The Tory voter suppression plan appears to be working – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact5 -
Oh, and the protestors, where the police were telling people not to touch them the other day.TOPPING said:
Plus there's the new Prime Minister's detachment. On the running machines and Peloton as we speak.Sandpit said:
They’re measuring inputs, rather than outputs.TOPPING said:I see the government has reached its target for 20,000 new police officers, a pledge made in the 2019 manifesto.
That's pretty shocking. Govt makes good on manifesto pledge is not something you see every day.
If only the police's reputation wasn't in the gutter this might have positive polling implications for the Cons. It still might.
20,000 more officers working on trivial motoring offences and policing ‘hate crime’ on Twitter - while house burglaries, car thefts and street robberies lead to little interest - isn’t going to go down well with the general public.0 -
Yes, happy to agree on "boring and stupid".kamski said:
Not only boring but stupid. SKS has been leader of the Labour party since April 2020. Does BJO offer an 'explanation' every time the Labour party has improved in the polls in the last 3 years?Anabobazina said:
You are weirdly obsessed. Try posting about something else for a change.bigjohnowls said:
The formerSandyRentool said:
In actual votes cast or national equivalent vote share?bigjohnowls said:2ND like SKS in LE 2023 vote count
A very bold prediction if the latter!
So now we have SKS Fans on board perhaps I can get an answer on my FPT question
Ten Weeks ago SKS Party had a 28 point lead according to YG
Today they have it at 15
SKS Fans please explain
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r2r7ejhs5x/TheTimes_VI_230215_W_.pdf
You are boring.
When he became leader Labour were about 20 points behind in the polls. People can demand that SKS fans explain when Labour start doing worse than that.1 -
It makes no difference of course but my late father was on a jury once. 2 girls alleging sexual abuse by a step father. In Scotland we need corroboration so you could only convict on both or none. One of the girls was seriously messed up with drugs etc, possibly because of the abuse but a completely unreliable witness. The other was crystal and the jury had no doubt that she had been abused. So they came back not guilty and not proven in the hope that the second complainer understood that she was believed.Big_G_NorthWales said:Not proven to be scrapped in Scottish Law
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235?at_medium=social&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=8BD34E66-E409-11ED-B7C3-5A6A79448730&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_format=link
So it does have its limited uses.0 -
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.Sean_F said:Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.0 -
Well according to you he'll never get the opportunity. FWIW you may be right.bigjohnowls said:Mexicanpete said:
Did you not catch my earlier post from Norwich where official Conservative Party literature tells voters in Labour wards they don't need ID?WillG said:
How is it disenfranchisement? They can very easily get ID and most have it already. Are people in Northern Ireland who already have this system disenfranchised? This is hardly gerrymandering or making people wait hours to vote.Mexicanpete said:
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?JohnLoony said:The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
This is Trumpian politics.
The very fact that you are relaxed about the whole affair suggests it is to your party political advantage.
SKS has not said he will reverse it has he?0 -
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.StillWaters said:
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact2 -
So what? Neither should be required. Voting should be a civil right, not a red-tape ridden process requiring one to jump through various administrative hoops.glw said:
Despite looking so similar getting each of those passes has different procedures and levels of scrutiny to obtain it.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
For the over 60s pass you have to provide a passport or driving licence, or if you don't have those you have to go to a Post Office with other ID to get a verification letter with other proofs of ID and address.
The over 18s pass doesn't need the initial scrutiny, simply sending a photo and filling in a form on a website is enough.
That's why the over 60s pass is valid and the over 18s pass is not. If the over 18s pass was properly scrutinised it would almost certainly also be acceptable.
Those going out to bat for this are going to look very stupid.0 -
I don't know that particular story but about 80% of the time the answer to "Who wrote that Russian short story?" Is A. I. Kuprin.FrankBooth said:Can any literary pbers help?
When I did my GCSE English literature in 1998 one of the texts was a short story translated from Russian. It was about a boy who is always late for school to the consternation of his teacher who later discovers it is because he spends ages walking through a forest on his way to school.
The story is a lesson on the wonders of nature and was written in the 'optimistic' years after Stalin's death. I do not remember the name but would be grateful to anyone who can tell me!1 -
Not sure they could make it much more obvious?Selebian said:
It's at least arguable:squareroot2 said:
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.Mexicanpete said:33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
- People without ID were able to vote
- People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
0 -
WOW! Blast from the past. Nice to see you Mr LoonyJohnLoony said:The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
1 -
A little perspective - these are the people least likely to have access to voter id:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9187/CBP-9187.pdf1 -
I'm sure that plenty of left wing activists will be performatively "denied" the right to vote.Selebian said:
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.Selebian said:
It's at least arguable:squareroot2 said:
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.Mexicanpete said:33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
- People without ID were able to vote
- People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.1 -
The days before they spent six figures of public money going after Darren Grimes.Mexicanpete said:
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.StillWaters said:
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact2 -
I never voiced an opinion on whether or not it is a good idea. I'm merely pointing out that people who think those two passes are basically the same because they look similar are wrong, and banging on about it even though it has been repeatedly explained on here makes people look very stupid.Anabobazina said:
So what? Neither should be required. Voting should be a civil right, not a red-tape ridden process requiring one to jump through various administrative hoops.glw said:
Despite looking so similar getting each of those passes has different procedures and levels of scrutiny to obtain it.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
For the over 60s pass you have to provide a passport or driving licence, or if you don't have those you have to go to a Post Office with other ID to get a verification letter with other proofs of ID and address.
The over 18s pass doesn't need the initial scrutiny, simply sending a photo and filling in a form on a website is enough.
That's why the over 60s pass is valid and the over 18s pass is not. If the over 18s pass was properly scrutinised it would almost certainly also be acceptable.
Those going out to bat for this are going to look very stupid.1 -
Surely the unemployed need ID to “sign on”?CarlottaVance said:A little perspective - these are the people least likely to have access to voter id:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9187/CBP-9187.pdf0 -
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.4 -
With their poll card?eek said:
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote.Endillion said:That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.0 -
The polling card that says "you must have photo ID to vote"?TheValiant said:
I could easily see a situation where the old couple stroll down to their local station to vote Conservative, as they always have done, with their polling card in hand, as they always have done.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
.0 -
The PB Tories are very relaxed about Voter ID.
I wonder why?7 -
Expired passports are ok as long as you still look like the photo.FrankBooth said:
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.Sean_F said:Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.0 -
How very DARE everyone not shower this with likes, it is clearly the funniest comment going on PB today.Luckyguy1983 said:
Don't worry, they'll never get rid of Mickey.rcs1000 said:
If I read the Tweet correctly, he's not planning on staying beyond the end of his contract.not_on_fire said:A large number of 538 employees are being let go, likely including Nate Silver
https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1650899579234140168?s=46&t=bneQ7jbmSyPWBrSchhqwTw
I have a friend who's very senior at Disney, I hope he survives this.
1 -
If you don't have the middle choice available you're pushed to go Guilty or Not Guilty. Hence there will be more of both of those. And given a Guilty is the only verdict leading to conviction this change on the face of it will improve the conviction stats. Is this the main driver of it iyo?DavidL said:
It makes no difference of course but my late father was on a jury once. 2 girls alleging sexual abuse by a step father. In Scotland we need corroboration so you could only convict on both or none. One of the girls was seriously messed up with drugs etc, possibly because of the abuse but a completely unreliable witness. The other was crystal and the jury had no doubt that she had been abused. So they came back not guilty and not proven in the hope that the second complainer understood that she was believed.Big_G_NorthWales said:Not proven to be scrapped in Scottish Law
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235?at_medium=social&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=8BD34E66-E409-11ED-B7C3-5A6A79448730&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_format=link
So it does have its limited uses.0 -
British and German QRA Typhoon fighter aircraft, chasing bears out of the Baltic Sea again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/04/26/british-nato-fighter-jets-russian-warplanes-baltic-sea/0 -
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.Driver said:
With their poll card?eek said:
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote.Endillion said:That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
The Government overrode the electoral commission who said requiring the card to be presented would be more than enough verification.0 -
Especially if it makes someone feel ‘sick’glw said:
I never voiced an opinion on whether or not it is a good idea. I'm merely pointing out that people who think those two passes are basically the same because they look similar are wrong, and banging on about it even though it has been repeatedly explained on here makes people look very stupid.Anabobazina said:
So what? Neither should be required. Voting should be a civil right, not a red-tape ridden process requiring one to jump through various administrative hoops.glw said:
Despite looking so similar getting each of those passes has different procedures and levels of scrutiny to obtain it.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
For the over 60s pass you have to provide a passport or driving licence, or if you don't have those you have to go to a Post Office with other ID to get a verification letter with other proofs of ID and address.
The over 18s pass doesn't need the initial scrutiny, simply sending a photo and filling in a form on a website is enough.
That's why the over 60s pass is valid and the over 18s pass is not. If the over 18s pass was properly scrutinised it would almost certainly also be acceptable.
Those going out to bat for this are going to look very stupid.0 -
But tax fraud is a known problem, yet there is no requirement for a company registering for VAT in the UK to prove they actually exist at that address. (see recent case of 11,000 Chinese companies sharing an address in Cardiff)JohnLoony said:The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
Tory double standards.0 -
Not seen this video before.
Dame Edna on Wogan with Mr and Mrs Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKphnyDkNqY
Donald does his usual thing of the time about how the US is being taking advantage of by Japan etc.1 -
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-23 -
Yes, but that's not my point. See the photos upthread - if you have a poll card you know you need photo ID.eek said:
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.Driver said:
With their poll card?eek said:
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote.Endillion said:That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.0 -
Thanks but he is too old. I'm sure it was written in the 50s.Dura_Ace said:
I don't know that particular story but about 80% of the time the answer to "Who wrote that Russian short story?" Is A. I. Kuprin.FrankBooth said:Can any literary pbers help?
When I did my GCSE English literature in 1998 one of the texts was a short story translated from Russian. It was about a boy who is always late for school to the consternation of his teacher who later discovers it is because he spends ages walking through a forest on his way to school.
The story is a lesson on the wonders of nature and was written in the 'optimistic' years after Stalin's death. I do not remember the name but would be grateful to anyone who can tell me!0 -
Welcome back!JohnLoony said:The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
1 -
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?1 -
It should all be digitised so that people can produce their voter ID card from their Apple Wallets.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
0 -
@MrHarryCole
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..1 -
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases. The government has simply decided that one type of 'proof' is unsuitable.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
I wonder why?1 -
Has he got his GB News gig lined up to keep the wolf from the door?Scott_xP said:@MrHarryCole
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..0 -
@paulwaugh
The final figures are in: just 63,279 people met last night's 5pm deadline to apply for new Voter ID.
That's a tiny 3% of the 2 MILLION people who lack the right ID to vote under the Govt's new rules.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/16511265486808309760 -
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.1 -
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.0 -
Wow, Scotty can even copy/paste a tweet that is the basis of the thread header!Scott_xP said:@paulwaugh
The final figures are in: just 63,279 people met last night's 5pm deadline to apply for new Voter ID.
That's a tiny 3% of the 2 MILLION people who lack the right ID to vote under the Govt's new rules.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/16511265486808309762 -
Just wondering... Are the Tories planning to have tellers at the polling stations this year?
If there are electors who are turned away for lack of voter ID, it would be unfair of them to vent their anger at polling station staff, the police or tellers representing other parties, wouldn't it?
Have the Tories given their tellers a proper briefing - and even made an attempt to carry out a risk management appraisal?0 -
The Electoral Commission recommended it not because they found any personation happening. Their reasoning was that some voters were worried about the integrity of the voting system, and that voter ID would reassure them.StillWaters said:
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
Now, I have only ever heard people worry about the result of an election because of dodgy postal voting, never because of personation at a polling station, so it seems illogical to try and reassure people by doing nothing about postal voting where the worries actually are.
Secondly, I reckon this botched partisan introduction of photo ID for voting in person has already done much more to damage the reputation of the voting system than any concerns people supposedly had about personation in polling stations.9 -
Absolutely astonishing.CarlottaVance said:JK Rowling vs the boyband:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1651166454375481348?s=20
Cravenly dumping on someone because they simply pointed out a violent rapist is male.
0 -
A significant step forward in making the Conservatives less offensive to mainstream voters.Scott_xP said:@MrHarryCole
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..0 -
SKS fans please explain.bigjohnowls said:
SKS has not said he will reverse it has he?Mexicanpete said:
Did you not catch my earlier post from Norwich where official Conservative Party literature tells voters in Labour wards they don't need ID?WillG said:
How is it disenfranchisement? They can very easily get ID and most have it already. Are people in Northern Ireland who already have this system disenfranchised? This is hardly gerrymandering or making people wait hours to vote.Mexicanpete said:
So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?JohnLoony said:The fact that there was only 1 prosecution for voter impersonation does not mean that it is not a problem. The whole point is that we don't know how much it happens, or what size of problem it is, because a lot of it goes undetected. Only hysterical revolutionaries fail to understand this basic common sense fact.
This is Trumpian politics.
The very fact that you are relaxed about the whole affair suggests it is to your party political advantage.
0 -
@SkyNewsMexicanpete said:
A significant step forward in making the Conservatives less offensive to mainstream voters.Scott_xP said:@MrHarryCole
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..
BREAKING: Chris Pincher will be standing down at the next election, Sky News understands.
Mr Pincher was elected as a Conservative MP in 2010, but has sat as an independent after allegations of sexual misconduct were made in June last year.0 -
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?Driver said:
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.0 -
You need to provide:Driver said:
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's identity to get a Student Oyster is demonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.1 -
A barber for those interested in a different kind of mullet:JosiasJessop said:
My dad and I used the same barber for years, and it was quite an unusual one as it was a combined barber shop and railway bookshop. He retired a few years back, sadly, as I really wanted my son to get a haircut there.Selebian said:
I went to the same barber as my dad for several yearsSandyRentool said:Off topic: Why does Ed Sheeran go to the same barber as Boris Johnson?
(most definitely not an allegation of paternity, just an observation on my experiences)
He seemed to know everyone in the city.
https://revolutiontrains.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DC967594_YLA_Mullet_PB_Northampton_30-07-1983-1320x691.jpg
1 -
That's a good question because, as best as I can tell, there's no good evidence for it.kamski said:
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?Driver said:
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
I think the logic (for want of a better word) goes: "Tories are evil, therefore they must be doing this because they will benefit from it, therefore this is voter suppression".1 -
Did the electoral commission say that? It would certainly make the whole thing a lot more reasonable.eek said:
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.Driver said:
With their poll card?eek said:
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote.Endillion said:That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
The Government overrode the electoral commission who said requiring the card to be presented would be more than enough verification.0 -
Indeed. QED.kamski said:
The Electoral Commission recommended it not because they found any personation happening. Their reasoning was that some voters were worried about the integrity of the voting system, and that voter ID would reassure them.StillWaters said:
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
Now, I have only ever heard people worry about the result of an election because of dodgy postal voting, never because of personation at a polling station, so it seems illogical to try and reassure people by doing nothing about postal voting where the worries actually are.
Secondly, I reckon this botched partisan introduction of photo ID for voting in person has already done much more to damage the reputation of the voting system than any concerns people supposedly had about personation in polling stations.0 -
I applied for one earlier this year, late January, from abroad. I was surprised that it only took between 2 and 3 weeks for the new one to be delivered. My surprise was that it is black, not at all like the blue of the old passports.FrankBooth said:
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.Sean_F said:Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.0 -
It was originally driven by the Electoral Commission in 2014, but they look to be in damage limitation mode and are disassociating themselves from the idea.Taz said:
Did not Bart post a link showing this was recommended by the Electoral Comission, hardly a bastion of the Tory Party.squareroot2 said:One should add the just because OGH says it's voter suppression doesn't mean.
It is.... the Thread header is not Gospel.
As an aside Parties do promote policies aimed at their electoral advantage. The Lib Dems want PR, Labour votes for 16 and 17 year olds.0 -
The obvious solution is to print the photo on the poll card. I got a poll card last month for a previous resident of my current flat, should I have been able to use that to vote?kamski said:
Did the electoral commission say that? It would certainly make the whole thing a lot more reasonable.eek said:
Polling cards are not a valid form of ID according to the law.Driver said:
With their poll card?eek said:
2 million don't have suitable Id that allows them to vote.Endillion said:That tweet in the header is utterly stupid. The 3% figure is just the proportion of those who didn't have ID with 1 day to go, who now do. It's relevant to precisely nothing.
70,000 have discovered the fact in time to get suitable ID
there are 1,930,000 people who may turn up at the polling station to discover they've been disenfranchised.
The Government overrode the electoral commission who said requiring the card to be presented would be more than enough verification.0 -
LOL. Whatever gets you through the night.Driver said:
That's a good question because, as best as I can tell, there's no good evidence for it.kamski said:
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?Driver said:
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.
I think the logic (for want of a better word) goes: "Tories are evil, therefore they must be doing this because they will benefit from it, therefore this is voter suppression".0 -
Look at it on a black background under direct natural light, you'll see it's very dark blue.eristdoof said:
I applied for one earlier this year, late January, from abroad. I was surprised that it only took between 2 and 3 weeks for the new one to be delivered. My surprise was that it is black, not at all like the blue of the old passports.FrankBooth said:
Not sure I would generalise to quite the extent you have but it begs the question of what happens in the general election next year.Sean_F said:Turnout in local elections is about one third. That one third are sufficiently engaged to have I/D, so I can't see it making any difference.
On a personal level I'm not voting this year but I'd use my passport if I was. Only problem is that it is up for renewal and I've no idea how long it takes to get a new one nowadays.0 -
Well there are 10 commissioners, 4 of which are appointed to represent political parties (I can see 1 Tory and 1 “smaller parties” representative who was ex SDLP).Mexicanpete said:
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.StillWaters said:
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
The rest look like pretty average senior establishment figures - former head of UK Statistics, etc.
I’m pretty impressed that 1 Tory can bend the entire Electoral Commission to his will!
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/about-us/commissioners/our-commissioners4 -
.
Individual voter registration, and voter ID, both came originally from the Electoral Commission, following that famous 2005 trial where Richard Mawrey QC, the commissioner, said: "Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising."StillWaters said:
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact2 -
Partisan complainers rarely complain that their side has benefitted from a change.kamski said:
Why do those partisan complainers think their side will be adversely affected?Driver said:
Yes, it's definitely led to a lot of disingenuous partisan complaints from people who think their side will be adversely affected.Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
[misleading photo]
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
As for me, I've wanted this since long before the Electoral Commission recommended it, and I don't care which party is putting it forward. Doing something about postal votes needs to be next.0 -
Yes. I think that some believe that it is a bit of a cop out for the jury. Whether they are right about that is hard to tell. Dundee juries used to be fairly notorious for not proven verdicts, especially on a Friday!kinabalu said:
If you don't have the middle choice available you're pushed to go Guilty or Not Guilty. Hence there will be more of both of those. And given a Guilty is the only verdict leading to conviction this change on the face of it will improve the conviction stats. Is this the main driver of it iyo?DavidL said:
It makes no difference of course but my late father was on a jury once. 2 girls alleging sexual abuse by a step father. In Scotland we need corroboration so you could only convict on both or none. One of the girls was seriously messed up with drugs etc, possibly because of the abuse but a completely unreliable witness. The other was crystal and the jury had no doubt that she had been abused. So they came back not guilty and not proven in the hope that the second complainer understood that she was believed.Big_G_NorthWales said:Not proven to be scrapped in Scottish Law
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235?at_medium=social&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_type=web_link&at_link_id=8BD34E66-E409-11ED-B7C3-5A6A79448730&at_link_origin=BBCScotlandNews&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_format=link
So it does have its limited uses.2 -
No, I signed on after losing my seat. No phot-ID was requested (or any ID, IIRC).Sandpit said:
Surely the unemployed need ID to “sign on”?CarlottaVance said:A little perspective - these are the people least likely to have access to voter id:
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9187/CBP-9187.pdf1 -
Elections have got to do two things from a fairness point of view. They have to actually be fair, and they have to be seen to be fair.
Take the personation thing that is said to be driving these changes. Nobody sane thinks there is a real problem (lack of prosecutions, huge difficulty of faking enough votes to tip a result). And problems with postal votes are rightly seen as a bigger issue. But being seen to be fair is a valid reason to tighten things up.
But the way the government have gone about it is seen as unfair, partly because of the way that a lot of older people's IDs are being waved through in a way that younger people's ID isn't. And it probably will end up making election results less reflective of the will of the people than they otherwise would be.
Oh, and the "but the Electoral Commission advice" excuse rather went down the toilet when the EC said "please delay this because councils aren't ready";
https://www.ft.com/content/3f82a61b-4c51-4d84-8997-ec767f2d34cd
Whether it's an effective scam by the government, or is one that sees them shooting themselves in the foot, we shall see. Doesn't stop it looking like a scam.
3 -
Hopefully the beginning of the end for this weirdo and his political career. Fingers crossed the voters of North West Leicestershire do their duty in Election 24 and rid us of this odd ball...Scott_xP said:@MrHarryCole
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..1 -
There is no wolf. That's just what the MSM and OWG want you to think.kinabalu said:
Has he got his GB News gig lined up to keep the wolf from the door?Scott_xP said:@MrHarryCole
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..
Wake up sheeple!1 -
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.Selebian said:
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.Selebian said:
It's at least arguable:squareroot2 said:
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.Mexicanpete said:33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
- People without ID were able to vote
- People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.0 -
Well, no one wrote to me to tell me!Driver said:
Not sure they could make it much more obvious?Selebian said:
It's at least arguable:squareroot2 said:
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.Mexicanpete said:33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
- People without ID were able to vote
- People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.
(May be due to me not having a vote in this round of locals. I've been disenfranchised, due to the local election being last year
) 2 -
Two reasons:Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it
2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
2 -
The 18+ card owner *doesn’t* need to prove their identifyAnabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases. The government has simply decided that one type of 'proof' is unsuitable.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
I wonder why?
0 -
How many of them have a passport or driving license? How many of their friends, relatives and acquantences have a passport or driving license? I'd confidently guess 100% to the first question and 98%+ for the latter.StillWaters said:
Well there are 10 commissioners, 4 of which are appointed to represent political parties (I can see 1 Tory and 1 “smaller parties” representative who was ex SDLP).Mexicanpete said:
Oh yes the Electoral Commission. A body that used to be beyond partisan advantage politics.StillWaters said:
Of course not. It’s too useful a stick to attack the Tories with regardless of the facts.Chris said:I still wonder whether this is necessarily going to be to the Tories' benefit, given that older people may tend to lack ID, coupled with the fact that normally turnout among older people is probably substantially higher than turnout among younger people lacking ID.
Has there been any proper demographic analysis to quantify the likely effect on support by party?
Just like they are blamed for not reversing Labour’s extension of postal voting.
Requiring correct ID is an entirely reasonable things - as recommended by the Electoral Commission in fact
The rest look like pretty average senior establishment figures - former head of UK Statistics, etc.
I’m pretty impressed that 1 Tory can bend the entire Electoral Commission to his will!
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/about-us/commissioners/our-commissioners1 -
I don't like the I.D. rules either. I'm not convinced it's going to benefit the Conservatives and don't think that it is some sort of plot.
This all started off with actual fraud in Tower Hamlets in 2015 which resulted in a review of electoral fraud, set up by Cameron, which came up with the recommendations which led to where we are today.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/02/tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman-accused-electoral-fraud-corruption-high-court
https://www.voice4change-england.org/post/tower-hamlets-the-bogeyman-of-uk-electoral-reform4 -
I didn't unfortunatelykinabalu said:
No, we don't let 'wet lettuce LD-sympathisers' stick their oar into who our leader should be, but he didn't need you as it turned out. It was never in doubt really. Starmer was one of the most solid odds-on shots in recent political betting. Hopefully you troughed some.Selebian said:
PB labourites not good at backing the winner?kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.SandyRentool said:
Stop painting me as an SKS fan - I voted Nandy.bigjohnowls said:
The formerSandyRentool said:
In actual votes cast or national equivalent vote share?bigjohnowls said:2ND like SKS in LE 2023 vote count
A very bold prediction if the latter!
So now we have SKS Fans on board perhaps I can get an answer on my FPT question
Ten Weeks ago SKS Party had a 28 point lead according to YG
Today they have it at 15
SKS Fans please explain
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/r2r7ejhs5x/TheTimes_VI_230215_W_.pdf
However, I accept that Starmer won the leadership, and I wish him and his team well in securing a GE victory.
Getting rid of the Tories is my priority- what's yours?
Or maybe non-PB labourites not good at backing a winner
ETA: As a wet lettuce centrist LD-sympathiser, I think I'd have voted for Starmer, given the vote. Not quite convinced by Nandy. But I haven't seen a great deal of her. Was a bit busy with a newborn child at the time!
SKS served me well on betting markets over the next couple of years though - you might almost say I'm a fan 1 -
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.1 -
Following on from @Carlotta's latest update on the Trans wars I ended up with the report commissioned by the University of Essex following their withdrawal of invitations to two speakers who were apparently transphobic.
The report is within this link (itself an apology for the invitation withdrawal) and all is well and good, inclusion this, freedom of speech that.
https://www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2021/05/17/review-of-two-events-with-external-speakers
But I was surprised to see extended sections of the report redacted. What gives? Why would this have happened? Anyone AL?
2 -
The problem for those associated with this miserable change is that few of the many people who could vote before and still can think, I'm so glad I have to show ID. Whereas everyone of the few who could vote before, and are now prevented from doing so due to lack of ID, are absolutely furious.FF43 said:
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.Selebian said:
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.Selebian said:
It's at least arguable:squareroot2 said:
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.Mexicanpete said:33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
- People without ID were able to vote
- People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.1 -
Garbage. I have just shown above that they do.StillWaters said:
The 18+ card owner *doesn’t* need to prove their identifyAnabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases. The government has simply decided that one type of 'proof' is unsuitable.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
I wonder why?0 -
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtueAnabobazina said:
You need to provide:Driver said:
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's
Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27993775.amp1 -
The number of people with concerns about voting being fair has surely increased?StillWaters said:
Two reasons:Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it
2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)1 -
I also think it is unfair to vent anger against Tories at teh polling station for the Voter ID law when they almost certainly had nothing to do with it.ClippP said:Just wondering... Are the Tories planning to have tellers at the polling stations this year?
If there are electors who are turned away for lack of voter ID, it would be unfair of them to vent their anger at polling station staff, the police or tellers representing other parties, wouldn't it?
Have the Tories given their tellers a proper briefing - and even made an attempt to carry out a risk management appraisal?
2 -
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.StillWaters said:
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtueAnabobazina said:
You need to provide:Driver said:
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's
Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27993775.amp
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.1 -
.
Any evidence that they are furious? Because if they are furious now, surely they’d be doing something about it while there is still time.FF43 said:
The problem for those associated with this miserable change is that few of the many people who could vote before and still can think, I'm so glad I have to show ID. Whereas everyone of the few who could vote before, and are now prevented from doing so due to lack of ID, are absolutely furious.FF43 said:
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.Selebian said:
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.Selebian said:
It's at least arguable:squareroot2 said:
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.Mexicanpete said:33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
- People without ID were able to vote
- People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.-1 -
Ah the perfection of my thesis has been spoiled. Still, a PB Labour leadership election would have been a Nandslide, I think.NickPalmer said:
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.0 -
IIRC, didn't their previous Conservative MP make the news after claiming that he shared a hotel room with another man merely to save money?GIN1138 said:
Hopefully the beginning of the end for this weirdo and his political career. Fingers crossed the voters of North West Leicestershire do their duty in Election 24 and rid us of this odd ball...Scott_xP said:@MrHarryCole
2m
Scooplet: Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over the vaccine/holocaust tweet.
Kicked out on 12 April, has 28 days to appeal...
Rumour mill says he wants to join Reclaim/Laurence Fox outfit..0 -
So did Mrs Foxy.NickPalmer said:
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.
I am not a member so have no vote.0 -
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.Anabobazina said:
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.StillWaters said:
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtueAnabobazina said:
You need to provide:Driver said:
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's
Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27993775.amp
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
3 -
Yes but I don't think the LP would be in such a strong position today. Starmer is much more of a problem to the CP than Nandy would have been IMO.kinabalu said:
Ah the perfection of my thesis has been spoiled. Still, a PB Labour leadership election would have been a Nandslide, I think.NickPalmer said:
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.0 -
Surely though getting a false student registration and student oyster card is sufficient obstacle to prevent impostors, even if less substantive than a passport?StillWaters said:
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.Anabobazina said:
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.StillWaters said:
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtueAnabobazina said:
You need to provide:Driver said:
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's
Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27993775.amp
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education1 -
I assume it's because @MarqueeMark has only got as far as episode 7 of the report and wants to avoid spoilersTOPPING said:Following on from @Carlotta's latest update on the Trans wars I ended up with the report commissioned by the University of Essex following their withdrawal of invitations to two speakers who were apparently transphobic.
The report is within this link (itself an apology for the invitation withdrawal) and all is well and good, inclusion this, freedom of speech that.
https://www.essex.ac.uk/blog/posts/2021/05/17/review-of-two-events-with-external-speakers
But I was surprised to see extended sections of the report redacted. What gives? Why would this have happened? Anyone AL?2 -
The Electoral Commission did not specifically recommend PHOTO ID.StillWaters said:
Two reasons:Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it
2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
Does anyone really think that if the Conservatives didn't think they would benefit from this that they would be pushing it through without any attempt at cross-party consensus, and rejecting amendments made the House of Lords?3 -
I reckon that you've been saving up "Nandslide" for several years, and now is your chance to unleash it on the world!kinabalu said:
Ah the perfection of my thesis has been spoiled. Still, a PB Labour leadership election would have been a Nandslide, I think.NickPalmer said:
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.4 -
What on earth is meant by "voter suppression"? Why on earth should people who can't prove who they who they say they are be allowed to cheat in voting? You need identification to pick up a parcel or rent a car, why is this any different? It's totally non-partisan and neutral, just common sense and tightening up electoral security, if you ask me.1
-
When I applied for my first passport, I had to get my application verified, and a statement that the photo was a true likeness by someone...StillWaters said:
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.Anabobazina said:
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.StillWaters said:
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtueAnabobazina said:
You need to provide:Driver said:
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's
Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27993775.amp
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
...my tutor at university.
Each time I have renewed, it is on the back of that original submission.
So is that any different to a student with a bus pass, verified by their tutor?2 -
OK so we can add a further small group who could vote before and realising they would soon no longer be able to do so, go through unnecessary steps to sort it out. This group is slightly less furious.RobD said:.
Any evidence that they are furious? Because if they are furious now, surely they’d be doing something about it while there is still time.FF43 said:
The problem for those associated with this miserable change is that few of the many people who could vote before and still can think, I'm so glad I have to show ID. Whereas everyone of the few who could vote before, and are now prevented from doing so due to lack of ID, are absolutely furious.FF43 said:
Yes. Possibly isn't effective in its primary purpose of suppressing the wrong kind of votes. But creates an effective backlash against the people introducing it.Selebian said:
Although I think the problem being addressed is miniscule but the 'solution' probably not causing major issues either (but more issues than the thing it supposedly 'fixes'). Although I might be shown to be wrong on 'not causing major issues'.Selebian said:
It's at least arguable:squareroot2 said:
The Govt has not disenfranchised anyone.Mexicanpete said:33 reports of fraud and 1 conviction at GE 2019 compared with 250,000 disenfranchised (presumably predominantly) non-Conservative voters in 2024. In theory it could turn a Labour majority into a Conservative one.
Nice work if Vladimir Putin is your role model.
- People without ID were able to vote
- People without ID are now not able to vote
That looks like disenfranchisement. Of course, people could take action to avoid being disenfranchised, but I'm not sure that enough was done to make the requirement obvious. They have at least introduced it for locals rather than a GE.0 -
The thing I find bizarre is that these organised in-person voting fraudsters who have:Foxy said:
Surely though getting a false student registration and student oyster card is sufficient obstacle to prevent impostors, even if less substantive than a passport?StillWaters said:
I think you and I have different views on what constitutes proof.Anabobazina said:
Aha! So now being shown that your post was completely untrue you move the goalposts.StillWaters said:
I’m touched by your faith that the university system is a paragon of virtueAnabobazina said:
You need to provide:Driver said:
Not in anywhere near the same way. Do I need to repost the screenshots FPT to prove again how you're being disingenuous?Anabobazina said:
The owner has to 'prove' their identity in both cases.Driver said:
They look similar, but to get one the holder has had to prove their identity and to get the other they haven't.Anabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
As people should realise by now, becuase we've discussed it enough times.
Active email address
Student enrolment ID from your school, college or university
London borough address
Digital photo which must be a .jpg, .bmp or .gif file and less than 6MB
You pay an administration fee of £20 using a credit or debit card.
We'll post your 18+ Student Oyster photocard to you ***once your school, college or university has approved your application***.
Actually rather a lot of things you and indeed your college need to provide to prove your identity – they might be different to a passport, just as a passport is different to a driving licence.
Yet to claim one doesn't need to prove one's
Identity to get a Student Oyster isdemonstrable garbage.
Funny old world.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27993775.amp
I'm certain many people have also gained passports and driving licences illegally. Yet strangely you don't mention that.
It really is a funny old world.
Me: provide the necessary ID directly to the person doing the verification
You: rely on someone who you have never met and who may or may not have done their job
I agree that I am assuming that the DVLA and the passport office generally conduct their business in a controlled fashion and are more reliable than XY or Z at the Anabob College of Further Education
- information on the electoral roll
- information on who is not going to vote
- vast teams of people able to do the actual fraudulent voting while avoiding (at least more than a few) repeated trips to the same polling station
- analysis enabling effective targetting of the seats that can be swung in their favour
will nonetheless be defeated by an inability to produce fake ID of one of many different forms good enough to fool the person at the polling station (who may have little interest in the process, little time and possibly no exposure to what genuine forms of all the IDs should look like, keeping in mind that expired IDs, possibly with differences to current versions, can also be valid).
It may stop B A Knob from taking his elderly senile neighbour's vote for the lolz, but stopping Fraudcorp from turning a seat or an election? I can't see it.3 -
If this was truly about election integrity then postal voting would have also been cracked down at the same time but since it hasn't Mike's comments are fair.7
-
When I look at [the] Sky at the next GE, I think I will see a Starmer comingSandyRentool said:
I reckon that you've been saving up "Nandslide" for several years, and now is your chance to unleash it on the world!kinabalu said:
Ah the perfection of my thesis has been spoiled. Still, a PB Labour leadership election would have been a Nandslide, I think.NickPalmer said:
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something. 0 -
Nandy fans, please explain?Stocky said:
Yes but I don't think the LP would be in such a strong position today. Starmer is much more of a problem to the CP than Nandy would have been IMO.kinabalu said:
Ah the perfection of my thesis has been spoiled. Still, a PB Labour leadership election would have been a Nandslide, I think.NickPalmer said:
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.0 -
Bearing in mind that registration to vote requires no photo, and there is no means to check on a photo is the right person, why is a photo required for this scheme?kamski said:
The Electoral Commission did not specifically recommend PHOTO ID.StillWaters said:
Two reasons:Anabobazina said:
Why do we need ID at all? This absurd policy, transparently launched for party political advantage, led to this:StillWaters said:
Student travel card requires an email address, London address, proof of school/college/university enrolment and a digital photoAnabobazina said:This actually makes me feel a bit sick.
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/18-plus-student-oyster-photocard#:~:text=You need to provide:,London borough address
Given how much fraud has been observed in the student enrolment process (dodgy higher education colleges faking immigration) it seems entirely reasonable that it is not deemed a reasonable proof of eligibility to vote.
The senior card requires a passport or drivers licence. Do you understand why that might be deemed as a higher quality piece if ID?
https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/60-plus-oyster-photocard?intcmp=54724#on-this-page-2
Yet still the PB Tories go out to bat for it. I wonder why?
1. The Electoral Commission recommended it
2. The franchise must been seen to be protected as well as being protected
This is not an unreasonable ask. It is not an imposition. It is a fairly basic measure of security. The government have provided a large number of potential alternatives.
(And, yes, we should tighten up postal voting as well)
Does anyone really think that if the Conservatives didn't think they would benefit from this that they would be pushing it through without any attempt at cross-party consensus, and rejecting amendments made the House of Lords?
Why not a recent utility* bill and a bank card for example?
*one reason I have stuck to paper bills is to prove ID and address.2 -
I'm happy enough with SKS but my hunch is Nandy would have been a touch better. She's more 'relatable', more 'likable', and these qualities do count a lot in politics, rightly or wrongly (imv the latter).Stocky said:
Yes but I don't think the LP would be in such a strong position today. Starmer is much more of a problem to the CP than Nandy would have been IMO.kinabalu said:
Ah the perfection of my thesis has been spoiled. Still, a PB Labour leadership election would have been a Nandslide, I think.NickPalmer said:
If we're into analysing small subsamples, I voted Starmer.kinabalu said:
So did I. Every PB Lab member voted Nandy. Not sure what this says but it says something.1
This discussion has been closed.