Howdy, Stranger!

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

Scotland’s election – how the pollsters did – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    algarkirk said:

    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.
    Doesn't that stem from the 100% postal vote trials.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837
    edited May 11
    algarkirk said:

    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.

    Really - what evidence do you have that polling stations currently have more legal checks?

    Postal votes are delivered by hand (council workers) or via the post office (legally binding) to an address and signatures and date of birth are checked.

    Polling station if your name is on the list and you haven't already voted that's enough.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    AnneJGP said:

    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.
    It was originally designed to stop people no longer fit to drive doing so. Laudable.
    However, it relies totally on self-certification, which, as an 80+ year old I think is foolish; I ought to have to get either an optician or GP to countersign my application.
    In the case of the GP that would definitely cost!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    FPT re telling the truth

    I think the voters are differentiating

    Boris lies about things and events. Whatever - you can factor that in.

    Starmer doesn’t say what he really believes. He smiles but conceals the fact he despises large swathes of the British population. That’s far more pernicious- and they’ve figured him out
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,060

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nunu3 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    You are right - this is appalling.

    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.
    Speak for yourself.

    Oh, you did.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929

    FPT - I was amused to see the Palace of Westminster, which has been there since the 11th century, and was rebuilt in the Gothic Revival style in the 19th Century described as a colonial monstrosity.

    It’s certainly a colonial era monstrosity…
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616
    Charles said:

    FPT re telling the truth

    I think the voters are differentiating

    Boris lies about things and events. Whatever - you can factor that in.

    Starmer doesn’t say what he really believes. He smiles but conceals the fact he despises large swathes of the British population. That’s far more pernicious- and they’ve figured him out

    I think people construe Boris’s lies as allowable because he wants them to be true. And those things are also things the public want to be true (like various covid schemes being “best in the world”).

    Whereas Keir is judged as insincere.
    I truly doubt he “despises large swathes of the population” - that’s your slightly odd take - but rather that his instincts are not the public’s instincts and he uses vague generalities to cover over the misalignment.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1391821463724990464?s=20

    Bonkers.
    Why? If you believe in self determination - as Scot Nats must - why do they have an arbitrary historical line as the boundary. If a clear majority of the Borders want to stay in the UK why should they be ripped out against their will?
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837
    edited May 11

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    Thanks for confirming that you are white (and middle class) with little thought to other cultures.

    That's not meant as a dig but you typical 19 year old muslim won't drink and won't need a card for the other items as he will go to the cornershop owned by a family friend who knows his birthday.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    Thanks for confirming that you are white (and middle class) with little thought to other cultures.
    Is there a class or culture in this country that is against paracetamol?
  • HarryFreemanHarryFreeman Posts: 210

    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.

    New Cambridge mayor has already said he will scrap plans for a metro system and focus on "social housing".

    Why does he hate Greta and polar bears ?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    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.

    Really - what evidence do you have that polling stations currently have more legal checks?

    Postal votes are delivered by hand (council workers) or via the post office (legally binding) to an address and signatures and date of birth are checked.

    Polling station if your name is on the list and you haven't already voted that's enough.
    Whatever happened to if its not broke dont fix it?

    The system broadly works fine, we are adding in extra cost and bureaucracy for no national gain, when the government should have many many better things to do.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225
    Charles said:

    FPT re telling the truth

    I think the voters are differentiating

    Boris lies about things and events. Whatever - you can factor that in.

    Starmer doesn’t say what he really believes. He smiles but conceals the fact he despises large swathes of the British population. That’s far more pernicious- and they’ve figured him out

    If Starmer had wanted a quiet, comfortable life after retirement from the job of DPP he could certainly have had it.
    However he chose to enter Labour politics.

    You have no grounds whatsoever for your suggestion.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    Thanks for confirming that you are white (and middle class) with little thought to other cultures.
    Is there a class or culture in this country that is against paracetamol?
    The restrictions on paracetamol are quantity not age - age is set at 16 for them.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    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.

    New Cambridge mayor has already said he will scrap plans for a metro system and focus on "social housing".

    Why does he hate Greta and polar bears ?
    I see he was supported by the Lib Dem in that too. The problem seems to be that the existing metro plan needed to be funded by “garden villages”, ie new housing estates.

    It would indeed be best if these things were funded on their own merits.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,375
    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    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.

    Really - what evidence do you have that polling stations currently have more legal checks?

    Postal votes are delivered by hand (council workers) or via the post office (legally binding) to an address and signatures and date of birth are checked.

    Polling station if your name is on the list and you haven't already voted that's enough.
    I should have expressed it better. The critical control a polling station has is that the casting of the actual ballot is individual, secret and this cannot be got around. It is impossible to organise on scale or at all for how how people vote. It was the critical democratic reform which changed everything. Postal ballots allow a possible wrong that polling booths don't.

    Murphy's great principle: If it can go wrong it will.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    edited May 11

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
    In 2015 it was 3.5m (7.5% of electorate) without any of:

    photographic driving licence
    passport
    Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card
    military identification card
    police identification card
    and firearms licence.
    photographic public transport passes, including certain concessionary travel passes such as the Freedom Pass and Oyster Photocard

    A quarter didnt have a passport or photo driving license.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
    In 2015 it was 3.5m (7.5% of electorate) without any of:

    photographic driving licence
    passport
    Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card
    military identification card
    police identification card
    and firearms licence.
    photographic public transport passes, including certain concessionary travel passes such as the Freedom Pass and Oyster Photocard
    Thanks.
    I wonder indeed how they skew, demographically (and thus psephologically).
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    eek said:

    algarkirk said:

    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.

    Really - what evidence do you have that polling stations currently have more legal checks?

    Postal votes are delivered by hand (council workers) or via the post office (legally binding) to an address and signatures and date of birth are checked.

    Polling station if your name is on the list and you haven't already voted that's enough.
    Whatever happened to if its not broke dont fix it?

    The system broadly works fine, we are adding in extra cost and bureaucracy for no national gain, when the government should have many many better things to do.
    I have zero problems with it works don't fix it - my comment is aimed at the people who are claiming (without examples) that postal votes are less secure than in person voting.

    So far the only argument seems to be managed voting but in those cases it really would be little different at the polling station
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    eek said:

    .

    Good morning everybody.

    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?

    Any you know "evidence" of this?
    You don't have any experience in campaigning do you? Knocking doors? Talking to voters? Doing register to vote campaigns?

    I know its a barrier to voting because having to be arsed to go to the polling station or fill in a postal vote is a barrier to voting to some people. That never used to be a problem until the won't vote group turned out to vote for Brexit, and are now a key demographic for the Tories.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
    In 2015 it was 3.5m (7.5% of electorate) without any of:

    photographic driving licence
    passport
    Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card
    military identification card
    police identification card
    and firearms licence.
    photographic public transport passes, including certain concessionary travel passes such as the Freedom Pass and Oyster Photocard
    Thanks.
    I wonder indeed how they skew, demographically (and thus psephologically).
    The Commission also noted that 2011 Census data shows that White groups and mixed White and Black Caribbeans are less likely than other groups to hold a passport. DVLA data showed that women, people under 20 and over 65, and people in London are less likely to hold a driving licence.

    Overall, the Census shows that 19% of people in White groups did not have a passport in 2011, compared with 7% of ‘other’ groups and 17% of the total population. The RAC estimates that 75% of people aged 17 and over in England held a full driving licence in 2018. It also noted that the proportion of older people with driving licences has increased since 1995.

    Analysis by Professor Chris Hanretty and Financial Times journalist John Burn-Murdoch suggests that there is a strong association between the possession of a driving licence and voting patterns: those without a driving license were more likely to report voting Labour (57%) than Conservative (27%) at the 2017 General Election.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/voter-id-key-facts-and-figures/
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
    Indeed, the Electoral Commission has been arguing for voter ID since 2014 and a report they compiled in 2015 said that based on just 7 forms of ID (without any supplementary free ones) 92.5% of electors would already have at least one of those forms of ID: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/voter-id-key-facts-and-figures/

    The trials since then have expanded the forms of ID that are accepted and supplemented that with offering ID free at the point of access for those who need it.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,166
    edited May 11

    eek said:

    .

    Good morning everybody.

    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.
    I have always been astonished that ID is not required to vote. Lots of people don't even take a poll with them, they just give their name and and address and they can vote. Voting is the most important thing in a democracy yet no checks are made at a polling station on who the actual person is.

    Imagine if banks behaved in this way.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT - I was amused to see the Palace of Westminster, which has been there since the 11th century, and was rebuilt in the Gothic Revival style in the 19th Century described as a colonial monstrosity.

    I loathe the Gothic Revival style.
    I'm a Neoclassical kinda guy.

    Very austere. Palladian is more charming and elegant
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
    In 2015 it was 3.5m (7.5% of electorate) without any of:

    photographic driving licence
    passport
    Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card
    military identification card
    police identification card
    and firearms licence.
    photographic public transport passes, including certain concessionary travel passes such as the Freedom Pass and Oyster Photocard
    Thanks.
    I wonder indeed how they skew, demographically (and thus psephologically).
    The old (especially once they cannot drive)
    The poor young - driving licenses and even PASS cards cost £15
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440
    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    Thanks for confirming that you are white (and middle class) with little thought to other cultures.
    Is there a class or culture in this country that is against paracetamol?
    The restrictions on paracetamol are quantity not age - age is set at 16 for them.
    Still Challenge 25 for them though. I've been ID'd in the past for buying painkillers.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    eek said:

    .

    Good morning everybody.

    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'm not sure that my transition to the centre ground LibDems makes me "left wing woke" - you sure you aren't just throwing out the same kind of fake ID tag bullshit that has Corbynites brand all traitors Blairites?

    This policy will stop some of the people Boris has brought on board his bus from staying on his bus. If that doesn't bother you then its a great policy! Tories cheering on the disenfranchising of Tory voters! Suits me.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837
    edited May 11

    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.

    New Cambridge mayor has already said he will scrap plans for a metro system and focus on "social housing".

    Why does he hate Greta and polar bears ?
    I see he was supported by the Lib Dem in that too. The problem seems to be that the existing metro plan needed to be funded by “garden villages”, ie new housing estates.

    It would indeed be best if these things were funded on their own merits.
    90% of new roads and other transport is built to facilitate access to new areas for building.

    But as I said on Sunday - the NIMBYs won it.

    We are getting a Northern Bypass - the fact it opens up access to Land where 5,000 houses could be built is either completely irrelevant or the whole point.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Ratters said:

    I see Noravax is delayed until Q3 for approval, from the FT live feed:

    "Novavax has pushed back its timeline and will apply for authorisation of its vaccine in the UK, US and Europe in the third quarter of the year as the company struggles to quickly collate the data required for submission.

    “It’s just a long process,” Stanley Erck, chief executive of Novavax, told the Financial Times. “Our guidance had been that we’d get the project done by the second quarter and I’m now saying … we can’t get it all done by the end of June so it’s going to slip into the third quarter unfortunately.” "


    Probably means Noravax won't end up being a significant part of our vaccine mix? A shame, but increasing first doses should be easier in the second half of June in any case once the first wave of second vaccinations has been completed.

    It does seem as though the crashing infection rates here and in the US has slowed this one down significantly. :/
    Also lack of management capacity....

    https://twitter.com/bijans/status/1391880497547075589
    CEO friend demands I post a more accurate version of what he said “you can’t be a bunch of knuckleheads for 32 years and be brilliant in the 33rd year”
    Perfect summary of my views on Novavax!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,608
    edited May 11
    Hancock on R4 waffled around the social care question: "why aren't you delivering? Johnson said he had a plan etc"

    Ended with rather a good speech about how in general "this government delivers" but we are still none the wiser as to when social care will have a plan.

    Notable from the discussion was the way he tried to present the Johnson government as completely different from the Tory years before that. As if a new party had been elected frankly.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,929
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    MaxPB said:

    Ratters said:

    I see Noravax is delayed until Q3 for approval, from the FT live feed:

    "Novavax has pushed back its timeline and will apply for authorisation of its vaccine in the UK, US and Europe in the third quarter of the year as the company struggles to quickly collate the data required for submission.

    “It’s just a long process,” Stanley Erck, chief executive of Novavax, told the Financial Times. “Our guidance had been that we’d get the project done by the second quarter and I’m now saying … we can’t get it all done by the end of June so it’s going to slip into the third quarter unfortunately.” "


    Probably means Noravax won't end up being a significant part of our vaccine mix? A shame, but increasing first doses should be easier in the second half of June in any case once the first wave of second vaccinations has been completed.

    It does seem as though the crashing infection rates here and in the US has slowed this one down significantly. :/
    Also lack of management capacity....

    https://twitter.com/bijans/status/1391880497547075589
    CEO friend demands I post a more accurate version of what he said “you can’t be a bunch of knuckleheads for 32 years and be brilliant in the 33rd year”
    (Novavax was founded in 1987.)
    Yes but COVID Novavax is version 4.0 or maybe 5.0
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    Thanks for confirming that you are white (and middle class) with little thought to other cultures.
    Is there a class or culture in this country that is against paracetamol?
    The restrictions on paracetamol are quantity not age - age is set at 16 for them.
    Still Challenge 25 for them though. I've been ID'd in the past for buying painkillers.
    You probably resembled someone who bought lots of them.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Hancock on R4 waffled around the social care question: "why aren't you delivering? Johnson said he had a plan etc"

    Ended with rather a good speech about how in general "this government delivers" but we are still none the wiser as to when social care will have a plan.

    Notable from the discussion was the way he tried to present the Johnson government as completely different from the Tory years before that. As if a new party had been elected frankly.

    To be fair, I gather some people in the shires are beginning to think that!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,015
    Transformational, or tinkering at the edges?

    We spent thirty years looking only at people with degrees while stripping status away from everybody else. Today, UK gvt outlines range of policies for non-graduates. Training, loans, bigger role for businesses & reboot of further education colleges

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1392019819315310592?s=20
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541

    IanB2 said:

    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.
    You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Go check the numbers of postal voters rejected for failing the verification, for a start.

    If the voter has completed the form themselves then it's not fraud. If they have been strongly persuaded by a relative, it might constitute bullying, domestic abuse, or intimidation.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,440

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    Thanks for confirming that you are white (and middle class) with little thought to other cultures.
    Is there a class or culture in this country that is against paracetamol?
    The restrictions on paracetamol are quantity not age - age is set at 16 for them.
    Still Challenge 25 for them though. I've been ID'd in the past for buying painkillers.
    You probably resembled someone who bought lots of them.
    For buying a box? First time it happened was not long after Challenge 25 started and I was on my lunch break and I literally was buying a single box of them on their own. I'd nipped out to buy it because I had a headache and hadn't taken ID with me - so being refused painkillers didn't help my headache!

    At supermarkets nowadays its part of the computerised checkout system, even if using self-checkout it flashes red as soon as you scan anything and then it asks the assistant to Check ID or say Over 25. Even for painkillers.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986

    Hancock on R4 waffled around the social care question: "why aren't you delivering? Johnson said he had a plan etc"

    Ended with rather a good speech about how in general "this government delivers" but we are still none the wiser as to when social care will have a plan.

    Notable from the discussion was the way he tried to present the Johnson government as completely different from the Tory years before that. As if a new party had been elected frankly.

    It is a new party in all but name and opponents of the government shouldnt be stopping them framing it as such. Cameron fans might be easier to switch than red wall brexiteers.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 549
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    You are right - this is appalling.

    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.
    One of the great things about being British is that we are willing to take some things on trust - so when I wander into my polling station, I just give my name and address, and it's accepted without question I am who I claim to be.

    In reality, it's not going to be possible to repeatedly attend a polling station giving out different names and addresses - if I voted first thing in the morning, maybe I could sneak back for another go in the evening, but I'm not going to be able to march round 10 or 20 times without someone realising they'd seen me before.

    The solution to Tower Hamlets is some pretty robust spot checks, not imposing photo ID on the whole country.

    How does this work with postal votes anyway, given that in as much as there is fraud in UK elections (and on the face of it, there appears to be very little), it relates to the harvesting of postal votes in certain communities, rather than impersonation at the polling booth. Requiring some sort of ID to apply for a postal vote might not be such a stupid idea, provided we could ensure this doesn't disenfranchise legitimate voters.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095

    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.

    I think Houchen is doing a *sensational* job considering his non-powers and non-salary. If you consider that his role is the to advance the causes of the Conservative Party on Teesside he's a smash hit. I have never seen a PR machine as superb as the one the Tories have on Teesside - shows you what vast sums from Russian arms dealers can buy.

    And they have needed good PR considering what a shitshow the party has actually been on Teesside. The focus in Hartlepool was on Labour divisions. In Stockton it is Tory divisions - they keep booting sitting councillors and then fighting elections vs themselves. There are three booted Tories now elected as independents and a stack of others who were booted and stayed on as independents.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986
    Pulpstar said:

    I think it's a sad day that we need photo ID to vote, the basic trust that exists in the British system has worked well for centuries.

    And is still working.....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,203

    Transformational, or tinkering at the edges?

    We spent thirty years looking only at people with degrees while stripping status away from everybody else. Today, UK gvt outlines range of policies for non-graduates. Training, loans, bigger role for businesses & reboot of further education colleges

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1392019819315310592?s=20

    It's a succinct statement of what has happened - the question is what happens next.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Transformational, or tinkering at the edges?

    We spent thirty years looking only at people with degrees while stripping status away from everybody else. Today, UK gvt outlines range of policies for non-graduates. Training, loans, bigger role for businesses & reboot of further education colleges

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1392019819315310592?s=20

    Sunderland University was, until the 80's a Tech, then a Poly, and became a Uni in 1992.

    A reversal of a Thatcherite policy?

    And no, I KNOW there's no suggestion of downgrading such Uni's.

  • UncleBulgariaUncleBulgaria Posts: 20

    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.



    Sadly typical of a lot of rightwing politicians nowadays.
    People have reasoned arguments for opposing a policy (eg voter id). They could be right or wrong. But instead of counter-arguments it's just irrelevant insults ("woke").

    And when picked up on the irrelevant insult, they go straight to a very ugly form of nationalism. "People who disagree with me are not 'normal British people'" etc

    Which just goes back to the original point that the people doing this are actually anti-democratic.

    What's maybe even sadder is that the democratic right seem to mostly go along with this because it seems to get enough votes to stay in power.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
    Indeed, the Electoral Commission has been arguing for voter ID since 2014 and a report they compiled in 2015 said that based on just 7 forms of ID (without any supplementary free ones) 92.5% of electors would already have at least one of those forms of ID: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/voter-id-key-facts-and-figures/

    The trials since then have expanded the forms of ID that are accepted and supplemented that with offering ID free at the point of access for those who need it.
    But not, necessarily, photo ID.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 14,095
    Philip, you are Very Clear that ID will deter "0.0%" of voters from turning out. Can you now state your experience in managing election campaigns and interacting with voters that makes you so utterly sure of this.

    Such absolute nailed to the floor confidence must be built on years - decades even - of involvement in elections. So lets have it so that the rest of us who have only based our thoughts on 26 years in my case of electioneering can find out where we are wrong.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541

    Philip, you are Very Clear that ID will deter "0.0%" of voters from turning out. Can you now state your experience in managing election campaigns and interacting with voters that makes you so utterly sure of this.

    Such absolute nailed to the floor confidence must be built on years - decades even - of involvement in elections. So lets have it so that the rest of us who have only based our thoughts on 26 years in my case of electioneering can find out where we are wrong.

    Especially as actual live trials established the contrary.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    You are right - this is appalling.

    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.
    ID cards seems to be beloved of the civil service as it seems like who ever gets into power eventually decides, in modern times, that theyd like to give it a go. So the purported reasons change, and the motivation of the politicians change, but the government machine is determined to have it.

    Despite jokes I dont generally buy the Yes Minister view of the civil service with it's own agendas too much, but on this issue it seems like it just seeks a way to persuade whoever is in power.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,060

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nunu3 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    You are right - this is appalling.

    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%:

    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
    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.
    It's just as much the right that has expanded its scope, to use as a political weapon against their opponents, rather than engaging with the problematic parts of it.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,166

    Philip, you are Very Clear that ID will deter "0.0%" of voters from turning out. Can you now state your experience in managing election campaigns and interacting with voters that makes you so utterly sure of this.

    Such absolute nailed to the floor confidence must be built on years - decades even - of involvement in elections. So lets have it so that the rest of us who have only based our thoughts on 26 years in my case of electioneering can find out where we are wrong.

    Does the requirement for ID for those who look under 25, ( I have a friend who is 45 and always gets asked) stop people buying alcohol, why would the requirement for ID stop someone voting?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,015
    The constituency of Batley and Spen will be the most important place in the UK for Keir Starmer over the next three months. But to those in the West Yorkshire seat – and site of a major byelection and test of the Labour party this summer – he is far from their minds, or a total unknown.

    “I’ll be honest with you, I don’t know who he is,” said Saqib Hamshi, 28, a gym-owner midway through a skin fade haircut at Palace Barbers in the town of Batley. “I knew Jeremy Corbyn but I’ve not heard much from the new leader.”

    The sentiment was shared by a number of people, including Mitch Moxall, 86: “I had no faith in Corbyn but the new guy is a complete and utter waste of time. He says he’ll take full responsibility but how is getting rid of his assistant [Rayner] taking full responsibility, for crying out loud?”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/10/batley-and-spen-voters-view-of-starmer-shows-the-size-of-his-challenge
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,980

    Transformational, or tinkering at the edges?

    We spent thirty years looking only at people with degrees while stripping status away from everybody else. Today, UK gvt outlines range of policies for non-graduates. Training, loans, bigger role for businesses & reboot of further education colleges

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1392019819315310592?s=20

    That’s long overdue, there need to be more options between spending three years gaining £50k of debt, and a life of working mimimum wage jobs.

    Start with the public sector not requiring degrees for jobs like nurses and police, expand and reduce fees for Open University.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    Thanks for confirming that you are white (and middle class) with little thought to other cultures.
    Is there a class or culture in this country that is against paracetamol?
    The restrictions on paracetamol are quantity not age - age is set at 16 for them.
    Still Challenge 25 for them though. I've been ID'd in the past for buying painkillers.
    You probably resembled someone who bought lots of them.
    For buying a box? First time it happened was not long after Challenge 25 started and I was on my lunch break and I literally was buying a single box of them on their own. I'd nipped out to buy it because I had a headache and hadn't taken ID with me - so being refused painkillers didn't help my headache!

    At supermarkets nowadays its part of the computerised checkout system, even if using self-checkout it flashes red as soon as you scan anything and then it asks the assistant to Check ID or say Over 25. Even for painkillers.
    One of the saddest experiences in an A&E used to be seeing a young person, girl probably, who has broken up with their partner and taken an overdose of paracetamol. Next morning they've recovered, but their liver is (or was in my day) irreparably damaged, possibly fatally.
    Checks such as those you describe have, I am told, reduced that very considerably.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,986

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Cant they just scan the microchips from the vaccines? After all do the unvaccinated really deserve a vote?
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fingerprint id - how does that work?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,759
    edited May 11

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    The concerns may be overblown, such ideas can make sense on paper, but my position is I don't think we should risk any amount of suppression occurring or being made easier, as they haven't demonstrated a sufficient need to implement these measures.

    That's why it's easy to believe that sinister motivations are behind it, because the problems, such as they are, are not so great as to make action like this necessary, proportionate and appropriate.

    Too often the justification falls back on things like there 'might' be more problems going on. We shouldn't legislate new restrictions on such a flimsy basis.

    It's wrong to add new stages to the process without genuine need. And that need would have to be far better evidenced.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    edited May 11

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    Why? The young are expected to carry photo ID to buy alcohol or tobacco or energy drinks or even paracetamol and ibuprofen nowadays. The reality is the country almost all has access to photo ID already and its available free at the point of access too.

    So why is it really problematic? In this nation, as opposed to in America.
    It would be interesting to see what percentage of the public *do* have photo ID.

    It’s the sort of thing a government bringing in photo ID voting might have researched. Have you seen any?
    In 2015 it was 3.5m (7.5% of electorate) without any of:

    photographic driving licence
    passport
    Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card
    military identification card
    police identification card
    and firearms licence.
    photographic public transport passes, including certain concessionary travel passes such as the Freedom Pass and Oyster Photocard
    Thanks.
    I wonder indeed how they skew, demographically (and thus psephologically).
    My instinct would be they skew heavily towards the 20-25% (60-70% in local elections) that do not vote at all. Even in the EU referendum. Go door knocking and you discover those who do not engage. Especially with the state (the recent proliferation of letters in windows withdrawing the licence to walk up their drive being an obvious example).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    eek said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    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...
    Your view is too narrow. In a household with four or five adults dominated by a strong patriarchal figure - think, Tower Hamlets - this can and does happen.

    You're assuming everyone acts with the same integrity as you do, and it's just the signature that's the issue.

    It isn't.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,782
    Pulpstar said:

    I think it's a sad day that we need photo ID to vote, the basic trust that exists in the British system has worked well for centuries.

    Has it? Three centuries ago the tellers probably knew all 7 electors entitled to vote by sight

    This ID card stuff is also very quaint. Governments can't be bothered with that any more, they are working on automatic facial recognition systems which bypass any need for cards. In 10 years they will have them, justified on anti terrorist grounds.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,980
    kle4 said:

    ydoethur said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    You are right - this is appalling.

    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.
    ID cards seems to be beloved of the civil service as it seems like who ever gets into power eventually decides, in modern times, that theyd like to give it a go. So the purported reasons change, and the motivation of the politicians change, but the government machine is determined to have it.

    Despite jokes I dont generally buy the Yes Minister view of the civil service with it's own agendas too much, but on this issue it seems like it just seeks a way to persuade whoever is in power.
    Sadly, in recent years, it has become more obvious that Yes, Minister was seen as a documentary training course by those currently running the Civil Service.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1391821463724990464?s=20

    Bonkers.
    Why? If you believe in self determination - as Scot Nats must - why do they have an arbitrary historical line as the boundary. If a clear majority of the Borders want to stay in the UK why should they be ripped out against their will?
    If a clear majority of Scots want to stay in the EU why should they be ripped out against their will?
    Etc
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541

    eek said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    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...
    Your view is too narrow. In a household with four or five adults dominated by a strong patriarchal figure - think, Tower Hamlets - this can and does happen.

    You're assuming everyone acts with the same integrity as you do, and it's just the signature that's the issue.

    It isn't.
    Your view is also quite narrow, in assuming that the patriarchal influence is being imposed by force, rather than being part of the generally accepted culture, against which those who rebel are a minority. You may not like it, I may not like it, but other cultures do have different views on things.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,203
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    .

    Good morning everybody.

    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.
    An interesting thing about the whole vote-farming thing - it has been seen repeatedly though history as a way that hierarchies preserve their power in the face of democracy.

    IIRC Cicero gave a speech in which he lambasted a Tribune of the People for introducing the secret ballot for one of the many voting procedures under the Roman Republic. Cicero argues that this meant that the clients of the rich and powerful could then vote how they liked, and this undermined the power of the Senate*.

    *The Roman Senate had nothing to do with democracy. Membership was never elected, but was specifically by wealth - you could get thrown out for loosing your money. It was an oligarchy of the rich.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.
    You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Go check the numbers of postal voters rejected for failing the verification, for a start.

    If the voter has completed the form themselves then it's not fraud. If they have been strongly persuaded by a relative, it might constitute bullying, domestic abuse, or intimidation.
    I know very well what I'm talking about. You are just resorting to pedantry so you don't have to concede you're wrong. You might convince yourself, you won't convince many others.

    Anyway, I must work. Busy day today.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,375
    Sandpit said:

    Transformational, or tinkering at the edges?

    We spent thirty years looking only at people with degrees while stripping status away from everybody else. Today, UK gvt outlines range of policies for non-graduates. Training, loans, bigger role for businesses & reboot of further education colleges

    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1392019819315310592?s=20

    That’s long overdue, there need to be more options between spending three years gaining £50k of debt, and a life of working mimimum wage jobs.

    Start with the public sector not requiring degrees for jobs like nurses and police, expand and reduce fees for Open University.
    In the unnoticed and unpoliticised world of trades, white man man, small businesses and industry which is large in the area but smaller than car plants this never went away. These are the places which have notably switched to the Tories for now. I live in one.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Nunu3 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:
    You are right - this is appalling.

    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%:

    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
    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.
    It's just as much the right that has expanded its scope, to use as a political weapon against their opponents, rather than engaging with the problematic parts of it.
    To be fair, I've tried - repeatedly - on here to focus on the problematic parts of it. And I've qualified that by accepting and recognising where there are genuine issues, like with racial equality.

    However, whenever I do there are posters who say I'm making it up, it doesn't exist or that I'm a secret bigot.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 542

    Hancock on R4 waffled around the social care question: "why aren't you delivering? Johnson said he had a plan etc"

    Ended with rather a good speech about how in general "this government delivers" but we are still none the wiser as to when social care will have a plan.

    Notable from the discussion was the way he tried to present the Johnson government as completely different from the Tory years before that. As if a new party had been elected frankly.

    To be fair, I gather some people in the shires are beginning to think that!
    I think this is right. They are a different party with a few old Tory hangers on, in the same way that at least until around 2006 New labour were a different party from Labour.

    Step back and look at the current conservative policy suite, and it's a mixture of soft focus populism (let's face it we're not imprisoning dissidents or banning newspapers yet) and super-Keynesian crisis economics. It feels pretty different from what came before.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.
    You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Go check the numbers of postal voters rejected for failing the verification, for a start.

    If the voter has completed the form themselves then it's not fraud. If they have been strongly persuaded by a relative, it might constitute bullying, domestic abuse, or intimidation.
    I know very well what I'm talking about. You are just resorting to pedantry so you don't have to concede you're wrong. You might convince yourself, you won't convince many others.

    Anyway, I must work. Busy day today.
    So how many hours at a count did you spend last week, standing watching these postal votes which "have virtually no checks on them" being laboriously checked, one by one? Fewer than me, I am thinking.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    edited May 11
    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fingerprint id - how does that work?
    It works by confirming your fingerprint against a database. Much quicker at the polling stations whilst collation takes quite some effort.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,015
    If the SNP was prepared to be straight with people...

    “The fiscal transfer is real and independence means losing it. We’ll have years of painful austerity, but it will be worth it.”

    ... you could have some respect for that position. But it’s just lies. Lies all the way down.


    https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1392024159388065792?s=20
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,239

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fck me, that escalated quickly! Why not retinal scanning just to be on the safe side, maybe even a DNA check?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    IanB2 said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    IanB2 said:

    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...
    Your view is too narrow. In a household with four or five adults dominated by a strong patriarchal figure - think, Tower Hamlets - this can and does happen.

    You're assuming everyone acts with the same integrity as you do, and it's just the signature that's the issue.

    It isn't.
    Your view is also quite narrow, in assuming that the patriarchal influence is being imposed by force, rather than being part of the generally accepted culture, against which those who rebel are a minority. You may not like it, I may not like it, but other cultures do have different views on things.
    I don't accept voter intimidation being a "cultural" factor in some communities that requires respect.

    The law of the land and the voting rights of the individual apply to everyone, no ifs no buts.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    If the SNP was prepared to be straight with people...

    “The fiscal transfer is real and independence means losing it. We’ll have years of painful austerity, but it will be worth it.”

    ... you could have some respect for that position. But it’s just lies. Lies all the way down.


    https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1392024159388065792?s=20

    It’s Brexit Mk II.
  • HarryFreemanHarryFreeman Posts: 210

    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    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

    https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1391821463724990464?s=20

    Bonkers.
    Why? If you believe in self determination - as Scot Nats must - why do they have an arbitrary historical line as the boundary. If a clear majority of the Borders want to stay in the UK why should they be ripped out against their will?
    If a clear majority of Scots want to stay in the EU why should they be ripped out against their will?
    Etc

    Some Scots probably didn't want to go decimal but its a bit late.

    The Borders are British - let's not risk the SNP splitting up Scotland.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.
    You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Go check the numbers of postal voters rejected for failing the verification, for a start.

    If the voter has completed the form themselves then it's not fraud. If they have been strongly persuaded by a relative, it might constitute bullying, domestic abuse, or intimidation.
    I know very well what I'm talking about. You are just resorting to pedantry so you don't have to concede you're wrong. You might convince yourself, you won't convince many others.

    Anyway, I must work. Busy day today.
    So how many hours at a count did you spend last week, standing watching these postal votes which "have virtually no checks on them" being laboriously checked, one by one? Fewer than me, I am thinking.
    I didn't do it for Ventnor Town Council last week, no. I did it for general elections in Bristol West in 2001, Eastleigh in 2005, Bournemouth West in 2010 and Southampton Test (part) in 2017.

    Good enough for you?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fck me, that escalated quickly! Why not retinal scanning just to be on the safe side, maybe even a DNA check?
    It might be better to.microchip everyone. That's it, job done.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,375
    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.
    You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Go check the numbers of postal voters rejected for failing the verification, for a start.

    If the voter has completed the form themselves then it's not fraud. If they have been strongly persuaded by a relative, it might constitute bullying, domestic abuse, or intimidation.
    I know very well what I'm talking about. You are just resorting to pedantry so you don't have to concede you're wrong. You might convince yourself, you won't convince many others.

    Anyway, I must work. Busy day today.
    So how many hours at a count did you spend last week, standing watching these postal votes which "have virtually no checks on them" being laboriously checked, one by one? Fewer than me, I am thinking.
    How do you check that the ballot was secret?

  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fck me, that escalated quickly! Why not retinal scanning just to be on the safe side, maybe even a DNA check?
    Surely Rectal scanning - I know it wouldn't solve anything but it would ensure only the most diligent would vote.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526

    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.



    Sadly typical of a lot of rightwing politicians nowadays.
    People have reasoned arguments for opposing a policy (eg voter id). They could be right or wrong. But instead of counter-arguments it's just irrelevant insults ("woke").

    And when picked up on the irrelevant insult, they go straight to a very ugly form of nationalism. "People who disagree with me are not 'normal British people'" etc

    Which just goes back to the original point that the people doing this are actually anti-democratic.

    What's maybe even sadder is that the democratic right seem to mostly go along with this because it seems to get enough votes to stay in power.
    Utter tosh. How does it get a single vote to "stay in power? It prevents the possibility of fraudulent ones. Which is excellent news. You sound as though you'd be happy for a legitimate government to be rejected by fraudulent votes. Not a good position.

    There were council seats that were decided by drawing lots last week. In a least one (Northumberland), the fraudulent casting of one vote would have prevented a gain that resulted in a change of control of the council.
  • HarryFreemanHarryFreeman Posts: 210

    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.

    New Cambridge mayor has already said he will scrap plans for a metro system and focus on "social housing".

    Why does he hate Greta and polar bears ?
    I see he was supported by the Lib Dem in that too. The problem seems to be that the existing metro plan needed to be funded by “garden villages”, ie new housing estates.

    It would indeed be best if these things were funded on their own merits.
    Paucity of ambition is Labour's watchword these days.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,541

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    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.
    You don't seem to know what you are talking about. Go check the numbers of postal voters rejected for failing the verification, for a start.

    If the voter has completed the form themselves then it's not fraud. If they have been strongly persuaded by a relative, it might constitute bullying, domestic abuse, or intimidation.
    I know very well what I'm talking about. You are just resorting to pedantry so you don't have to concede you're wrong. You might convince yourself, you won't convince many others.

    Anyway, I must work. Busy day today.
    So how many hours at a count did you spend last week, standing watching these postal votes which "have virtually no checks on them" being laboriously checked, one by one? Fewer than me, I am thinking.
    I didn't do it for Ventnor Town Council last week, no. I did it for general elections in Bristol West in 2001, Eastleigh in 2005, Bournemouth West in 2010 and Southampton Test (part) in 2017.

    Good enough for you?
    Then you ought to know that your "virtually no checks" statement is incorrect.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837
    edited May 11

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fingerprint id - how does that work?
    It works by confirming your fingerprint against a database. Much quicker at the polling stations whilst collation takes quite some effort.
    What do you do for a living - as believe me that really wouldn't be quicker..

    Hint I do ID confirmation systems as part of my job - 2 of my last 5 jobs were front end systems for bank tellers at European banks - complex ID verification was part of the job.

    Remember I have zero problem with a proper ID card - my problem is with this half baked madness.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,437
    kle4 said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    The concerns may be overblown, such ideas can make sense on paper, but my position is I don't think we should risk any amount of suppression occurring or being made easier, as they haven't demonstrated a sufficient need to implement these measures.

    That's why it's easy to believe that sinister motivations are behind it, because the problems, such as they are, are not so great as to make action like this necessary, proportionate and appropriate.

    Too often the justification falls back on things like there 'might' be more problems going on. We shouldn't legislate new restrictions on such a flimsy basis.

    It's wrong to add new stages to the process without genuine need. And that need would have to be far better evidenced.
    Yes, while I agree with Sandpit that it's much more blatant in the US, there's no doubt that additional hurdles put people off if they weren't that interested in the first place, making politics more of a preoccupation of the zealous. Not sure that's healthy, or, given the class relignment of British politics, all that helpful to the Tories. We woke middle-class internationalist lefties will jump any hurdles!

    More seriously, though, it's a hammer to crack a nut.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 9,616

    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.

    New Cambridge mayor has already said he will scrap plans for a metro system and focus on "social housing".

    Why does he hate Greta and polar bears ?
    I see he was supported by the Lib Dem in that too. The problem seems to be that the existing metro plan needed to be funded by “garden villages”, ie new housing estates.

    It would indeed be best if these things were funded on their own merits.
    Paucity of ambition is Labour's watchword these days.
    I don’t live in the area and have not followed the issue. I saw some online criticism, too, that the concept was too sketchy and greatly risked cost overruns.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fck me, that escalated quickly! Why not retinal scanning just to be on the safe side, maybe even a DNA check?
    Surely Rectal scanning - I know it wouldn't solve anything but it would ensure only the most diligent would vote.
    So.....all those rednecks who get rectal probes were just unwittingly voting for the next Galactic leader?
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fingerprint id - how does that work?
    It works by confirming your fingerprint against a database. Much quicker at the polling stations whilst collation takes quite some effort.
    What do you do for a living - as believe me that really wouldn't be quicker..

    Hint I do ID confirmation systems as part of my job - 2 of my last 5 jobs were front end systems for bank tellers at European banks - complex ID verification was part of the job.

    Remember I have zero problem with a proper ID card - my problem is with this half baked madness.
    How long does it take the old bill to check an id using a fingerprint scanner..30 secs max....
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fck me, that escalated quickly! Why not retinal scanning just to be on the safe side, maybe even a DNA check?
    Retinal scanning doesn't actually work and isn't actually required - there are plenty of firms that for £1 or so will confirm that the person moving on the camera matches the id card they've also just scanned in.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,837
    edited May 11

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fingerprint id - how does that work?
    It works by confirming your fingerprint against a database. Much quicker at the polling stations whilst collation takes quite some effort.
    What do you do for a living - as believe me that really wouldn't be quicker..

    Hint I do ID confirmation systems as part of my job - 2 of my last 5 jobs were front end systems for bank tellers at European banks - complex ID verification was part of the job.

    Remember I have zero problem with a proper ID card - my problem is with this half baked madness.
    How long does it take the old bill to check an id using a fingerprint scanner..30 secs max....
    Thanks for confirming you have a criminal record...

    But equally databases are fast when you are running a few queries at a time (they need to be). When you are running thousands at the same time (as would be needed in your case) that is a very different issue and not one that is easily scalable....

    So you have 2 problems -

    1) most people don't have their fingerprints in a police database
    2) the database design will need to be very different and built in a very unique way to cope with a capacity need of zero / 55 million requests / zero.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    eek said:

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fck me, that escalated quickly! Why not retinal scanning just to be on the safe side, maybe even a DNA check?
    Surely Rectal scanning - I know it wouldn't solve anything but it would ensure only the most diligent would vote.
    So.....all those rednecks who get rectal probes were just unwittingly voting for the next Galactic leader?
    Would resolve all sorts of rectal associated cancers. It would cost an awful. lot in lube however....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,015
    Border, currency, deficit – Scotland does not so much need a love bomb as a truth bomb.

    https://twitter.com/JohnFerry18/status/1392019814072324096?s=20
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,015

    Charles said:

    FPT re telling the truth

    I think the voters are differentiating

    Boris lies about things and events. Whatever - you can factor that in.

    Starmer doesn’t say what he really believes. He smiles but conceals the fact he despises large swathes of the British population. That’s far more pernicious- and they’ve figured him out

    The better politician is the one who lies openly and without restraint.
    What days we live in.
    I thought you liked Sturgeon?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,015

    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We don't need id cards just have straightforward voter id with fingerprint id at all the polling stations.
    Fck me, that escalated quickly! Why not retinal scanning just to be on the safe side, maybe even a DNA check?
    It might be better to.microchip everyone. That's it, job done.
    It's already being done!

    Someone at the door.....
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,437
    eek said:

    I'm curious what impact on turnout would be expected those who think a "vast" amount of voting would be "suppressed" by demanding any of 12 different forms of ID, some of which are free at the point of access.

    My guess is this would affect turnout by 0.0%

    No issues if it’s a phone bill or whatever.
    It’s the photo bit which is problematic.
    And without the photo bit it's completely pointless.

    The thing that annoys me is that I would support it were it attached to a proper valid Id card - it's the lack of thinking that is the real problem here.

    And I was anti-ID cards for decades until I saw them in action throughout Europe. 1 example in-person Bank Fraud is virtually impossible in Austria / Bulgaria, it's a daily occurrence here.
    We need to be quite straightforward about it - it is a pretty direct route to ID cards, and I agree that it then becomes uncontroversial.
This discussion has been closed.