We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
WTF!? Condemned out of your own mouth for deliberate voter suppression.
"reminding identified Con voters" - but not Labour, LD, Reform ...
This is politics....
The shamelessness astounds me. Really does.
You have disclaimed any right to make any moral judgement on PB ever again.
I'll remind any SNP voters I find then.
You can't accuse me of having an interest in the election, as any in Guz will have to have a postal vote anyway. But consider this.
A. Tory Gmt changes the rules. B. Tories on the ground tell only Tory voters.
See?
And presumably Labour will be telling Labour voters?
Labour did not fiddle the laws to begin with.
But they played the angles on the 2001 redistricting that we are still using
It’s fine to criticise the measures to strengthen the security of the ballot (I disagree with your view but whatever). But to attack a foot soldier for doing what is rational given the context of the law is unfair
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
How do you provide evidence when the police tell people who complain about their vote being stolen to piss off?
Did I ever mention that this happened to me?
The polling booth staff are so nervous - I was mumbling something about voter fraud/the police - that they put it down to human error and, after a call to who knows who, they let you vote.
After you show them some ID.
I'm sure there is a lesson in there somewhere.
I'm not sure if you did, but I do recall someone posting here who was refused a vote in those circumstances who went to the police and was pretty much laughed out of the door. I wish the Vanilla search was better so I could find it!
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling, but my view FWIW is that it's a transparent but probably rather ineffective attempt at suppression of younger (and therefore less documented plus more left-wing) voters. As OGH suggests it may do some collateral damage to the very elderly, mostly Tory, vote, so the overall effect may simply be to make British democracy a bit less representative all round.
That it is an attempt at suppression is obvious from the fact that, unlike in NI, they aren’t automatically issuing the ID. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - if we must do this then print our faces on our polling cards and ask us to bring them. Have a printer on site if we forget. Job done.
Manic Manny Macron has pushed pension reform over the heads of Parliament. Unsurprisingly the opposition has exploded.
In all likelihood this will spill on to the streets and the UK strikes will look endearingly amateur.
I remain to be convinced the Rugby World Cup and the Olympics will go seamlessly.
I have just read up on Article 49.3 of the French Constitution. Fascinating stuff for constitutional law geeks! So the AN can be bypassed by the executive but the AN can veto the law if it simultaneously votes no confidence in the government (necessitating fresh legislative elections).
I am assuming that there aren’t the numbers in the AN to vote no confidence in the government over this?
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
So why not tell people to bring their polling cards? No polling card then you have to show who you are in some way. The Conservatives have immediately gone for the most extreme form of requiring ID, for obvious reasons - it's a blatant attempt at vote-rigging.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
How do you provide evidence when the police tell people who complain about their vote being stolen to piss off?
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
How many people live or die as the aid budget goes up or down?
It is fairly frequently suggested that deprivation kills X per year in this country. So the social security budget is people’s lives.
The NHS is obvious
Government kills people. A lot.
So I guess we shouldn’t discuss politics then. All a bit iky.
You've clearly not been keeping up with Jessop's demands – do everything we can to back Ukraine or words to that effect – is he backing compulsory conscription for all able bodied British males over the age of 16 (presumably with the exception of one Josias Jessop)?
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
How many people live or die as the aid budget goes up or down?
It is fairly frequently suggested that deprivation kills X per year in this country. So the social security budget is people’s lives.
The NHS is obvious
Government kills people. A lot.
So I guess we shouldn’t discuss politics then. All a bit iky.
You've clearly not been keeping up with Jessop's demands – do everything we can to back Ukraine or words to that effect – is he backing compulsory conscription for all able bodied British males over the age of 16 (presumably with the exception of one Josias Jessop)?
Good to see we have so many Devon experts amongst our Scotch experts.
I have to inform you that posting an actual pic of place X by their MP does not an X expert make. There has to be much added bloviating to qualify.
You do realise you are replying to Field Marshall Jessop of the PB Toy Soldiers (Armchair Regiment) ?
Admiral General Anabobazina of the PB Toy Moderators (Bathtub Navy), I presume?
Not moderating anyone, you can post what you like. But the spectacle of Toy Soldiering is really quite amusing/embarrassing.
Consider it words to the wise.
Consider the idea that posting anything about a domain you are not a qualified professional in, is “Armchair X”
Casting stones and all that.
Whatever – most topics don't involve suggesting thousands of young men are sent to their death, while fulfilling your wargaming needs
You assume that I have "wargaming needs"; wrong (and I'd like to know why you think that). I don't play wargames; I have never played War Thunder, or the naval one, or anything like that.
I'd like to know your solutions to the Ukraine war which does not involve thousands of young men being sent to their deaths: unless your 'solution' is Ukraine submitting to Russia (and even then, the chances are there might be an Afghanistan-style insurgency). But sorry, this is probably straying on too speculative for you.
In fact, I've argued that giving Ukraine as much as possible, as early as possible. Doing otherwise prolongs the war, and increases deaths on both sides.
So yes, I am keen to see a Ukrainian 'victory' (however that is defined) ASAP, as a way of reducing deaths.
It's trite cliches like this you'd do well to avoid.
"as much as possible as early as possible"
Conscription for all able-bodied British males over 16 to fight on the Ukrainian front?
Just because you're illiterate doesn't make Josias wrong.
Giving weaponry and munitions is not the same as sending our own people to fight. Nobody is discussing giving people to Ukraine and even if we sent our own forces there, we wouldn't be giving people to them either, the people would still be our people as opposed to giving weapons which makes the weapons now theirs to use.
"as much as possible as early as possible" - is a trite catchphrase, not a strategy
On one hand, if I go into any details, you screech "armchair warrior" and say I want to send people to their deaths.
On the other hand, if I keep it vague, you pounce on the vagueness. Yet if I went into details on what I thought we should be doing, you'd just call me an 'armchair warrior' or some other rubbish.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
This is a very non-day at Cheltenham; if you don't like crowds, Thursday is your day. And to think they were thinking of extending the meeting to five days.
That would dilute it imo.
Four days is pretty gruelling for a horse racing festival.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
Not convinced by any of that. Particularly the notion that I would have a clue as to which of my neighbours never vote. "Can I borrow a cup of sugar? Oh, and by the way, do you normally vote?"
Perhaps the obvious answer is the right one - we don't hear much about voter personation at polling stations because it's pretty rare.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
There is a whole lot of difference between someone being able to impersonate you and get access to your tax record but then not necessarily being able to get access to your medical records and....
John dickweed at the council has access to the NIR as it was called and can look at anyones complete data they want.
Not only that but a single central db is a prime target for data abstraction by hackers and lets face it.....the civil service is not renowned for keeping our data safe already.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
There is a whole lot of difference between someone being able to impersonate you and get access to your tax record but then not necessarily being able to get access to your medical records and....
John dickweed at the council has access to the NIR as it was called and look at anyone in the countries data.
A central db of everything also becomes the golden grail target for hackers and criminals and it will get stolen sooner or later
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling, but my view FWIW is that it's a transparent but probably rather ineffective attempt at suppression of younger (and therefore less documented plus more left-wing) voters. As OGH suggests it may do some collateral damage to the very elderly, mostly Tory, vote, so the overall effect may simply be to make British democracy a bit less representative all round.
That it is an attempt at suppression is obvious from the fact that, unlike in NI, they aren’t automatically issuing the ID. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - if we must do this then print our faces on our polling cards and ask us to bring them. Have a printer on site if we forget. Job done.
That's an option I've suggested - make photo submission part of the application process (given how the registration and voter identity certificate online priocesses work, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that facility is already built in but not yet activated) and print the photo on the polling card. I suspect the difficulty in this is to get dozens of councils to update their polling card creation software to work with photos.
I don't think NI does automatically issue ID - you need to apply for the free voter ID if you don't have anything suitable, and the process from what I recall from when I looked into it is more onerous than the one now in place in GB.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
The government gateway doesn't use user provided passwords - for just that reason.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve registered then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling, but my view FWIW is that it's a transparent but probably rather ineffective attempt at suppression of younger (and therefore less documented plus more left-wing) voters. As OGH suggests it may do some collateral damage to the very elderly, mostly Tory, vote, so the overall effect may simply be to make British democracy a bit less representative all round.
The younger are less documented?
I agree with OGH. If the Tories have done this for suppression reasons to gain an advantage I think they have shot themselves in the foot.
That we don't have to identify ourselves at the ballot seems odd to me - I may be naive in at least entertaining the thought that the government actually saw a problem that needed fixing. The acceptable I.D. is far too narrow though - a credit card or bank statement or utility bill should have sufficed. They should clamp down on postal voting next.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
The government gateway doesn't use user provided passwords - for just that reason.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Who said anything about giving access to just anyone?
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
How do you provide evidence when the police tell people who complain about their vote being stolen to piss off?
Did I ever mention that this happened to me?
The polling booth staff are so nervous - I was mumbling something about voter fraud/the police - that they put it down to human error and, after a call to who knows who, they let you vote.
After you show them some ID.
I'm sure there is a lesson in there somewhere.
I'm not sure if you did, but I do recall someone posting here who was refused a vote in those circumstances who went to the police and was pretty much laughed out of the door. I wish the Vanilla search was better so I could find it!
No not me. They were all super embarrased and a bit nervous (it didn't seem as though it was a regular occurrence) and made a call to HQ (?) and they let me vote once I'd proved to them who I was.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Not sure what the scare quotes are for. And really - it's a very hardy and recurrent plant that grows like topsy all over the shop. It's not like you need loads.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
But if you don’t care enough to check, or to come off the register, then does it matter? There won’t be many in your position.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
The flag man, don't forget the flag. Could even be two, one for the design and one for the hologram, just like the wonderful GHICs.
Oh no. Don't mind it being linked to my tax and medical records but no flags please. I won't carry that. Go to jail first.
So you dont mind sharing those sensitive records with the "Home Office forecasts envisaged that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have had access to the database"
I was joking really. Although it's true this aspect doesn't instinctively bother me as much as I know it does many people. I find much of the concern to be irrational, precious, paranoid. But don't get me wrong. I don't mean we shouldn't be careful. It's not as if I'd just be happy with anything. I'd have a proper think about any proposal, cost v benefits, the scope, the controls, and take a view accordingly.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Portevinia maculata, the Ramson Hoverfly, is attracted to stands of these plants. Can variously be quite common or in some years, surprisingly scarce.
Going to have to look for that now! Have probably seen it but not recognised it.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
The government gateway doesn't use user provided passwords - for just that reason.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Who said anything about giving access to just anyone?
That was the system that New Labour were implementing when the Coalition government cut them off.
It was bizarre and broken every rule of data security.
“Andy Chamberlain, of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, said the biggest obstacles facing the self-employed had been ignored.
“The trade body estimates more than 700,000 people have been forced out of self-employment since 2020, following the pandemic a cost of living crisis and changes to complex freelancer tax rules which have taken the shine off "being your own boss" for many.”
That was deliberate policy. It’s a choice.
What's the justification behind that choice?
That "contracting" has been abused in two ways.
By high rate earners in permanent jobs, reducing their tax. By employers of low income workers, forcing them to be contractors, so that they have less employment rights.
I missed @Luckyguy1983 Question but that’s a good answer
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
Den't worry Moon - after your stunning record last Cheltenham I'm avoided your tips this time on the grounds that you are unlikely to pull it off twice.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
I backed that this morning @ 11 and laid it back @ 5.5 before the race! Your tips move the market obviously.
I think a lot of people turn up with money, have a few drinks, not come with much knowledge of the horses and their season. But it is hard to pick festival winners because the horses have looked good on their day during the winter, but surrounded by less quality on that day, and it’s making the call have they got it in them in surrounded by stronger rivals - how much of a step up for them.
The bookmakers are taking Euro’s on the course. A lot of the on course betting is in Euro’s this week.
“Andy Chamberlain, of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, said the biggest obstacles facing the self-employed had been ignored.
“The trade body estimates more than 700,000 people have been forced out of self-employment since 2020, following the pandemic a cost of living crisis and changes to complex freelancer tax rules which have taken the shine off "being your own boss" for many.”
That was deliberate policy. It’s a choice.
What's the justification behind that choice?
That "contracting" has been abused in two ways.
By high rate earners in permanent jobs, reducing their tax. By employers of low income workers, forcing them to be contractors, so that they have less employment rights.
I missed @Luckyguy1983 Question but that’s a good answer
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
The government gateway doesn't use user provided passwords - for just that reason.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Who said anything about giving access to just anyone?
Home Office forecasts envisaged that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have had access to the database
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Portevinia maculata, the Ramson Hoverfly, is attracted to stands of these plants. Can variously be quite common or in some years, surprisingly scarce.
Going to have to look for that now! Have probably seen it but not recognised it.
Quite. Though now I look it up it's not terribly distinctive, just A. N. Other-Hoverfly to the quick glance. Probably recognise it from where it is sitting ...
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling, but my view FWIW is that it's a transparent but probably rather ineffective attempt at suppression of younger (and therefore less documented plus more left-wing) voters. As OGH suggests it may do some collateral damage to the very elderly, mostly Tory, vote, so the overall effect may simply be to make British democracy a bit less representative all round.
The younger are less documented?
I agree with OGH. If the Tories have done this for suppression reasons to gain an advantage I think they have shot themselves in the foot.
That we don't have to identify ourselves at the ballot seems odd to me - I may be naive in at least entertaining the thought that the government actually saw a problem that needed fixing. The acceptable I.D. is far too narrow though - a credit card or bank statement or utility bill should have sufficed. They should clamp down on postal voting next.
The Electoral Commission told them that there was a problem that needed fixing, so I'm not sure why this is "naive".
I'm not sure about bank statements or utility bills, they don't come with photos and the latter at least isn't very secure. We needed to add "Minnie" to our water bill account so that she had some utility bill in her name for something and there was no check on the validity of it worthy of the name.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Portevinia maculata, the Ramson Hoverfly, is attracted to stands of these plants. Can variously be quite common or in some years, surprisingly scarce.
Going to have to look for that now! Have probably seen it but not recognised it.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
The government gateway doesn't use user provided passwords - for just that reason.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Who said anything about giving access to just anyone?
That was the system that New Labour were implementing when the Coalition government cut them off.
It was bizarre and broken every rule of data security.
Fair enough. I was assuming you’d have a cadre made up existing tax inspectors etc. warranted officers plus a small cadre of vetted staff in the int/ops side.
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling
Then your response is welcome, because I'm not trolling...
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
The flag man, don't forget the flag. Could even be two, one for the design and one for the hologram, just like the wonderful GHICs.
Oh no. Don't mind it being linked to my tax and medical records but no flags please. I won't carry that. Go to jail first.
So you dont mind sharing those sensitive records with the "Home Office forecasts envisaged that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have had access to the database"
I was joking really. Although it's true this aspect doesn't instinctively bother me as much as I know it does many people. I find much of the concern to be irrational, precious, paranoid. But don't get me wrong. I don't mean we shouldn't be careful. It's not as if I'd just be happy with anything. I'd have a proper think about any proposal, cost v benefits, the scope, the controls, and take a view accordingly.
There were, essentially, no controls.
Every single data security expert said the system as designed was stupid.
It would have been an epic, epic problem when GDPR came in, for example. It would have meant the whole system would either have to be shut down, or GDPR not be implemented.
Incidentally, I do client data security as part of my day job. If I designed a system that did the above and implemented it, I would be legally liable. In a big way.
Manic Manny Macron has pushed pension reform over the heads of Parliament. Unsurprisingly the opposition has exploded.
In all likelihood this will spill on to the streets and the UK strikes will look endearingly amateur.
I remain to be convinced the Rugby World Cup and the Olympics will go seamlessly.
That reminds me of an account of French socialists turning up to support the Chartists in 1848, and being utterly disgusted by their behaviour. Instead of going on the rampage, they held a peaceful good-natured protest.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
Den't worry Moon - after your stunning record last Cheltenham I'm avoided your tips this time on the grounds that you are unlikely to pull it off twice.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
Den't worry Moon - after your stunning record last Cheltenham I'm avoided your tips this time on the grounds that you are unlikely to pull it off twice.
I’ve had two winners. 3 seconds. Unlucky on Love Envoi postal pipped in second. I still have another 6 bets to add another one or two. I’ve got a few stronger bets for Friday. Il ridoto running now.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve registered then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
I don't know about that. I'd be mildly disgruntled and curious until I got home and put the kettle on but wouldn't take it any further. Not going to be arsed to go to the police station for that. I suspect that a lot of people would react similarly. (It would bother me more of course under the new system - because it would imply someone is impersonating me with fraudulent i.d.. But I problem even then would write it off as a teller mistake.)
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
I’d support this too.
It was the database sitting behind it that was the chilling element of the New Labour proposals.
How can you produce an ID card without a database of some kind to check it against? Do you imagine that the DVLA issues you a driver's license but has no information about you in its database?
Don't be silly neither of us are objecting to a db containing dob,address,name,id card number....its the adding on of tax records,criminal record,medical data which was the core of the labour proposal....all your data tied together in one giant db.
A separate db containing only the data required for an id card isn't an issue
But…. with the right APIs it’s the work of seconds to link them…
This is why I no longer oppose ID cards. The technology has overtaken them and any objections I once had. We de facto already have them, we just don’t have the useful card/app to sit on top.
Building a system that explicitly links them together with no access control, so that anyone with access to the system has access to everything is clinically insane.
For a start, it's one stop shopping for identity theft.
You can access your personal tax account on gov.uk, your medical records via the NHS app, your council tax records on its website, all your motoring records via gov.uK etc. etc.
Based on your posts, I am sure you have thought through some decent passwords and the like. Most will still be using “Password123!” and four digit codes that are really two digit codes because they are years and start “19”. At this point, for those people it’s better to have it all centralised to make recovery easier later.
The government gateway doesn't use user provided passwords - for just that reason.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
Who said anything about giving access to just anyone?
That was the system that New Labour were implementing when the Coalition government cut them off.
It was bizarre and broken every rule of data security.
Fair enough. I was assuming you’d have a cadre made up existing tax inspectors etc. warranted officers plus a small cadre of vetted staff in the int/ops side.
No-one could make a case for increasing the access currently enforced at the time.
Since GDPR that has been massively clamped down, as well.
To do such inter-departmental searches *now*, you need reasons and explicit authorisation.
Together with the Council Tax demand from my local council- was a printed leaflet telling me that 'Photo ID is now required to vote in England'. It continues, 'Available forms of photo ID for voting are set out in law. The list includes.' 'Passport, Photo Driving Licence, Older Person's Buss Pass,Blue Badge'. It also states 'You can use your photo ID if it's out of date if the photo is still a good likeness'. These are the exact words used by the Council.
So - when I show my out of date passport my right to cast my vote will depend upon the Poll Clerk accepting my old passport photo is 'still a good likeness'.
Who is judging how good the Poll Clerk's eyesight is?
I shall test what happens on 4th May.
But it does sound like the council/government is making reasonable efforts to publicise the change
Manic Manny Macron has pushed pension reform over the heads of Parliament. Unsurprisingly the opposition has exploded.
In all likelihood this will spill on to the streets and the UK strikes will look endearingly amateur.
I remain to be convinced the Rugby World Cup and the Olympics will go seamlessly.
That reminds me of an account of French socialists turning up to support the Chartists in 1848, and being utterly disgusted by their behaviour. Instead of going on the rampage, they held a peaceful good-natured protest.
It's not looking too peaceful on Place de la concorde atm
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
Den't worry Moon - after your stunning record last Cheltenham I'm avoided your tips this time on the grounds that you are unlikely to pull it off twice.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
Den't worry Moon - after your stunning record last Cheltenham I'm avoided your tips this time on the grounds that you are unlikely to pull it off twice.
I’ve had two winners. 3 seconds. Unlucky on Love Envoi postal pipped in second. I still have another 6 bets to add another one or two. I’ve got a few stronger bets for Friday. Il ridoto running now.
Now I've told you I'm not betting, your tips will all win of course. Horses not my thing.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
Den't worry Moon - after your stunning record last Cheltenham I'm avoided your tips this time on the grounds that you are unlikely to pull it off twice.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
It depends which dasher drasher turns up - the dasher or the drasher 😆
This has been the best afternoon of racing this week by far. The stayers had no outstanding candidate for the win, that’s classic Cheltenham Festival, wide open racing, and in the previous races they have been five a breast hurtling to the line, after lot of frenetic jockeying all the way around.
Hope Gold Tweet makes it in from the course before it gets dark.
Den't worry Moon - after your stunning record last Cheltenham I'm avoided your tips this time on the grounds that you are unlikely to pull it off twice.
I’ve had two winners. 3 seconds. Unlucky on Love Envoi postal pipped in second. I still have another 6 bets to add another one or two. I’ve got a few stronger bets for Friday. Il ridoto running now.
Now I've told you I'm not betting, your tips will all win of course. Horses not my thing.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
Yes but the same person can't keep coming into a polling booth and voting as different people. They would be spotted and it is too much effort and too big a risk and for so little return to have a team of people doing it. It is completely ineffective. As I have posted before I have some experience of this (not doing it obviously) in ward which I won't mention. Voter fraud is rife here every time. It is the nature of the ward. Personation doesn't work. It was tried here and they got caught (well actually they didn't, they did a runner), however I can guarantee postal vote fraud happens every time there. I'm sorry to say that unwittingly all 3 main parties have at one time or other been at it here. The winner is usually the one best at. Everyone knows it is going on with fictitious names on the register. So far there has only been one successful prosecution. The government has targeted the wrong fraud.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Not sure what the scare quotes are for. And really - it's a very hardy and recurrent plant that grows like topsy all over the shop. It's not like you need loads.
Ramsons is abundant and very resilient.
I prefer foraging for mushrooms as the stakes are higher, if you make a mistake
We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
WTF!? Condemned out of your own mouth for deliberate voter suppression.
"reminding identified Con voters" - but not Labour, LD, Reform ...
This is politics....
The shamelessness astounds me. Really does.
You have disclaimed any right to make any moral judgement on PB ever again.
I'll remind any SNP voters I find then.
You can't accuse me of having an interest in the election, as any in Guz will have to have a postal vote anyway. But consider this.
A. Tory Gmt changes the rules. B. Tories on the ground tell only Tory voters.
See?
And presumably Labour will be telling Labour voters?
Based on what their activists here are saying, they're preparing to at best not do so, and at worst tell people to turn up without ID so they can "make a scene" and pretend that this equalisation of GB with NI is some great travesty so that next time they get in they have an excuse to explicitly rig the system.
You really don't sound like someone keen to see some detailed Labour policies so you can decide whether to vote for them or not.
There is a void caused by the Labour leadership's failure to announce policies - it's not my fault if Labour activists fill that void with things that dissuade me!
Mmm. So let me guess - massively opposed to a national ID card, massively in favour of ID for in-person voting at elections.
Let me guess in return - massively against needing to prove whoi you are to vote, perfectly happy to need to prove who you are to pick up a parcel.
The point is - and has always been - that there are ways to prevent personation that don't depress turnout of people who don't have their driver's license on them at all time.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
But if you don’t care enough to check, or to come off the register, then does it matter? There won’t be many in your position.
So it doesn't matter if someone gets a second vote is that what you are saying? Yes there is a lot in my position as well....about 30% don't vote in a general election. Most will still be registered
I don't think the possession of ID is the biggest problem. I've got loads of ID. But I rarely carry it with me. I've ditched a wallet for a phone, which I pay for stuff on. If an old git like me does that, how many younger people act similarly?
So, not a problem as long as I remember that I need to take my ID with me to vote. I'll do that, because I'm motivated. But how many folk will turn up at polling stations and go 'bugger, I've forgotten to bring my ID - only got my phone. Can't be arsed to go home and get it, though'. Quite a lot, I fear.
I have a photo of my ID on my phone
I don't think you'll be allowed to vote with that.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Not sure what the scare quotes are for. And really - it's a very hardy and recurrent plant that grows like topsy all over the shop. It's not like you need loads.
Ramsons is abundant and very resilient.
I prefer foraging for mushrooms as the stakes are higher, if you make a mistake
A friend of mine had a near-death experience with a deadly webcap. A kidney transplant later...
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
This is a very non-day at Cheltenham; if you don't like crowds, Thursday is your day. And to think they were thinking of extending the meeting to five days.
That would dilute it imo.
Four days is pretty gruelling for a horse racing festival.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
But if you don’t care enough to check, or to come off the register, then does it matter? There won’t be many in your position.
So it doesn't matter if someone gets a second vote is that what you are saying? Yes there is a lot in my position as well....about 30% don't vote in a general election. Most will still be registered
yes but see my other post. You can't keep walking into a polling station and voting under a different name. You will get spotted very easily.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Not sure what the scare quotes are for. And really - it's a very hardy and recurrent plant that grows like topsy all over the shop. It's not like you need loads.
Ramsons is abundant and very resilient.
I prefer foraging for mushrooms as the stakes are higher, if you make a mistake
A friend of mine had a near-death experience with a deadly webcap. A kidney transplant later...
Fond days foraging for shrooms then making them into tea
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
This is a very non-day at Cheltenham; if you don't like crowds, Thursday is your day. And to think they were thinking of extending the meeting to five days.
That would dilute it imo.
Four days is pretty gruelling for a horse racing festival.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
But if you don’t care enough to check, or to come off the register, then does it matter? There won’t be many in your position.
So it doesn't matter if someone gets a second vote is that what you are saying? Yes there is a lot in my position as well....about 30% don't vote in a general election. Most will still be registered
yes but see my other post. You can't keep walking into a polling station and voting under a different name. You will get spotted very easily.
a team of activists with a list each going once into a polling centre, then moving onto the next?
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
The flag man, don't forget the flag. Could even be two, one for the design and one for the hologram, just like the wonderful GHICs.
Oh no. Don't mind it being linked to my tax and medical records but no flags please. I won't carry that. Go to jail first.
So you dont mind sharing those sensitive records with the "Home Office forecasts envisaged that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have had access to the database"
I was joking really. Although it's true this aspect doesn't instinctively bother me as much as I know it does many people. I find much of the concern to be irrational, precious, paranoid. But don't get me wrong. I don't mean we shouldn't be careful. It's not as if I'd just be happy with anything. I'd have a proper think about any proposal, cost v benefits, the scope, the controls, and take a view accordingly.
There were, essentially, no controls.
Every single data security expert said the system as designed was stupid.
It would have been an epic, epic problem when GDPR came in, for example. It would have meant the whole system would either have to be shut down, or GDPR not be implemented.
Incidentally, I do client data security as part of my day job. If I designed a system that did the above and implemented it, I would be legally liable. In a big way.
Are you an EU hater or something?
I'm not arguing for a system from ages ago that wasn't implemented. I'm just saying if something was proposed now I'd take a look and decide whether I liked it or not. As opposed to being flat out opposed on principle.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Nothing personal, but IMO this is one of the most incorrect deductions I've ever read on PB. If turnout goes down it'll probably be around 99% due to people not realising they need ID, and who can't be bothered to go back home and visit the polling station again. Elderly people who've been voting since 1960 without ID are definitely going to be taken by surprise by this. In a general election a lot of them probably would make the effort to make the journey a second time, but probably not for a local election.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
I backed that this morning @ 11 and laid it back @ 5.5 before the race! Your tips move the market obviously.
I think a lot of people turn up with money, have a few drinks, not come with much knowledge of the horses and their season. But it is hard to pick festival winners because the horses have looked good on their day during the winter, but surrounded by less quality on that day, and it’s making the call have they got it in them in surrounded by stronger rivals - how much of a step up for them.
The bookmakers are taking Euro’s on the course. A lot of the on course betting is in Euro’s this week.
I've been a couple of times. I much prefer flat racing but it's a great occasion.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
But if you don’t care enough to check, or to come off the register, then does it matter? There won’t be many in your position.
So it doesn't matter if someone gets a second vote is that what you are saying? Yes there is a lot in my position as well....about 30% don't vote in a general election. Most will still be registered
yes but see my other post. You can't keep walking into a polling station and voting under a different name. You will get spotted very easily.
a team of activists with a list each going once into a polling centre, then moving onto the next?
Pagan you clearly don't know about polling day operations. Every activist is knocking up, delivering get out the vote leaflets, running a committee room, telling, delivering people to the polling booth, etc, etc. There isn't enough people to do that so you move people into target wards. There is no point in doing it in a non target ward. This is far more productive than using your entire team to get a few fraudulent votes. Most wards only have one or two polling stations anyway. Telling itself is a huge operation.
Really you don't have a team of people to do this that aren't all doing something far more productive.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Nothing personal, but IMO this is one of the most incorrect deductions I've ever read on PB. If turnout goes down it'll probably be around 99% due to people not realising they need ID, and who can't be bothered to go back home and visit the polling station again. Elderly people who've been voting since 1960 without ID are definitely going to be taken by surprise by this.
That's going to happen a lot.
What happens in a village like mine where there are only 200 houses and everyone knows everyone? The tellers refuse their next door neighbour because they didn't bring i.d.?
“Andy Chamberlain, of the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, said the biggest obstacles facing the self-employed had been ignored.
“The trade body estimates more than 700,000 people have been forced out of self-employment since 2020, following the pandemic a cost of living crisis and changes to complex freelancer tax rules which have taken the shine off "being your own boss" for many.”
That was deliberate policy. It’s a choice.
What's the justification behind that choice?
That "contracting" has been abused in two ways.
By high rate earners in permanent jobs, reducing their tax. By employers of low income workers, forcing them to be contractors, so that they have less employment rights.
I missed @Luckyguy1983 Question but that’s a good answer
I'd hate to see the bad one.
The bad one would be: 'there is no justification for the changes to freelancer tax rules'.
Big race of today, 3m Hurdle. And I’m quietly confident here of a third winner this week. Gold Tweet is in my notebook with winner winner written around it, that’s got to mean something.
Still out there on the course somewhere 🤦♀️
The BBC had Dashel Drasher as a long price choice. Should have picked that each way.
This is a very non-day at Cheltenham; if you don't like crowds, Thursday is your day. And to think they were thinking of extending the meeting to five days.
That would dilute it imo.
Four days is pretty gruelling for a horse racing festival.
They use different horses each day, you know.
But it’s not about engineering extra chances for more winners, and generating more money for English horse racing, it’s supposed to be the best in class v the best in class - that’s the main point that shouldn’t be lost.
Mr. Boy, imposing national ID cards on everyone, especially given the atrocious database that Labour tried to attach to their last horrendous effort, is completely unnecessary.
Indeed a national id card is acceptable to most providing
It does not have to be carried and produced on demand of some over officious bod because he says so
It just confirms your ID and no other information is tied to it such as tax or medical records.
Hell I am one of the more "Governement keep your nose out" people who posts here and I would nod along and think yes nothing wrong with that. Its just something useful to me for voting, opening an account etc.
What would be on it then? Just your name and a photo? That seems a bit bare.
The flag man, don't forget the flag. Could even be two, one for the design and one for the hologram, just like the wonderful GHICs.
Oh no. Don't mind it being linked to my tax and medical records but no flags please. I won't carry that. Go to jail first.
So you dont mind sharing those sensitive records with the "Home Office forecasts envisaged that "265 government departments and as many as 48,000 accredited private sector organisations" would have had access to the database"
I was joking really. Although it's true this aspect doesn't instinctively bother me as much as I know it does many people. I find much of the concern to be irrational, precious, paranoid. But don't get me wrong. I don't mean we shouldn't be careful. It's not as if I'd just be happy with anything. I'd have a proper think about any proposal, cost v benefits, the scope, the controls, and take a view accordingly.
There were, essentially, no controls.
Every single data security expert said the system as designed was stupid.
It would have been an epic, epic problem when GDPR came in, for example. It would have meant the whole system would either have to be shut down, or GDPR not be implemented.
Incidentally, I do client data security as part of my day job. If I designed a system that did the above and implemented it, I would be legally liable. In a big way.
Are you an EU hater or something?
I'm not arguing for a system from ages ago that wasn't implemented. I'm just saying if something was proposed now I'd take a look and decide whether I liked it or not. As opposed to being flat out opposed on principle.
Each time a national ID card scheme has been proposed, similar farces have been proposed.
The one that got to implementation had this farce in the specification. When challenged, the then government refused to remove it.
In my view, face eating leopards who have show an established, ongoing, propensity to eat faces, will probably try and eat your face. A hefty cage is recommended.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Your last paragraph, with all due respect, is nonsense. If turnout goes down it will be because large numbers of valid voters who lack the necessary photo ID are turned away. They will absolutely dwarf any personation that is deterred. I find it genuinely chilling that people can be so blasé about disenfranchising voters. People died so we could have the right to vote FFS.
1) Prove it.
2) If you don't have a valid photo ID, you aren't a "valid voter". Therefore, no "valid voters" will be prevented from voting as a result of the new rules. QED
3) Splitting hairs a bit, but did people really die for our right to vote, per se? If all parties in (say) WWII were democracies, would we not have still defended ourselves from outside invasion? Or is the (implicit) argument that a democratic Germany wouldn't have tried?
1) There are millions of people who lack the valid ID. There are not millions of people turning up and voting in place of other people. On the basis of past evidence there are not even thousands.
2) so if the government decided women couldn't vote it would be fine because only men would be valid voters and they could still vote?
3) Ever heard of the Peterloo Massacre?
1) Prove it. You cannot prove a lack of personation on the basis that a system that isn't designed to catch it, isn't catching it.
2) Er... what? I mean, it wouldn't be fine, obviously (unless women voluntarily gave up suffrage en masse, for some reason?) But no, the problem wouldn't be "valid voters" not being allowed to vote. The two aren't remotely comparable.
3) Only in passing. But OK, I stand corrected. Fifteen people died for my right to vote.
1) Surely the people who want to make a very controversial change to how people vote should be able to produce some evidence that personation is a problem. They've been in power long enough. The fact that they haven't even attempted to shows that they themselves know that it is bullshit, and they are a bunch of liars.
"very controversial" only because you say so. I say it's not remotely controversial, because this is standard practice elsewhere in democratic countries, equalises GB with NI and anyway official Labour policy for ages was compulsory ID cards so what are they even complaining about.
However, this is not the point. The point is that it is currently impossible to demonstrate personation, because the system simply doesn't check for it. So how could anyone produce evidence for (or against) it?
Surely if personation at polling stations were an issue we would have loads of stories of people turning up to vote to be told "sorry, according to our records you've already voted"? That doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.
Nah, if you turn up lateish you can see which addresses aren't crossed out and just tell the officials you live at the ones that are still left, and hope. Or you find out which of your neighbours never vote and it's even more straightforward. Lots of other ways. Also, currently if it does happen, the officials just assume they made a mistake in the crossing out - do we keep track of how often this happens?
If personation were happening on any kind of scale it would be with the connivance of one of the political parties, at least at the local level. But it just doesn't make sense. The risks of getting caught are too great, because unlike postal voting fraud it has to be done in plain sight and it involves a lot of people. Just on a risk/reward basis it isn't worth it - the number of votes you could shift are marginal and the cost if you got caught is huge. And with the effort involved you could probably find more legitimate voters to vote for you.
Plus, if it were happening at any scale there would be complainants. You wouldn’t turn up at your polling station, get told “sorry you’ve already voted” and leave it there. And if you’ve register then you’re going to have some intent to vote, so there would be cases of that.
You can buy lists of who voted, someone hasn't voted last couple of elections, probably not going to vote in this one so fairly safe. I went on voter strike in 2010...for all I know I have voted in every election since
But if you don’t care enough to check, or to come off the register, then does it matter? There won’t be many in your position.
So it doesn't matter if someone gets a second vote is that what you are saying? Yes there is a lot in my position as well....about 30% don't vote in a general election. Most will still be registered
yes but see my other post. You can't keep walking into a polling station and voting under a different name. You will get spotted very easily.
a team of activists with a list each going once into a polling centre, then moving onto the next?
Pagan you clearly don't know about polling day operations. Every activist is knocking up, delivering get out the vote leaflets, running a committee room, telling, delivering people to the polling booth, etc, etc. There isn't enough people to do that so you move people into target wards. There is no point in doing it in a non target ward. This is far more productive than using your entire team to get a few fraudulent votes. Most wards only have one or two polling stations anyway. Telling itself is a huge operation.
Really you don't have a team of people to do this that aren't all doing something far more productive.
What about using postal voting to corral your base's voters and cut out the polling station bit. I don't doubt this is happening - telling voters to register for a postal vote and then going round to collect the envelopes.
I really can’t get worked up about the voter ID requirements. Plenty of other countries manage it. I don’t really have a problem with someone demonstrating they are who they say they are when they go to vote. It really seems wholly sensible in a lot of ways.
I would say that I’m not sure it’s curing any problem we had, in that I don’t think rampant impersonation was a huge issue in our elections. As others have said, the postal voting system is more open to abuse.
How do we know personation was a problem, if we were taking no steps t identify or prevent it?
If turnout reduces significantly under the new rules requiring voter ID, clearly personation was a problem. If it barely changes, clearly introducing it doesn't create hardship. Win-win.
Nothing personal, but IMO this is one of the most incorrect deductions I've ever read on PB. If turnout goes down it'll probably be around 99% due to people not realising they need ID, and who can't be bothered to go back home and visit the polling station again. Elderly people who've been voting since 1960 without ID are definitely going to be taken by surprise by this.
That's going to happen a lot.
What happens in a village like mine where there are only 200 houses and everyone knows everyone? The tellers refuse their next door neighbour because they didn't bring i.d.?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the policy I can absolutely see the whole thing turning into a farce on polling day and it becoming the big story, once again reinforcing how useless the government is. It will be another glorious PR triumph for the sinking Tory ship.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a government implode so catastrophically. I thought the last 2 years of NewLab were bad. Little did I know…
If the Tories were genuine about securing election integrity why didn’t they focus on postal voting?
Ah yes, a key Tory demographic extensively uses postal voting.
But who benefits most from Dodgy postal votes? It doesn't follow that the party who benefits most from postal votes benefits most from DPVs.
You're confusing who benefits from dodgy votes (rarely anyone).
If rarely anyone benefitted from dodgy votes, there would be no reason to object to bringing GB in line with NI.
I don't follow. The objection is that it makes voting a bit more difficult, and won't have any effect on dodgy votes which are extremely rare in person in polling stations.
Your idiotic suggestion that the people who object (see below) are objecting because they think they are currently benefiting from personation in polling stations is laughable, but typical of the shitty "arguments" that supporters of this change make.
Nope. Labour and the Lib Dems are objecting because they think the Tories will benefit from the change (presumably because their voters are proportionally more likely to be too stupid to be able to identify themselves).
I (and OGH in the header) think that's mistaken.
I won't respond to your trolling, but my view FWIW is that it's a transparent but probably rather ineffective attempt at suppression of younger (and therefore less documented plus more left-wing) voters. As OGH suggests it may do some collateral damage to the very elderly, mostly Tory, vote, so the overall effect may simply be to make British democracy a bit less representative all round.
The younger are less documented?
I agree with OGH. If the Tories have done this for suppression reasons to gain an advantage I think they have shot themselves in the foot.
That we don't have to identify ourselves at the ballot seems odd to me - I may be naive in at least entertaining the thought that the government actually saw a problem that needed fixing. The acceptable I.D. is far too narrow though - a credit card or bank statement or utility bill should have sufficed. They should clamp down on postal voting next.
The Electoral Commission told them that there was a problem that needed fixing, so I'm not sure why this is "naive".
I'm not sure about bank statements or utility bills, they don't come with photos and the latter at least isn't very secure. We needed to add "Minnie" to our water bill account so that she had some utility bill in her name for something and there was no check on the validity of it worthy of the name.
Strong agree on postal voting.
The electoral commission said that there was a problem that some voters had the *perception* that voting could be compromised, but that there was no evidence that personation was an actual problem in polling stations.
I wonder who is trying to give people that false perception?
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Not sure what the scare quotes are for. And really - it's a very hardy and recurrent plant that grows like topsy all over the shop. It's not like you need loads.
Allium ursinum may well be locally dominant where it grows but many other things on foragers lists aren't so robust or common. Encouraging the phenomenon seems like a bad idea.
We (being the county plant recorders) have had requests from professional foragers asking 'do you know where any X grows locally' - including from someone who was allegedly making a programme with Ainsley Harriot. They wanted to find a particular plant that isn't that common locally (although it does grow in our nearest woods - a SSSI). They were told to look elsewhere, although I've no idea what they actually did in the end.
It isn't really foraging if you are harvesting for profit, either through selling to restaurants or selling courses. It is definitely not foraging if you have to ask where to find things!
We are reminding identified Con voters of the need for ID at the polling station. Or offering them a postal vote form.
So I'm not sure it is a major issue.
WTF!? Condemned out of your own mouth for deliberate voter suppression.
"reminding identified Con voters" - but not Labour, LD, Reform ...
This is politics....
The shamelessness astounds me. Really does.
You have disclaimed any right to make any moral judgement on PB ever again.
I'll remind any SNP voters I find then.
You can't accuse me of having an interest in the election, as any in Guz will have to have a postal vote anyway. But consider this.
A. Tory Gmt changes the rules. B. Tories on the ground tell only Tory voters.
See?
And presumably Labour will be telling Labour voters?
Based on what their activists here are saying, they're preparing to at best not do so, and at worst tell people to turn up without ID so they can "make a scene" and pretend that this equalisation of GB with NI is some great travesty so that next time they get in they have an excuse to explicitly rig the system.
You really don't sound like someone keen to see some detailed Labour policies so you can decide whether to vote for them or not.
There is a void caused by the Labour leadership's failure to announce policies - it's not my fault if Labour activists fill that void with things that dissuade me!
Mmm. So let me guess - massively opposed to a national ID card, massively in favour of ID for in-person voting at elections.
Let me guess in return - massively against needing to prove whoi you are to vote, perfectly happy to need to prove who you are to pick up a parcel.
The point is - and has always been - that there are ways to prevent personation that don't depress turnout of people who don't have their driver's license on them at all time.
In which caseit would be better if Labour and the Lib Dems were making that point, rather than relying on the lazy (and, apparently, in Labour's case projection) accusations of attempting to rig the system.
"NEW SNP leadership candidate Humza Yousaf just jokingly asked a group of Ukrainian women in Edinburgh “where are all the men?” There was polite and awkward laughter before they explained that many of their partners had stayed in Ukraine to fight in the war."
Fairly happy with the NHS deal, the lump sum and 5% pay rise should come in handy at a time when finances are tough for me having bought my first home. Home ownership can be stressful if you don't have a lot of money to play with and your savings more or less depleted with such a big investment.
Will be a lot happier if I can start to build my savings up again and the bonus will help towards that.
Note to all that wild garlic (or ramsons, if you like) is out in force at the mo. Like nettles, these leaves can be picked with guiltless abandon (but taste better and don't sting). Roughly chopped into plain rice with a little salt, it makes for an excellent, simple side dish - and the flowers that will appear next month make for a nice (tasty) garnish.
Guiltless abandon - unless on private land, or a protected wildlife site.
As it is an ancient woodland indicator, that might a significant number of the places it grows.
Not a fan of the 'foraging' business for various reasons.
Not sure what the scare quotes are for. And really - it's a very hardy and recurrent plant that grows like topsy all over the shop. It's not like you need loads.
Allium ursinum may well be locally dominant where it grows but many other things on foragers lists aren't so robust or common. Encouraging the phenomenon seems like a bad idea.
We (being the county plant recorders) have had requests from professional foragers asking 'do you know where any X grows locally' - including from someone who was allegedly making a programme with Ainsley Harriot. They wanted to find a particular plant that isn't that common locally (although it does grow in our nearest woods - a SSSI). They were told to look elsewhere, although I've no idea what they actually did in the end.
It isn't really foraging if you are harvesting for profit, either through selling to restaurants or selling courses. It is definitely not foraging if you have to ask where to find things!
It's one thing to get a little for oneself. Quite another to collect whole sacksful for the restaurant trade.
"NEW SNP leadership candidate Humza Yousaf just jokingly asked a group of Ukrainian women in Edinburgh “where are all the men?” There was polite and awkward laughter before they explained that many of their partners had stayed in Ukraine to fight in the war."
Comments
https://metro.co.uk/2023/03/16/football-fan-jailed-for-punching-jack-grealish-found-dead-18455336/
Wagner group put £13 million bounty on Italian defence minister
Mafia must be feeling conflicted
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/16/russian-wagner-group-places-15m-bounty-italian-minister-guido/
It’s fine to criticise the measures to strengthen the security of the ballot (I disagree with your view but whatever). But to attack a foot soldier for doing what is rational given the context of the law is unfair
I am assuming that there aren’t the numbers in the AN to vote no confidence in the government over this?
On the other hand, if I keep it vague, you pounce on the vagueness. Yet if I went into details on what I thought we should be doing, you'd just call me an 'armchair warrior' or some other rubbish.
Which is why you are being ridiculous.
Four days is pretty gruelling for a horse racing festival.
Perhaps the obvious answer is the right one - we don't hear much about voter personation at polling stations because it's pretty rare.
John dickweed at the council has access to the NIR as it was called and can look at anyones complete data they want.
Not only that but a single central db is a prime target for data abstraction by hackers and lets face it.....the civil service is not renowned for keeping our data safe already.
John dickweed at the council has access to the NIR as it was called and look at anyone in the countries data.
A central db of everything also becomes the golden grail target for hackers and criminals and it will get stolen sooner or later
I don't think NI does automatically issue ID - you need to apply for the free voter ID if you don't have anything suitable, and the process from what I recall from when I looked into it is more onerous than the one now in place in GB.
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail?
I agree with OGH. If the Tories have done this for suppression reasons to gain an advantage I think they have shot themselves in the foot.
That we don't have to identify ourselves at the ballot seems odd to me - I may be naive in at least entertaining the thought that the government actually saw a problem that needed fixing. The acceptable I.D. is far too narrow though - a credit card or bank statement or utility bill should have sufficed. They should clamp down on postal voting next.
Law making should be considered and for the benefit of the country.
Electoral politics occurs within the frame work set by the laws
They are different things
One stop shopping is insane. And giving access to everything at every single clearance level is doubly stupid.
How long before someone starts checking out political opponents using such a system? Or selling their embarrassing medical history stuff to the Daily Mail? That was the system that New Labour were implementing when the Coalition government cut them off.
It was bizarre and broken every rule of data security.
The bookmakers are taking Euro’s on the course. A lot of the on course betting is in Euro’s this week.
https://www.naturespot.org.uk/species/portevinia-maculata-0
I'm not sure about bank statements or utility bills, they don't come with photos and the latter at least isn't very secure. We needed to add "Minnie" to our water bill account so that she had some utility bill in her name for something and there was no check on the validity of it worthy of the name.
Strong agree on postal voting.
Every single data security expert said the system as designed was stupid.
It would have been an epic, epic problem when GDPR came in, for example. It would have meant the whole system would either have to be shut down, or GDPR not be implemented.
Incidentally, I do client data security as part of my day job. If I designed a system that did the above and implemented it, I would be legally liable. In a big way.
Are you an EU hater or something?
Since GDPR that has been massively clamped down, as well.
To do such inter-departmental searches *now*, you need reasons and explicit authorisation.
I prefer foraging for mushrooms as the stakes are higher, if you make a mistake
Otherwise it means a better deal for fewer workers.
The "vague, ineffectual attempts to be nice to everyone" tax is savage, though.
Really you don't have a team of people to do this that aren't all doing something far more productive.
What happens in a village like mine where there are only 200 houses and everyone knows everyone? The tellers refuse their next door neighbour because they didn't bring i.d.?
The one that got to implementation had this farce in the specification. When challenged, the then government refused to remove it.
In my view, face eating leopards who have show an established, ongoing, propensity to eat faces, will probably try and eat your face. A hefty cage is recommended.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a government implode so catastrophically. I thought the last 2 years of NewLab were bad. Little did I know…
I wonder who is trying to give people that false perception?
We (being the county plant recorders) have had requests from professional foragers asking 'do you know where any X grows locally' - including from someone who was allegedly making a programme with Ainsley Harriot. They wanted to find a particular plant that isn't that common locally (although it does grow in our nearest woods - a SSSI). They were told to look elsewhere, although I've no idea what they actually did in the end.
It isn't really foraging if you are harvesting for profit, either through selling to restaurants or selling courses. It is definitely not foraging if you have to ask where to find things!
https://twitter.com/BBCJamesCook/status/1636385968570908679
Will be a lot happier if I can start to build my savings up again and the bonus will help towards that.