to disenfranchise the poor. The problem is that the poor now vote Tory, so looking at this from a purely pro-Tory position it is Fucking Stupid. "Ah but you can download an ID form for free from your council" I hear supporters saying.
Have you ever campaigned? Knocked on doors? Tried to persuade the "I don't vote mate" crown to vote. Stick another barrier in front and they absolutely won't bother. The Tories problem is that post Brexit they have converted a decent number of non-voters to voting Tory. They all drop off at the next election. Along with the angry pensioners who traditionally sustain them.
You may say it will be popular. And you're right, amongst your kind of mainstream voters. Until you see the effect on your party. Then it won't be popular.
It is without doubt a great idea - in that it looks great but it hasn't dawned on them who it's going to impact - which is Brexit occasional voters, the poor and the old.
All three of them are the people who now vote Tory..
I think woke is becoming the right's gaslighting. No one quite knows what it means but it is used to signal disapproval of someone else's view of something or another.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
"A recent YouGov poll found that 67 per cent felt that “Too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use” came closer to their view than “People need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds”."
----
The irony here is I agree with the first statement, but for me the people who seem most easily offended are the anti woke, complaining every day about some woke lunatic on twitter who no-one would listen and I would never even hear of without the oxygen they are provided by the culture war.
Like I've told you before, this is mainstream now and is present in my everyday work in consultancy and the public sectors and the arts, and all over my LinkedIn feed. It is not "just on Twitter".
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
Political correctness covers those things, but it's also now routinely used against such a large range of things, well beyond that, as to have become increasingly rhetorical and meaningless. The same is happening with woke, which is where we came in with the conversation today.
People try and expand its scope to say it's rhetorical and meaningless so they don't have to engage with the deeply problematic parts of it.
I'd have thought the biggest issue for fraud would occur on postal votes inside the household.
It's very easy for the dominant householder to open all the ballots, complete them, insist on signatures and send them off again.
That’s intimidation, not fraud.
Eh? You what? Someone's ballot being taken away and denied to them and then completed on false pretences?
Fraud. It's just that person is guilty of two offences.
Postal ballots have virtually no checks on them. A better way might be to make them available for completion in advance but only at post offices or at council sites by the voter.
If they can't travel (at all) to vote due to disability or other issue then that needs assuring.
A postal vote requires my signature (checked against a historic one) alongside other information - I have one as I always used to be away on election note (2017 I was in India so couldn't even visit this site to read the fun).
If anything my postal vote is more rigorously checked than any in person vote.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Be careful what you wish for. ID cards to vote is explicitly designed to disenfranchise the poor. The problem is that the poor now vote Tory, so looking at this from a purely pro-Tory position it is Fucking Stupid. "Ah but you can download an ID form for free from your council" I hear supporters saying.
Have you ever campaigned? Knocked on doors? Tried to persuade the "I don't vote mate" crown to vote. Stick another barrier in front and they absolutely won't bother. The Tories problem is that post Brexit they have converted a decent number of non-voters to voting Tory. They all drop off at the next election. Along with the angry pensioners who traditionally sustain them.
You may say it will be popular. And you're right, amongst your kind of mainstream voters. Until you see the effect on your party. Then it won't be popular.
It is without doubt a great idea - in that it looks great but it hasn't dawned on them who it's going to impact - which is Brexit occasional voters, the poor and the old.
All three of them are the people who now vote Tory..
I reckon most the of the poor dont vote at all - either not registered, not in a regular address or not convinced it will change anything.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
"A recent YouGov poll found that 67 per cent felt that “Too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use” came closer to their view than “People need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds”."
----
The irony here is I agree with the first statement, but for me the people who seem most easily offended are the anti woke, complaining every day about some woke lunatic on twitter who no-one would listen and I would never even hear of without the oxygen they are provided by the culture war.
Like I've told you before, this is mainstream now and is present in my everyday work in consultancy and the public sectors and the arts, and all over my LinkedIn feed. It is not "just on Twitter".
I get bored saying this.
I am not saying you are not right, I am saying that is not my experience nor something anyone I know has told me in real life. For me, this is literally the only place it comes up.
King Cole, during the trial there were around two dozen accepted forms of ID, including one you could specifically request if you didn't have any of the others, which would be provided by the local council free of charge.
The current proposal appears to be for photo ID; the forms of such my wife and I have are driving licences, passports and bus passes. By no means all the adult population have driving licences, and a smaller percentage have passports. Most OAP's, I would guess, have bus passes, although whether that applies in densely populated areas I doubt.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Be careful what you wish for. ID cards to vote is explicitly designed to disenfranchise the poor. The problem is that the poor now vote Tory, so looking at this from a purely pro-Tory position it is Fucking Stupid. "Ah but you can download an ID form for free from your council" I hear supporters saying.
Have you ever campaigned? Knocked on doors? Tried to persuade the "I don't vote mate" crown to vote. Stick another barrier in front and they absolutely won't bother. The Tories problem is that post Brexit they have converted a decent number of non-voters to voting Tory. They all drop off at the next election. Along with the angry pensioners who traditionally sustain them.
You may say it will be popular. And you're right, amongst your kind of mainstream voters. Until you see the effect on your party. Then it won't be popular.
It is without doubt a great idea - in that it looks great but it hasn't dawned on them who it's going to impact - which is Brexit occasional voters, the poor and the old.
All three of them are the people who now vote Tory..
What evidence do you have that any of them don't have any of the 12 accepted forms of ID and aren't capable of getting them?
Seems to be BS from reading across from America, rather than looking across most of the world were this is entirely normal without disenfranchising anyone.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
Political correctness covers those things, but it's also now routinely used against such a large range of things, well beyond that, as to have become increasingly rhetorical and meaningless. The same is happening with woke, which is where we came in with the conversation today.
People try and expand its scope to say it's rhetorical and meaningless so they don't have to engage with the deeply problematic parts of it.
Just like Woke.
I've engaged with the problematic parts of the original meaning many times on here, speaking for myself. That doesn't stop its usage becoming increasingly meaningless and rhetorical, though, I would say, as is happening.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
I think woke of becoming the right's gaslighting. No one quite knows what it means but it is used to signal disapproval of someone else's view of something or another.
To me, woke is very 1984 esque.Hstory rewritten. It never happened remove all evidence of it happening Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia all statues relating to Eastasia removed . Take the knee.. big brother is watching you.. and if you don't take the knee...Room 101 for re-eduction.
King Cole, during the trial there were around two dozen accepted forms of ID, including one you could specifically request if you didn't have any of the others, which would be provided by the local council free of charge.
The current proposal appears to be for photo ID; the forms of such my wife and I have are driving licences, passports and bus passes. By no means all the adult population have driving licences, and a smaller percentage have passports. Most OAP's, I would guess, have bus passes, although whether that applies in densely populated areas I doubt.
Unsurprisingly over 70s get free driving licenses on expiry whereas the rest of us have to pay! Pay to vote unless your in the govts demographic.....
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Be careful what you wish for. ID cards to vote is explicitly designed to disenfranchise the poor. The problem is that the poor now vote Tory, so looking at this from a purely pro-Tory position it is Fucking Stupid. "Ah but you can download an ID form for free from your council" I hear supporters saying.
Have you ever campaigned? Knocked on doors? Tried to persuade the "I don't vote mate" crown to vote. Stick another barrier in front and they absolutely won't bother. The Tories problem is that post Brexit they have converted a decent number of non-voters to voting Tory. They all drop off at the next election. Along with the angry pensioners who traditionally sustain them.
You may say it will be popular. And you're right, amongst your kind of mainstream voters. Until you see the effect on your party. Then it won't be popular.
It is without doubt a great idea - in that it looks great but it hasn't dawned on them who it's going to impact - which is Brexit occasional voters, the poor and the old.
All three of them are the people who now vote Tory..
I reckon most the of the poor dont vote at all - either not registered, not in a regular address or not convinced it will change anything.
Plenty of people are grinding poor. Many of them work full time and are flat broke. This will hit the Tory vote hard.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Disagreeing with me is woke. Infact its insomnia.
That’s put this conversation to sleep.
It is however striking when people are accused of being woke how offended they are about being accused of same.
It’s striking that the right has redefined woke as a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with them for any reason.
There are signs of it turning into the new "political correctness gone mad", just as political correctness went from something fairly academically specific at the turn of the '90s to a catch-all.
Large majorities dislike political correctness - on both sides of the pond. It's best defined as pointless and irrelevant pedantry to avoid any possibility of giving offence, which actually just insults people's intelligence and sometimes causes greater offence. You know, things like Happy Winterval (rather than Merry Christmas) or Baa Baa Black Sheep being a bit "problematic". Strawperson would be another example.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
"A recent YouGov poll found that 67 per cent felt that “Too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use” came closer to their view than “People need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds”."
----
The irony here is I agree with the first statement, but for me the people who seem most easily offended are the anti woke, complaining every day about some woke lunatic on twitter who no-one would listen and I would never even hear of without the oxygen they are provided by the culture war.
Like I've told you before, this is mainstream now and is present in my everyday work in consultancy and the public sectors and the arts, and all over my LinkedIn feed. It is not "just on Twitter".
I get bored saying this.
I am not saying you are not right, I am saying that is not my experience nor something anyone I know has told me in real life. For me, this is literally the only place it comes up.
Yes, it's clear people have very different experiences on here depending on their backgrounds and where they live. For example, I've just finished a project in the north (Transpennine) and it's totally non-existent up there.
What yanks my chain though is when people say it's "just off Twitter" in response. In London, everyone in my sector disappears up their own arsehole and my professional network in consulting, major projects and programmes and the public sector is heavy with it - day in and day out.
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Be careful what you wish for. ID cards to vote is explicitly designed to disenfranchise the poor. The problem is that the poor now vote Tory, so looking at this from a purely pro-Tory position it is Fucking Stupid. "Ah but you can download an ID form for free from your council" I hear supporters saying.
Have you ever campaigned? Knocked on doors? Tried to persuade the "I don't vote mate" crown to vote. Stick another barrier in front and they absolutely won't bother. The Tories problem is that post Brexit they have converted a decent number of non-voters to voting Tory. They all drop off at the next election. Along with the angry pensioners who traditionally sustain them.
You may say it will be popular. And you're right, amongst your kind of mainstream voters. Until you see the effect on your party. Then it won't be popular.
It is without doubt a great idea - in that it looks great but it hasn't dawned on them who it's going to impact - which is Brexit occasional voters, the poor and the old.
All three of them are the people who now vote Tory..
I reckon most the of the poor dont vote at all - either not registered, not in a regular address or not convinced it will change anything.
Plenty of people are grinding poor. Many of them work full time and are flat broke. This will hit the Tory vote hard.
Do you have any evidence for this? Any evidence that hard amounts of anyone don't have any of the 12 forms of ID already and aren't capable of getting one of the free forms of ID on offer?
Its easier to rant and rave than provide evidence when you have none. So what evidence is there?
I'd have thought the biggest issue for fraud would occur on postal votes inside the household.
It's very easy for the dominant householder to open all the ballots, complete them, insist on signatures and send them off again.
That’s intimidation, not fraud.
Eh? You what? Someone's ballot being taken away and denied to them and then completed on false pretences?
Fraud. It's just that person is guilty of two offences.
Postal ballots have virtually no checks on them. A better way might be to make them available for completion in advance but only at post offices or at council sites by the voter.
If they can't travel (at all) to vote due to disability or other issue then that needs assuring.
A postal vote requires my signature (checked against a historic one) alongside other information - I have one as I always used to be away on election note (2017 I was in India so couldn't even visit this site to read the fun).
If anything my postal vote is more rigorously checked than any in person vote.
You need a bit more imagination to see how this goes wrong.
Mind you, the risk to Burnham is that Boris says “I agree” and supercharges Transport for the North, chaired by Ben Houchen...
If that delivers a fully integrated and locally accountable public transport system I doubt Burnham would complain! The problem is that despite all the "levelling up" bullshit the Tories are spending more money on social media announcing "WE ARE LEVELLING UP" than on actually doing so.
You mention Houchen - a case in point. Spends the little money there is buying a disused airport and now a refurb of that disused airport and covering the operating losses of said disused airport. Public transport - the stuff that people actually use - gets nothing.
In the case of the airport I actually think the money is well spent on the airport. There are very few things that Ben can spend that money on that would have any real impact (more buses would just be more poorly used routes to be subsidised down the line, and improved train services are already coming for the minority who can access them).
Also it may seem silly be the fact the airport gets Amsterdam flights means the region is treated as a suitable area for investment in a way that it wouldn't be without it. I would think its fair to argue that we wouldn't have the GE manufacturing without it.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
IDK what the lower age limit is atm but the overwhelming majority of retired people who can't drive will have a bus pass.
I think woke of becoming the right's gaslighting. No one quite knows what it means but it is used to signal disapproval of someone else's view of something or another.
To me, woke is very 1984 esque.Hstory rewritten. It never happened remove all evidence of it happening Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia all statues relating to Eastasia removed . Take the knee.. big brother is watching you.. and if you don't take the knee...Room 101 for re-eduction.
I think there is always overshoot with cultural change. As we find the right level to set at.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Were the Tories to spend months tracking down their potential voters and doing everything they can to get them fully registered it won't be a problem. They will also need to personally remind voters that they need ID in the days leading up to the election.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
King Cole, during the trial there were around two dozen accepted forms of ID, including one you could specifically request if you didn't have any of the others, which would be provided by the local council free of charge.
The current proposal appears to be for photo ID; the forms of such my wife and I have are driving licences, passports and bus passes. By no means all the adult population have driving licences, and a smaller percentage have passports. Most OAP's, I would guess, have bus passes, although whether that applies in densely populated areas I doubt.
Unsurprisingly over 70s get free driving licenses on expiry whereas the rest of us have to pay! Pay to vote unless your in the govts demographic.....
We had to pay for our licences first time round, IIRC. I lost mine once, but can't recall whether I had to pay for a new one!
Actually, this raises the question of whether over 70's...... like me..... should have to have a signature from a GP or similar, to certify that we are fit to drive. Mrs C has recently renewed hers after wondering, and checking, whether her mild ocular problems should be mentioned. I was astounded, some years ago, that my late father-in-law, suffering from dementia, was allowed to self-certify.
Mr. Topping, this isn't a cultural change, it's a deliberate drive by far left shysters from the US to force people into either mindless adherence to a lunatic ideology or denouncing them as sinners (it's actually slightly reminiscent of Corbynite Labour whereby virtue or sinfulness was dictated by political beliefs).
"Disney tells employees they should reject “equality,” or “equal treatment,” and instead strive for “equity,” or “the equality of outcome.” They must “reflect” on America’s “racist infrastructure” and “think carefully about whether or not [their] wealth” is derived from racism."
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Or you're full of shit and it won't bar anyone from voting.
Being required to register to vote is a "barrier to voting" by your logic but every single voter is capable of surmounting that barrier. What reason do you have to think that there is a single voter in the country who is so incapable that they're unable to get any of the twelve forms of ID including free at the point of use forms of ID? Let alone "many" such people?
King Cole, during the trial there were around two dozen accepted forms of ID, including one you could specifically request if you didn't have any of the others, which would be provided by the local council free of charge.
The current proposal appears to be for photo ID; the forms of such my wife and I have are driving licences, passports and bus passes. By no means all the adult population have driving licences, and a smaller percentage have passports. Most OAP's, I would guess, have bus passes, although whether that applies in densely populated areas I doubt.
Unsurprisingly over 70s get free driving licenses on expiry whereas the rest of us have to pay! Pay to vote unless your in the govts demographic.....
We had to pay for our licences first time round, IIRC. I lost mine once, but can't recall whether I had to pay for a new one!
Actually, this raises the question of whether over 70's...... like me..... should have to have a signature from a GP or similar, to certify that we are fit to drive. Mrs C has recently renewed hers after wondering, and checking, whether her mild ocular problems should be mentioned. I was astounded, some years ago, that my late father-in-law, suffering from dementia, was allowed to self-certify.
We all have to pay for the first one, and lost ones, but for some reason over 70s dont have to pay for renewals despite being wealthier than some of the poorer younger cohorts. Makes no sense to me.
Mr. Sandpit, pleasantly surprised the Government got the Wembley call right.
Indeed. It was obviously a sensible idea to move it closer to the fans, but those of us in favour of the move forgot about UEFA, who like to consider themselves as those to whom rules shouldn’t apply.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Were the Tories to spend months tracking down their potential voters and doing everything they can to get them fully registered it won't be a problem. They will also need to personally remind voters that they need ID in the days leading up to the election.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
I agree...of all the Constitutional tweaking that is needed, this voter ID idea is a ridiculous waste of Parliamentary time/expense and detail..... is that really one of the big objectives of this so called radical levelling up agenda - its pathetic
I think woke of becoming the right's gaslighting. No one quite knows what it means but it is used to signal disapproval of someone else's view of something or another.
To me, woke is very 1984 esque.Hstory rewritten. It never happened remove all evidence of it happening Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia all statues relating to Eastasia removed . Take the knee.. big brother is watching you.. and if you don't take the knee...Room 101 for re-eduction.
I think there is always overshoot with cultural change. As we find the right level to set at.
There is no level to set. You must love Big brother. I am Winston Smith.Emmanuel Goldsmith will not get me.
I'd have thought the biggest issue for fraud would occur on postal votes inside the household.
It's very easy for the dominant householder to open all the ballots, complete them, insist on signatures and send them off again.
That’s intimidation, not fraud.
Eh? You what? Someone's ballot being taken away and denied to them and then completed on false pretences?
Fraud. It's just that person is guilty of two offences.
Postal ballots have virtually no checks on them. A better way might be to make them available for completion in advance but only at post offices or at council sites by the voter.
If they can't travel (at all) to vote due to disability or other issue then that needs assuring.
A postal vote requires my signature (checked against a historic one) alongside other information - I have one as I always used to be away on election note (2017 I was in India so couldn't even visit this site to read the fun).
If anything my postal vote is more rigorously checked than any in person vote.
You need a bit more imagination to see how this goes wrong.
Nope I see an argument that actually isn't that valid - the exact some requirement would be requested in the booth...
It’s great, after it being a mild obsession of mine for a decade or more, that regional economies and transport networks are getting attention.
It is worth noting however, that so far the government have spent absolutely bugger all on this, although two changes are very welcome:
First, the relaxation of the requirement on Treasury to strictly prioritise infrastructure according to its benefits case - this has meant that the South East has *always* been preferred over other regions.
Second, this new ability of metros to run their own public transport systems a la TfL. All the evidence suggests that private concessions are inefficient and retard local economic productivity by effectively shrinking the available labour pool for any given job.
Contra to @RochdalePioneers, I think Ben Houchen is doing a good job. He has zero actual budget (see my point above) and he is putting Teesside on the map. Even if it’s all PR, it’s not nothing. Compare with the Tory “West of England” mayor who has just been ejected. Nobody even knew his name.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Were the Tories to spend months tracking down their potential voters and doing everything they can to get them fully registered it won't be a problem. They will also need to personally remind voters that they need ID in the days leading up to the election.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
Part of it is they expect the discussion around the topic will play well with their voters. Getting Labour angry about protecting the undocumented instead of focusing on jobs and housing for Joe average.
The reason that it's woke to whinge about voter ID is that it's so out of kilter with mainstream Britons. It's typical of the sort of thing extreme libertarians and Guardianistas get so agitated about but which has very little to do with normal British people.
By all means get vexed about infringements to civil liberties if that keeps you occupied but voter ID isn't a particular backdoor to their erosion. It's to ensure that the kind of voter fraud which we've seen in some parts is stopped in its tracks.
Mr. Sandpit, pleasantly surprised the Government got the Wembley call right.
King Cole, hmm. The suggestion of someone else (Mr. 1000) for a quick polaroid might be the way to go about things. Perhaps.
If this is some bullshit to try and get an ID card going then I approve 0%.
Many employers require a photo before an interview. Perhaps a photo with the registering to vote would work? With online facilities they could check the photo as they check the name.
King Cole, during the trial there were around two dozen accepted forms of ID, including one you could specifically request if you didn't have any of the others, which would be provided by the local council free of charge.
The current proposal appears to be for photo ID; the forms of such my wife and I have are driving licences, passports and bus passes. By no means all the adult population have driving licences, and a smaller percentage have passports. Most OAP's, I would guess, have bus passes, although whether that applies in densely populated areas I doubt.
Unsurprisingly over 70s get free driving licenses on expiry whereas the rest of us have to pay! Pay to vote unless your in the govts demographic.....
We had to pay for our licences first time round, IIRC. I lost mine once, but can't recall whether I had to pay for a new one!
Actually, this raises the question of whether over 70's...... like me..... should have to have a signature from a GP or similar, to certify that we are fit to drive. Mrs C has recently renewed hers after wondering, and checking, whether her mild ocular problems should be mentioned. I was astounded, some years ago, that my late father-in-law, suffering from dementia, was allowed to self-certify.
We all have to pay for the first one, and lost ones, but for some reason over 70s dont have to pay for renewals despite being wealthier than some of the poorer younger cohorts. Makes no sense to me.
I didn't realise the second & subsequent renewals after 70 were free. I thought it was a money making scheme. Younger people's licences don't expire every 3 years.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
More left-wing woke gibberish.
Most 'Asian voters' over here are perfectly well aware of the need to have either a passport or a driver's licence.
The people who are whingeing about this are woke lefties and extreme right libertarians. Not the people Boris has so brilliantly brought on board his bus.
The vexation from half a dozen pb-ers about it is about as important as the wallpaper. In other words, of no interest to mainstream Britain.
The reason that it's woke to whinge about voter ID is that it's so out of kilter with mainstream Britons. It's typical of the sort of thing extreme libertarians and Guardianistas get so agitated about but which has very little to do with normal British people.
By all means get vexed about infringements to civil liberties if that keeps you occupied but voter ID isn't a particular backdoor to their erosion. It's to ensure that the kind of voter fraud which we've seen in some parts is stopped in its tracks.
Much in the same way as it's only the "liberal elite" that worry out about due process, trial by jury, detention without trial, and all that sort of obsessive stuff.
The reason that it's woke to whinge about voter ID is that it's so out of kilter with mainstream Britons. It's typical of the sort of thing extreme libertarians and Guardianistas get so agitated about but which has very little to do with normal British people.
By all means get vexed about infringements to civil liberties if that keeps you occupied but voter ID isn't a particular backdoor to their erosion. It's to ensure that the kind of voter fraud which we've seen in some parts is stopped in its tracks.
How many cases of "at the polling station" personation have there been in the last decade?
Whilst I'm no fan of the erosion of civil liberties, showing a photo ID in order to vote is an excellent proposal for protecting democracy. It will be popular with mainstream voters.
Complaining about this is woke.
Who gives a shit if it is popular?
The question is "is it morally right? Or is it a cyclical measure designed to prevent the wrong people voting?"
There is a simple solution to personation. If you wish to vote, and do not have ID, the returning officer takes your photo with a Polaroid camera. You sign and affirm you are the person you claim you are. If personation is discovered later, well at least there's a photo of the person committing the offence.
In what universe is it morally right to have MY vote, carefully considered after reading all the manifestos/putting a cross in the box I also do, to have that vote cancelled out by some cheating git who has no right to vote?
Any measure that can prevent that is good for democracy. End of.
Would be a valid point if there was a risk that some cheating git was going to get an illegal vote. Fraud rate is very very very small. This move isn't to stop fraud. It is to virtue signal. And in doing so they are going to disenfranchise their own voters.
It's a valid point. No if. The abstract possibility works just fine.
King Cole, during the trial there were around two dozen accepted forms of ID, including one you could specifically request if you didn't have any of the others, which would be provided by the local council free of charge.
The current proposal appears to be for photo ID; the forms of such my wife and I have are driving licences, passports and bus passes. By no means all the adult population have driving licences, and a smaller percentage have passports. Most OAP's, I would guess, have bus passes, although whether that applies in densely populated areas I doubt.
Unsurprisingly over 70s get free driving licenses on expiry whereas the rest of us have to pay! Pay to vote unless your in the govts demographic.....
We had to pay for our licences first time round, IIRC. I lost mine once, but can't recall whether I had to pay for a new one!
Actually, this raises the question of whether over 70's...... like me..... should have to have a signature from a GP or similar, to certify that we are fit to drive. Mrs C has recently renewed hers after wondering, and checking, whether her mild ocular problems should be mentioned. I was astounded, some years ago, that my late father-in-law, suffering from dementia, was allowed to self-certify.
We all have to pay for the first one, and lost ones, but for some reason over 70s dont have to pay for renewals despite being wealthier than some of the poorer younger cohorts. Makes no sense to me.
I didn't realise the second & subsequent renewals after 70 were free. I thought it was a money making scheme. Younger people's licences don't expire every 3 years.
In which case charging a third the price would seem the fair price point.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Were the Tories to spend months tracking down their potential voters and doing everything they can to get them fully registered it won't be a problem. They will also need to personally remind voters that they need ID in the days leading up to the election.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
Part of it is they expect the discussion around the topic will play well with their voters. Getting Labour angry about protecting the undocumented instead of focusing on jobs and housing for Joe average.
So a very short term gain (at the time of no elections) - while creating a significant long term problem. And finally Labour able to say told you so.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
Not just that. If the card can be applied for easily- preferably online, and a single application is good for all future elections, it's not too objectionable. Smart Labour parties will assist with getting da yoot signed up, much like all parties try to help set up postal votes and offer lifts to the polling stations.
On the other hand, a card that has to be obtained in person, in office hours, every single election, would be a lot more objectionable. That would systematically distort the electorate. I don't think that there's any doubt that that's what Americans (especially Republicans) do, and I don't want it here.
And in any case, there's a trade-off. Electoral fraud distorts the results of elections from reflecting the will of the people. Making voting harder for some people than others does the same. I don't know which effect is bigger- does anyone?
And whatever this is, it's not Focusing On The Priorities Of Beating Covid And Building Back Better, is it?
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
More left-wing woke gibberish.
Most 'Asian voters' over here are perfectly well aware of the need to have either a passport or a driver's licence.
The people who are whingeing about this are woke lefties and extreme right libertarians. Not the people Boris has so brilliantly brought on board his bus.
The vexation from half a dozen pb-ers about it is about as important as the wallpaper. In other words, of no interest to mainstream Britain.
I did a quick check with most of the first generation immigrants I know (family and friends, via email) - everyone who has responded so far says that they require ID to vote in their birth countries.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Were the Tories to spend months tracking down their potential voters and doing everything they can to get them fully registered it won't be a problem. They will also need to personally remind voters that they need ID in the days leading up to the election.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
Part of it is they expect the discussion around the topic will play well with their voters. Getting Labour angry about protecting the undocumented instead of focusing on jobs and housing for Joe average.
That bit is certainly true, and some Guardianista will be writing a thousand words on why it’s the worst thing in the world that we don’t want illegal immigrants voting, and that vote-farming among ‘community leaders’ is absolutely fine because that’s just what happens in Pakistan.
But, and it’s a big but, the system needs to be designed to be made accessible to everyone, not going down the US route of making people spend half a day travelling to the only ID card centre in the State, that’s only open three hours a month. Most of the opponents of voter ID are picking up on American talking points which really don’t apply in the UK.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Were the Tories to spend months tracking down their potential voters and doing everything they can to get them fully registered it won't be a problem. They will also need to personally remind voters that they need ID in the days leading up to the election.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
Part of it is they expect the discussion around the topic will play well with their voters. Getting Labour angry about protecting the undocumented instead of focusing on jobs and housing for Joe average.
So a very short term gain (at the time of no elections) - while creating a significant long term problem. And finally Labour able to say told you so.
As I said not thought through.
Long term problems are not the PMs problems. And he has already neutered the Tory party who will eventually have to sort out his shit.
Re voter ID: I imagine there are plenty of people around my neck of the woods who don’t have photo ID. They tend to be poorer, and minority ethnic.
While voter ID clearly addresses personation problems, it does create a new one in terms of voter suppression.
I am suspicious of the use of ID but if we have to have it it would be better to allow much lower levels of ID evidence, like a gas bill, bank card etc. This would be quite enough to deter the wrong that it is designed to put right.
Tory voters are of all classes and ages. I think a number of older WWC voters in the north may be put off by photo ID requirements, and that the government should rethink quickly in its own interests. IMHO in the 2017 election the older northern (especially) women's working class vote was crucial in keeping the danger of Corbyn out. The Tories should respect their new friends.
But postal voting (popular with voters with a number of party affiliations) is by far the greater weakness in the system, lacking all the legal checks that a polling station has.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/ can't get a driving licence? Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
You can get a drivers provisional drivers licence from the age of 15, not 18.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
Unless a card is completely free it is disenfranchising people.
But the card is completely free so what's your point? 🤔
Its a barrier to voting. People who aren't determined to vote will use the barrier as an excuse not to. In the past the contingent of people this would effect would vote Labour if they vote at all. Now they vote Tory if they vote at all.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
Were the Tories to spend months tracking down their potential voters and doing everything they can to get them fully registered it won't be a problem. They will also need to personally remind voters that they need ID in the days leading up to the election.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
Part of it is they expect the discussion around the topic will play well with their voters. Getting Labour angry about protecting the undocumented instead of focusing on jobs and housing for Joe average.
That bit is certainly true, and some Guardianista will be writing a thousand words on why it’s the worst thing in the world that we don’t want illegal immigrants voting, and that vote-farming among ‘community leaders’ is absolutely fine because that’s just what happens in Pakistan.
But, and it’s a big but, the system needs to be designed to be made accessible to everyone, not going down the US route of making people spend half a day travelling to the only ID card centre in the State, that’s only open three hours a month. Most of the opponents of voter ID are picking up on American talking points which really don’t apply in the UK.
Re voter ID: I imagine there are plenty of people around my neck of the woods who don’t have photo ID. They tend to be poorer, and minority ethnic.
While voter ID clearly addresses personation problems, it does create a new one in terms of voter suppression.
I am suspicious of the use of ID but if we have to have it it would be better to allow much lower levels of ID evidence, like a gas bill, bank card etc. This would be quite enough to deter the wrong that it is designed to put right.
Tory voters are of all classes and ages. I think a number of older WWC voters in the north may be put off by photo ID requirements, and that the government should rethink quick in its own interests.
But postal voting (popular with voters with a number of party affiliations) is by far the greater weakness in the system, lacking all the legal checks that a polling station has.
I am astonished we’ve allowed postal voting at the rate we have.
Comments
1) They’re issued for free
2) You don’t have to carry them at all times
3) You can use them chip and pin to access all government services - so they would replace passports and driving licences, not augment them
4) That you had the power to access all information the government holds on you, and amend it where it is wrong
5) That civil servants who access your data are logged, and you can see who they are and why they accessed it
6) That if somebody has accessed your data inappropriately you have the right to take legal action against them, funded by the government.
And numbers 4-6 will not happen while any civil servant breathes air.
So - I oppose them.
The question is "is it morally right? Or is it a cyclical measure designed to prevent the wrong people voting?"
There is a simple solution to personation. If you wish to vote, and do not have ID, the returning officer takes your photo with a Polaroid camera. You sign and affirm you are the person you claim you are. If personation is discovered later, well at least there's a photo of the person committing the offence.
Any measure that can prevent that is good for democracy. End of.
It's very easy for the dominant householder to open all the ballots, complete them, insist on signatures and send them off again.
"The IFB said there were 2.7 million motor insurance claims across the UK from October 2019 to the end of last year, of which 170,000 could be linked to suspected crash for cash networks.
It said the main hotspots were the B25, B34 and B8 postcode areas of Birmingham, and the BD7 and BD3 areas of Bradford."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57058755
People want connected and co-ordinated public transport with through fares. The Tory orthodoxy of the time was competing service providers and if that meant the public paid more money and more often then that was what the market demanded. What was good for public transport was irrelevant - remember that only failures used the bus.
We're talking between 65-80% here, and sometimes upwards of 80%:
https://capx.co/political-correctness-is-exceptionally-unpopular/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/572581/
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/finance/survey-results/daily/2019/04/26/de30c/2
To even try an engage with it is a level of idiocy that cannot be conceived.
It betrays a lack of understanding of the South of Scotland so total that there is no point talking about it.
You mention Houchen - a case in point. Spends the little money there is buying a disused airport and now a refurb of that disused airport and covering the operating losses of said disused airport. Public transport - the stuff that people actually use - gets nothing.
Fraud. It's just that person is guilty of two offences.
Postal ballots have virtually no checks on them. A better way might be to make them available for completion in advance but only at post offices or at council sites by the voter.
If they can't travel (at all) to vote due to disability or other issue then that needs assuring.
Amazing insight. The Tories are laughing all the way to their private bank.
Mr. Mark, it's a long time ago (maybe a decade) but I remember reading something pretty similar about car insurance crashes being staged deliberately on a large scale.
On voting ID, an 18 year can vote, but can't because he or she hasn't got/
can't get a driving licence?
Or a 60 year old can't vote because he or she because they've lost their licence due to a medical condition?
Got to be ID cards, surely.
Have you ever campaigned? Knocked on doors? Tried to persuade the "I don't vote mate" crown to vote. Stick another barrier in front and they absolutely won't bother. The Tories problem is that post Brexit they have converted a decent number of non-voters to voting Tory. They all drop off at the next election. Along with the angry pensioners who traditionally sustain them.
You may say it will be popular. And you're right, amongst your kind of mainstream voters. Until you see the effect on your party. Then it won't be popular.
It's a conundrum.
Voting intentions in the constituency vote stand at: SNP 52%, Conservative 20%, Labour 19%, Lib Dem 6%. In the regional vote support stands at: SNP 38%, Conservative 22%, Labour 16%, Green 13%, Lib Dem 5%, Alba 3%.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/04/scottish-voting-intention-snp-52-con-20-lab-19-2-4
https://www.thenationalnews.com/sport/football/champions-league-final-wembley-complications-mean-porto-emerges-as-frontrunner-1.1220495
Looks like Wembley plan failing, over UK government’s refusal to exempt travelling attendees (UEFA bigwigs and sponsors) from quarantine rules.
----
The irony here is I agree with the first statement, but for me the people who seem most easily offended are the anti woke, complaining every day about some woke lunatic on twitter who no-one would listen and I would never even hear of without the oxygen they are provided by the culture war.
If the 18 year old hasn't got a drivers licence they could have a passport, a provisional drivers licence or even a Pass card or similar which they are required to use to buy alcohol under Challenge 25 rules nowadays. Let alone the fact that there's free ID available to those who ask for it in NI and the trials.
Challenge 25 has already meant that the large majority of 18 year olds will have ID.
There are issues with this proposal, especially related to ID Card principles, but the idea of disenfranchisement is a complete and utter fake story that distracts from the real issues of ID.
All three of them are the people who now vote Tory..
I get bored saying this.
How any cases of postal vote fraud will they stop?
Just like Woke.
If anything my postal vote is more rigorously checked than any in person vote.
By no means all the adult population have driving licences, and a smaller percentage have passports. Most OAP's, I would guess, have bus passes, although whether that applies in densely populated areas I doubt.
Seems to be BS from reading across from America, rather than looking across most of the world were this is entirely normal without disenfranchising anyone.
What yanks my chain though is when people say it's "just off Twitter" in response. In London, everyone in my sector disappears up their own arsehole and my professional network in consulting, major projects and programmes and the public sector is heavy with it - day in and day out.
Its easier to rant and rave than provide evidence when you have none. So what evidence is there?
Also it may seem silly be the fact the airport gets Amsterdam flights means the region is treated as a suitable area for investment in a way that it wouldn't be without it. I would think its fair to argue that we wouldn't have the GE manufacturing without it.
Its a spectacularly stupid move by the Tories. More proof that Liar is a brilliant tactician (this is dog whistle politics for people who think asian voters rig elections) but a stupid strategist as it will disbar many of the people who have given him an 82 seat majority.
King Cole, hmm. The suggestion of someone else (Mr. 1000) for a quick polaroid might be the way to go about things. Perhaps.
If this is some bullshit to try and get an ID card going then I approve 0%.
Good morning, everybody.
Unless they do that the first time a lot of voters are going to discover that they can't vote will be on the day of the election..
It really is a very crap policy and shows how little Boris thinks things through - he sees the idea but he doesn't seem to think through the consequences and how they may impact him.
Actually, this raises the question of whether over 70's...... like me..... should have to have a signature from a GP or similar, to certify that we are fit to drive. Mrs C has recently renewed hers after wondering, and checking, whether her mild ocular problems should be mentioned.
I was astounded, some years ago, that my late father-in-law, suffering from dementia, was allowed to self-certify.
Assuming this is accurate, leaks from Disney are highly alarming:
https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1390829628734906369
"Disney tells employees they should reject “equality,” or “equal treatment,” and instead strive for “equity,” or “the equality of outcome.” They must “reflect” on America’s “racist infrastructure” and “think carefully about whether or not [their] wealth” is derived from racism."
Being required to register to vote is a "barrier to voting" by your logic but every single voter is capable of surmounting that barrier. What reason do you have to think that there is a single voter in the country who is so incapable that they're unable to get any of the twelve forms of ID including free at the point of use forms of ID? Let alone "many" such people?
Any you know "evidence" of this?
It is worth noting however, that so far the government have spent absolutely bugger all on this, although two changes are very welcome:
First, the relaxation of the requirement on Treasury to strictly prioritise infrastructure according to its benefits case - this has meant that the South East has *always* been preferred over other regions.
Second, this new ability of metros to run their own public transport systems a la TfL. All the evidence suggests that private concessions are inefficient and retard local economic productivity by effectively shrinking the available labour pool for any given job.
Contra to @RochdalePioneers, I think Ben Houchen is doing a good job. He has zero actual budget (see my point above) and he is putting Teesside on the map. Even if it’s all PR, it’s not nothing. Compare with the Tory “West of England” mayor who has just been ejected. Nobody even knew his name.
By all means get vexed about infringements to civil liberties if that keeps you occupied but voter ID isn't a particular backdoor to their erosion. It's to ensure that the kind of voter fraud which we've seen in some parts is stopped in its tracks.
Do we know for sure that both LDs and LP will contest Chesham and Amersham?
While voter ID clearly addresses personation problems, it does create a new one in terms of voter suppression.
Most 'Asian voters' over here are perfectly well aware of the need to have either a passport or a driver's licence.
The people who are whingeing about this are woke lefties and extreme right libertarians. Not the people Boris has so brilliantly brought on board his bus.
The vexation from half a dozen pb-ers about it is about as important as the wallpaper. In other words, of no interest to mainstream Britain.
My stance protects democracy. Yours?
As I said not thought through.
On the other hand, a card that has to be obtained in person, in office hours, every single election, would be a lot more objectionable. That would systematically distort the electorate. I don't think that there's any doubt that that's what Americans (especially Republicans) do, and I don't want it here.
And in any case, there's a trade-off. Electoral fraud distorts the results of elections from reflecting the will of the people. Making voting harder for some people than others does the same. I don't know which effect is bigger- does anyone?
And whatever this is, it's not Focusing On The Priorities Of Beating Covid And Building Back Better, is it?
But, and it’s a big but, the system needs to be designed to be made accessible to everyone, not going down the US route of making people spend half a day travelling to the only ID card centre in the State, that’s only open three hours a month. Most of the opponents of voter ID are picking up on American talking points which really don’t apply in the UK.
Tory voters are of all classes and ages. I think a number of older WWC voters in the north may be put off by photo ID requirements, and that the government should rethink quickly in its own interests. IMHO in the 2017 election the older northern (especially) women's working class vote was crucial in keeping the danger of Corbyn out. The Tories should respect their new friends.
But postal voting (popular with voters with a number of party affiliations) is by far the greater weakness in the system, lacking all the legal checks that a polling station has.