The Tory voter suppression plan appears to be working – politicalbetting.com

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

ydoethur said:

StillWaters said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Penddu2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Sandpit said:

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.

They’re measuring inputs, rather than outputs.

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.

There are not 20,000 more officers. If I fire 20,000 cops, then reluctantly hire 20,000 cops over a 12 year period, that is not 20,000 more cops.

20,000 -20,000 +20,000 = 0

Basic mathematical error. The correct answer is of course 20,000

Duh yes, I meant zero increase. There are not 20k more officers however you cut it.

Depends on your starting point.

Reality.

A place Braverman has at best a nodding acquaintance with…

The natural starting point would be when the pledge was made not some random date in the past.

The fact that they (sorta) acknowledged they made a mistake and pledged to reverse it is a good thing.

Don’t you prefer pupils who learn from their mistakes and put it right?

I am genuinely touched you think she’s learning from a mistake, rather than desperately correcting a wholly avoidable cockup.

Your interpretation is a little uncharitable but not incorrect… but I thought the sacking and rehiring predated her so she’s not really to blame/deserving of much credit?

When we talk about sacking and rehiring, are we talking about the fuzz or Braverman?

😂

The fuzz…

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

Didn't someone on here point that out over a week ago.

They can’t even get [redacted for legal reasons] to do it? That must mean [redacted for legal reasons].

TheValiant said:

NickPalmer said:

It will be interesting if he does join RefUK, giving them a Parliament slot. In principle that would give him more coverage than the actual leadership (just as Caroline Lucas gets more than the Green leadership), and I wonder if a mighty Budgen-Tice battle battle awaits keen punters to consider in the future?

Interestingly (well, it was to me) but whenever we approach a GE, the format of the debates always comes up and is usually difficult to define.

I have long believed that for a UK GE, there should be a main debate, and to get invited to this main debate you should:

AND:
1. Be standing in at least 326 seats across the country.

OR:
2. Have at least 1 MP at dissolution
3. Have secured at least 10% of the vote at the previous GE

On the above criteria, for GE 2024, only CON, LAB, LD and Greens would be standing.
If Brigden did join RefUK, arguably he'd be allowed to.

That's if the broadcasters ever agreed to some sort of sensible rules.......

The “having at least 1 MP at dissolution” rule is too easy to meet, I suggest. All sorts of no-hope irrelevant parties have had an MP at dissolution because you just need one MP to fall out with their original party and fancy a bit of limelight.

OK, your standing 326 candidates rule would help filter out the most specious cases.

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

The Tories have blamed a "printing error" for a leaflet which wrongly told voters they won't need photo ID at next month's local elections
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1651223463313526791

I mean, that is a printing error isn't it? (Or rather drafting error as noneoftheabove notes). They wouldn't intentionally tell people they are giving their own leaflets to they don't need ID, that would be very self defeating.

Not is they are distributed in the right areas.

As previously claimed.

People who are not naturally inclined Tory voters will scrutinise the Tory leaflet closely enough to take in that element and believe it, but not be persuaded by any of the rest of it, even though other materials will probably be saying ID is needed? I know some people read all leaflets (I do), but making that effective only for non-Tories seems hard.

It sounds like the stupidest voter suppression plan possible. Cock up sounds much more plausible.

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

The Tories have blamed a "printing error" for a leaflet which wrongly told voters they won't need photo ID at next month's local elections
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1651223463313526791

I mean, that is a printing error isn't it? (Or rather drafting error as noneoftheabove notes). They wouldn't intentionally tell people they are giving their own leaflets to they don't need ID, that would be very self defeating.

As I've said before my concern is that turnout is broadly fine for local elections, and the Tories are smashed, so it will be argued the system worked fine and is no big deal.

Please don't spoil the "Evil Tories are engaged in voter suppression strategy" meme by using logic.

Funnily enough, the more I see the hysteria around this the more I think the real sinister behaviour on this is from the opponents. Let us cynically paint a party as being corrupt (without real foundation) and further erode trust in democracy, and then when the inevitable lower turnout comes from voter apathy then rinse and repeat.

Once again I state; it should not be a problem for honest people to prove who they are in order to take part in a democratic vote.

Plenty of students who don't have driving licences etc. And as none of the cards they have are allowable (only the 60+ pensioner versions) they must not be "honest people".

As for cynically painting the Tories as corrupt, how much corruption do you want to see before you accept that a corrupt party is corrupt? Set aside your perspective on voter ID and look at PPE, planning, Teesworks, sewage - the list goes on.

noneoftheabove said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

Do you think most of the 2m, or 5%, of the electorate without passable ID are stupid?

Those who suggest they are incapable of applying for ID seem to be saying so. It is also possible they might just be apathetic and can't be bothered.

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

The issue is not requiring ID. It is the speed at which the government have implemented it - against the recommendations of the EC.

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

BBC news at 6 seemed to want to link removing “not proven” with improving treatment for race victims in Scotland. Anyone in Scotland able to point out onto me what I’m missing, because logic suggests that all “not proven” verdicts have reasonable doubt and so would be “not guilty”. I have always been jealous of the “not proven” verdict.

Some of them will go to Guilty, I'd have thought. If you take the middle option out both the remaining 2 options will be utilized more often.

Yes, from the BBC web report:-
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

Of course, more guilty verdicts on shakier evidence might mean more miscarriages of justice but them's the breaks.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?

For very many, carrying id is a requirement (in work whether as a photo id with a swipe card to enter offices or some other form of identification such as a warrant card) but voting isn't as yet a requirement nor is attending a polling station mandatory. Should we see it in similar terms?

The fundamental of voting is we are all equal - my vote is no more important (in theory) than yours. My ability to cast my vote should therefore be exactly the same as yours or anyone else's. Irrespective of age (for example), the requirement for voter id should be standard - the problem with what has been proposed is not the concept, it's the solution which seems superficially to be favouring some demographic groups over others.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

BBC news at 6 seemed to want to link removing “not proven” with improving treatment for race victims in Scotland. Anyone in Scotland able to point out onto me what I’m missing, because logic suggests that all “not proven” verdicts have reasonable doubt and so would be “not guilty”. I have always been jealous of the “not proven” verdict.

Some of them will go to Guilty, I'd have thought. If you take the middle option out both the remaining 2 options will be utilized more often.

Yes, from the BBC web report:-
A study published in 2019 found removing the not proven verdict might incline more jurors towards a guilty verdict in finely balanced trials.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

Of course, more guilty verdicts on shakier evidence might mean more miscarriages of justice but them's the breaks.

As I said above, if anything I was always keen on England and Wales adding “not proven”. But then that was also in the context of wanting to keep double jeopardy.

bondegezou said:

eristdoof said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?

The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.

The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.

The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.

I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….

Nigel_Foremain said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

The issue is not requiring ID. It is the speed at which the government have implemented it - against the recommendations of the EC.

That does not seem to be the argument on here, or that espoused by those who seem to oppose compulsory ID. I could get behind better implementation. The argument of those who oppose it seems to be that it is a bad thing per se introduced by evil Tories. Which is just partisan bollox.

No, I think most on here take my view. It is a confected solution to a nonexistent problem, which will have the unwelcome side effect of depressing turnout. Even if this was a problem, there would be easier ways to solve it.

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

The Tories have blamed a "printing error" for a leaflet which wrongly told voters they won't need photo ID at next month's local elections
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1651223463313526791

I mean, that is a printing error isn't it? (Or rather drafting error as noneoftheabove notes). They wouldn't intentionally tell people they are giving their own leaflets to they don't need ID, that would be very self defeating.

As I've said before my concern is that turnout is broadly fine for local elections, and the Tories are smashed, so it will be argued the system worked fine and is no big deal.

Please don't spoil the "Evil Tories are engaged in voter suppression strategy" meme by using logic.

Funnily enough, the more I see the hysteria around this the more I think the real sinister behaviour on this is from the opponents. Let us cynically paint a party as being corrupt (without real foundation) and further erode trust in democracy, and then when the inevitable lower turnout comes from voter apathy then rinse and repeat.

Once again I state; it should not be a problem for honest people to prove who they are in order to take part in a democratic vote.

Plenty of students who don't have driving licences etc. And as none of the cards they have are allowable (only the 60+ pensioner versions) they must not be "honest people".

As for cynically painting the Tories as corrupt, how much corruption do you want to see before you accept that a corrupt party is corrupt? Set aside your perspective on voter ID and look at PPE, planning, Teesworks, sewage - the list goes on.

Won’t lack of a driving licence disproportionally affect Green voters?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

biggles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?

How many of them have compulsory ID cards anyway? Completely different case if they do.

15

I think I rest my case. The majority of Europe (much of which tends to be more left wing than right wing, and where less than half have compulsory ID) accept that to have the right to vote you need to be able to identify yourself.

This is just a silly argument by Labour to undermine trust in democracy for their own purposes. they should be backing this, but they don't because they would be happier with voter fraud if it gives them better electoral results

For the umpteenth time, this photo ID targets personation which is more-or-less non-existent. Most vote fraud is around postal votes (see Tower Hamlets, for instance) and the victim of that fraud is usually [fx: drumroll] the Labour Party. More recent developments are intimidation and photography inside polling booths but again the government seems uninterested.

Indeed, but in fairness there are arguments that ID voting is inherently unfair, or arguing that it only makes sense in other places as they have compulsory IDs and we do not. If it is true only a third of Europe has one but not the other it is a reasonable argument on the policy's intent (it is a far lower number than i would have expected), even if the implementation is wrong and the ignoring of postal voting fraud etc makes the motivation highly suspect.

Nigel_Foremain said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

The issue is not requiring ID. It is the speed at which the government have implemented it - against the recommendations of the EC.

That does not seem to be the argument on here, or that espoused by those who seem to oppose compulsory ID. I could get behind better implementation. The argument of those who oppose it seems to be that it is a bad thing per se introduced by evil Tories. Which is just partisan bollox.

I would have no problem with national ID cards, so showing ID doesn't bother me.

But as usual this isn't about me.

The recommendation for voter ID is fine on paper. The government have latched onto it and steamrollered it through insisting there is an Urgent Need due to voting fraud. Their own statistics prove this is a lie - there is almost no fraud. What scandals there have been have involved postal voting which they have chosen to exclude. And rather than phase it in to ensure people remain franchised, they have ignored the case made by the Electoral Commission and returning officers and smashed it through.

So we have to ask why. And the answer clearly is to disenfranchise people who are likely to vote against them - the poor and the young. The exclusion of almost all ID held by the young is an example. "It is easier and less secure to apply for" may be a good excuse if there was voting fraud happening. But there isn't. Or allowing the time needed to ensure ID was obtained as the EC said. Which there wasn't.

You can say that normal decent people have no problem showing ID because you can show ID and you are normal and decent. But what about the people whose ID you have excluded?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Confession: I suspect Sunak is really rather good at being PM

If only he’d been in charge of Brexit from the start. SIGH

Agree with your confession, but I doubt even Sunak can polish the largest turd that was ever dumped on the British people.

He's the worst in living memory. As we near the GE the PB tribes will separate and back a side like oil and water. I'll probably do it myself.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

biggles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?

How many of them have compulsory ID cards anyway? Completely different case if they do.

15

I think I rest my case. The majority of Europe (much of which tends to be more left wing than right wing, and where less than half have compulsory ID) accept that to have the right to vote you need to be able to identify yourself.

This is just a silly argument by Labour to undermine trust in democracy for their own purposes. they should be backing this, but they don't because they would be happier with voter fraud if it gives them better electoral results

For the umpteenth time, this photo ID targets personation which is more-or-less non-existent. Most vote fraud is around postal votes (see Tower Hamlets, for instance) and the victim of that fraud is usually [fx: drumroll] the Labour Party. More recent developments are intimidation and photography inside polling booths but again the government seems uninterested.

As Conservative supporters like to point out, there’s no magic money tree. We should spend government money wisely. So, even were there a case that in ideal conditions, it would be better to have ID for voting, I fail to see what the argument is for introducing something that costs £18,000,000 per year now, when taxes are high, inflation is high and we have a cost of living crisis.

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

BBC news at 6 seemed to want to link removing “not proven” with improving treatment for race victims in Scotland. Anyone in Scotland able to point out onto me what I’m missing, because logic suggests that all “not proven” verdicts have reasonable doubt and so would be “not guilty”. I have always been jealous of the “not proven” verdict.

Some of them will go to Guilty, I'd have thought. If you take the middle option out both the remaining 2 options will be utilized more often.

Dunno. If the jury does it properly, you only get “guilty” when it’s beyond reasonable doubt. So I always took “not proven” to be a subset of “not guilty” perfect for a world with double jeopardy laws, I guess. And maybe that’s what has changed.

Historically the 2 verdicts in Scottish Courts were "Proven" and "Not Proven".
from Wikipedia -

In 1728, in the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven for the murder of the Earl of Strathmore, the defence lawyer (Robert Dundas) persuaded a jury to reassert its ancient right of acquitting, of finding an accused "not guilty", in spite of the facts being proven. The law required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the evidence proved that the accused had killed the Earl. Carnegie had undoubtedly killed the Earl, but had also clearly not intended to do so. If the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect constrain the judge to find Carnegie guilty of murder, for which the punishment was hanging. To avert this outcome, the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, and brought in the verdict of "not guilty".

Nigel_Foremain said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

The Tories have blamed a "printing error" for a leaflet which wrongly told voters they won't need photo ID at next month's local elections
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1651223463313526791

I mean, that is a printing error isn't it? (Or rather drafting error as noneoftheabove notes). They wouldn't intentionally tell people they are giving their own leaflets to they don't need ID, that would be very self defeating.

As I've said before my concern is that turnout is broadly fine for local elections, and the Tories are smashed, so it will be argued the system worked fine and is no big deal.

Please don't spoil the "Evil Tories are engaged in voter suppression strategy" meme by using logic.

Funnily enough, the more I see the hysteria around this the more I think the real sinister behaviour on this is from the opponents. Let us cynically paint a party as being corrupt (without real foundation) and further erode trust in democracy, and then when the inevitable lower turnout comes from voter apathy then rinse and repeat.

Once again I state; it should not be a problem for honest people to prove who they are in order to take part in a democratic vote.

Plenty of students who don't have driving licences etc. And as none of the cards they have are allowable (only the 60+ pensioner versions) they must not be "honest people".

As for cynically painting the Tories as corrupt, how much corruption do you want to see before you accept that a corrupt party is corrupt? Set aside your perspective on voter ID and look at PPE, planning, Teesworks, sewage - the list goes on.

In case you haven't noticed I have been a massive critic of the government, particularly under the premiership of The Clown. Take off your partisan blinkers and you might notice that a large number of Tories, and politicians of all stripes are uncorrupt, but also that there are probably just as many dodgy people on the opposition benches as there are on the other side. Perhaps you were one of the many people who thought the SNP were a nice progressive party who could do no wrong because they were not "Tories"?

The argument about voter ID is cast iron, as shown by the lack of support for our lackadaisical attitude to it in 26 out of 27 European states. Labour have found a nice attack on it for partisan reasons. I am surprised intelligent people on this site have fallen for it.

I know you are a mega critic, which is why your defence of them apparently not being corrupt is a surprise.

Politicians of all stripes are human and that makes them open to corruption. Here and now the cesspool is Tor and they are the government.

Anyway, back to voter ID. If we had done what the Electoral Commission advised, that would be one thing. We have not. Students and the poor are deliberately being disenfranchised, their ID not allowed. Why? Supposedly because fraufsters could apply for them.

Which would be an issue if we had fraudsters committing electoral fraud. But we don't...

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

The Tories have blamed a "printing error" for a leaflet which wrongly told voters they won't need photo ID at next month's local elections
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1651223463313526791

I mean, that is a printing error isn't it? (Or rather drafting error as noneoftheabove notes). They wouldn't intentionally tell people they are giving their own leaflets to they don't need ID, that would be very self defeating.

As I've said before my concern is that turnout is broadly fine for local elections, and the Tories are smashed, so it will be argued the system worked fine and is no big deal.

Please don't spoil the "Evil Tories are engaged in voter suppression strategy" meme by using logic.

Funnily enough, the more I see the hysteria around this the more I think the real sinister behaviour on this is from the opponents. Let us cynically paint a party as being corrupt (without real foundation) and further erode trust in democracy, and then when the inevitable lower turnout comes from voter apathy then rinse and repeat.

Once again I state; it should not be a problem for honest people to prove who they are in order to take part in a democratic vote.

Plenty of students who don't have driving licences etc. And as none of the cards they have are allowable (only the 60+ pensioner versions) they must not be "honest people".

As for cynically painting the Tories as corrupt, how much corruption do you want to see before you accept that a corrupt party is corrupt? Set aside your perspective on voter ID and look at PPE, planning, Teesworks, sewage - the list goes on.

In case you haven't noticed I have been a massive critic of the government, particularly under the premiership of The Clown. Take off your partisan blinkers and you might notice that a large number of Tories, and politicians of all stripes are uncorrupt, but also that there are probably just as many dodgy people on the opposition benches as there are on the other side. Perhaps you were one of the many people who thought the SNP were a nice progressive party who could do no wrong because they were not "Tories"?

The argument about voter ID is cast iron, as shown by the lack of support for our lackadaisical attitude to it in 26 out of 27 European states. Labour have found a nice attack on it for partisan reasons. I am surprised intelligent people on this site have fallen for it.

I know you are a mega critic, which is why your defence of them apparently not being corrupt is a surprise.

Politicians of all stripes are human and that makes them open to corruption. Here and now the cesspool is Tor and they are the government.

Anyway, back to voter ID. If we had done what the Electoral Commission advised, that would be one thing. We have not. Students and the poor are deliberately being disenfranchised, their ID not allowed. Why? Supposedly because fraufsters could apply for them.

Which would be an issue if we had fraudsters committing electoral fraud. But we don't...

Apparently, according to "The Russia Report" the Russians had no influence on political life or any elections or referenda in this country

I guess you accept that too. Now about that bridge I mentioned to you.....

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NEW: Disney sues DeSantis and oversight board after vote to nullify agreement with special taxing district, accusing the Republican 2024 presidential prospect of weaponizing his political power to punish the company for exercising its free speech rights.

https://twitter.com/scontorno/status/1651260005247594497

SCOTUS is about to face their Kobayashi Maru situation, choose to back big business or back the GOP.

The idea that a company has "free speech rights" still strikes me as bizarre.

Its owners and managers as individuals, yes - but the company as an entity?

So the New York Times shouldn’t have protection under the First Amendment? That’s was, in fact, one of the very early modern cases on freedom of speech.

Insofar as it's the free speech of its journalists and columnists, sure.

Driver said:

Malmesbury said:

Driver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

NEW: Disney sues DeSantis and oversight board after vote to nullify agreement with special taxing district, accusing the Republican 2024 presidential prospect of weaponizing his political power to punish the company for exercising its free speech rights.

https://twitter.com/scontorno/status/1651260005247594497

SCOTUS is about to face their Kobayashi Maru situation, choose to back big business or back the GOP.

The idea that a company has "free speech rights" still strikes me as bizarre.

Its owners and managers as individuals, yes - but the company as an entity?

So the New York Times shouldn’t have protection under the First Amendment? That’s was, in fact, one of the very early modern cases on freedom of speech.

Insofar as it's the free speech of its journalists and columnists, sure.

The point being that rights of a group must be maintained, otherwise only individuals have rights.

So you would have freedom of speech only for the equivalent of Speakers Corner.

Without the group rights concept, Dominion would have had no case against Fox and Fucker Carlson

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Our late if unlamented PB "comrade" briefly known as "Dartmoor" lasted just 26 minutes.

Shorter than the Anglo-Zanzibar War.

I make that 0.7 Anglo-Zanzibar Wars….

biggles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

biggles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?

How many of them have compulsory ID cards anyway? Completely different case if they do.

15

Well maybe they have different circumstances, but that sounds bonkers to me.

Need a source for those claims. Which are the 31 European countries that don't automatically give everyone ID, but also have photo ID required to vote?

In Germany everyone (well, everyone who is eligible to vote) already has photo ID AND you don't need photo ID to vote.

Don't know about the majority 47 European countries, but in all the European countries I know some form of photo ID is effectively compulsory.

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

I am prepared to incorporate PioneerCo Ltd to provide audit services to the SNP. I am not an accountant but not having a clue about the product when contracts are awarded is the done thing these days.

Not for the first time in this, I feel a bit sorry for the SNP. Someone should do their audit.

If the SNP find auditors, but the auditors are unable to sign off their accounts, do they still lose the Short money?

ydoethur said:

kinabalu said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MightyAlex said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

As it may well dissolve in the near future is it time to start laying the SNP for any coming election?

It is something I discussed in a header last weekend, that independence supporters (circa 45%) will want to vote for somebody, if not the SNP then somebody.

The moment they lose the Short money then they cannot function properly, which will have consequences.

My feeling is they will find a way to retain the short money unless there's more to this than shambles and conflict of interest.

You mean, like an active police investigation?

As I understand it, the Short Money *cannot* be released unless various conditions, including the audit are met.

Nigel_Foremain said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

The Tories have blamed a "printing error" for a leaflet which wrongly told voters they won't need photo ID at next month's local elections
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1651223463313526791

I mean, that is a printing error isn't it? (Or rather drafting error as noneoftheabove notes). They wouldn't intentionally tell people they are giving their own leaflets to they don't need ID, that would be very self defeating.

As I've said before my concern is that turnout is broadly fine for local elections, and the Tories are smashed, so it will be argued the system worked fine and is no big deal.

Please don't spoil the "Evil Tories are engaged in voter suppression strategy" meme by using logic.

Funnily enough, the more I see the hysteria around this the more I think the real sinister behaviour on this is from the opponents. Let us cynically paint a party as being corrupt (without real foundation) and further erode trust in democracy, and then when the inevitable lower turnout comes from voter apathy then rinse and repeat.

Once again I state; it should not be a problem for honest people to prove who they are in order to take part in a democratic vote.

Plenty of students who don't have driving licences etc. And as none of the cards they have are allowable (only the 60+ pensioner versions) they must not be "honest people".

As for cynically painting the Tories as corrupt, how much corruption do you want to see before you accept that a corrupt party is corrupt? Set aside your perspective on voter ID and look at PPE, planning, Teesworks, sewage - the list goes on.

In case you haven't noticed I have been a massive critic of the government, particularly under the premiership of The Clown. Take off your partisan blinkers and you might notice that a large number of Tories, and politicians of all stripes are uncorrupt, but also that there are probably just as many dodgy people on the opposition benches as there are on the other side. Perhaps you were one of the many people who thought the SNP were a nice progressive party who could do no wrong because they were not "Tories"?

The argument about voter ID is cast iron, as shown by the lack of support for our lackadaisical attitude to it in 26 out of 27 European states. Labour have found a nice attack on it for partisan reasons. I am surprised intelligent people on this site have fallen for it.

26 out of 27 or 46 out of 47 as you stated earlier, and which I've been trying and failing to track down?

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

I am prepared to incorporate PioneerCo Ltd to provide audit services to the SNP. I am not an accountant but not having a clue about the product when contracts are awarded is the done thing these days.

Not for the first time in this, I feel a bit sorry for the SNP. Someone should do their audit.

If you were a private company why in hell would you take on the SNP audit? Their previous auditors have withdrawn after an obvious problem which doubled the audit fee, they are, to put it kindly, a shower of poisonous lying snakes, the reputational risk of signing off stuff proven to false in a criminal court is enormous, I really struggle to see an upside.
They will be audited eventually by someone appointed by the Electoral Commission reporting to them, not the SNP. And god help them when that happens.

You can take this contrarian approach too far you know.

No_Offence_Alan said:

biggles said:

kinabalu said:

biggles said:

BBC news at 6 seemed to want to link removing “not proven” with improving treatment for race victims in Scotland. Anyone in Scotland able to point out onto me what I’m missing, because logic suggests that all “not proven” verdicts have reasonable doubt and so would be “not guilty”. I have always been jealous of the “not proven” verdict.

Some of them will go to Guilty, I'd have thought. If you take the middle option out both the remaining 2 options will be utilized more often.

Dunno. If the jury does it properly, you only get “guilty” when it’s beyond reasonable doubt. So I always took “not proven” to be a subset of “not guilty” perfect for a world with double jeopardy laws, I guess. And maybe that’s what has changed.

Historically the 2 verdicts in Scottish Courts were "Proven" and "Not Proven".
from Wikipedia -

In 1728, in the trial of Carnegie of Finhaven for the murder of the Earl of Strathmore, the defence lawyer (Robert Dundas) persuaded a jury to reassert its ancient right of acquitting, of finding an accused "not guilty", in spite of the facts being proven. The law required the jury merely to look at the facts and pass a verdict of "proven" or "not proven" depending on whether they believed the evidence proved that the accused had killed the Earl. Carnegie had undoubtedly killed the Earl, but had also clearly not intended to do so. If the jury brought in a "proven" verdict they would in effect constrain the judge to find Carnegie guilty of murder, for which the punishment was hanging. To avert this outcome, the jury asserted what it believed to be their "ancient right" to judge the whole case and not just the facts, and brought in the verdict of "not guilty".

There is a significant minority who think that it is not guilty we should lose, not Not Proven.

Omnium said:

MoonRabbit said:

PoliticalBetting post, money to be made?

Update from Snookie - my Green friend down in Bristol. Labour will now definitely lose all seats in Bristol at the next election, in voter anger at the Labour mayor supporting the monstrous building on the Clifton Zoological Gardens.

Well I'll bet you 10 pounds that they don't lose all seats (at evens) - winnings to charity.

I’m not taking it.

But for sure things have moved in that strange city since the last election. A shock green there would not be a surprise. So closer to the election I will look at the green most likely to win their contest, and put some money on them. And let you know. There has been boundary changes there, and whatever Lab candidate to defend the new green dominated central seat likely most in trouble.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

The Tories have blamed a "printing error" for a leaflet which wrongly told voters they won't need photo ID at next month's local elections
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1651223463313526791

I mean, that is a printing error isn't it? (Or rather drafting error as noneoftheabove notes). They wouldn't intentionally tell people they are giving their own leaflets to they don't need ID, that would be very self defeating.

As I've said before my concern is that turnout is broadly fine for local elections, and the Tories are smashed, so it will be argued the system worked fine and is no big deal.

Please don't spoil the "Evil Tories are engaged in voter suppression strategy" meme by using logic.

Funnily enough, the more I see the hysteria around this the more I think the real sinister behaviour on this is from the opponents. Let us cynically paint a party as being corrupt (without real foundation) and further erode trust in democracy, and then when the inevitable lower turnout comes from voter apathy then rinse and repeat.

Once again I state; it should not be a problem for honest people to prove who they are in order to take part in a democratic vote.

Plenty of students who don't have driving licences etc. And as none of the cards they have are allowable (only the 60+ pensioner versions) they must not be "honest people".

As for cynically painting the Tories as corrupt, how much corruption do you want to see before you accept that a corrupt party is corrupt? Set aside your perspective on voter ID and look at PPE, planning, Teesworks, sewage - the list goes on.

In case you haven't noticed I have been a massive critic of the government, particularly under the premiership of The Clown. Take off your partisan blinkers and you might notice that a large number of Tories, and politicians of all stripes are uncorrupt, but also that there are probably just as many dodgy people on the opposition benches as there are on the other side. Perhaps you were one of the many people who thought the SNP were a nice progressive party who could do no wrong because they were not "Tories"?

The argument about voter ID is cast iron, as shown by the lack of support for our lackadaisical attitude to it in 26 out of 27 European states. Labour have found a nice attack on it for partisan reasons. I am surprised intelligent people on this site have fallen for it.

26 out of 27 or 46 out of 47 as you stated earlier, and which I've been trying and failing to track down?

It's probably from a MAGA website so Nigel is ashamed to give you the link.
In Germany you don't need photo ID to vote.
In Sweden if you don't have it someone with ID can vouch for you.
Can't be bothered to check all 47 countries, but I suspect there will be more.

How long might such an audit take from a cold start, i.e. auditor familiarising itself with a new client?

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

I am prepared to incorporate PioneerCo Ltd to provide audit services to the SNP. I am not an accountant but not having a clue about the product when contracts are awarded is the done thing these days.

Not for the first time in this, I feel a bit sorry for the SNP. Someone should do their audit.

If you were a private company why in hell would you take on the SNP audit? Their previous auditors have withdrawn after an obvious problem which doubled the audit fee, they are, to put it kindly, a shower of poisonous lying snakes, the reputational risk of signing off stuff proven to false in a criminal court is enormous, I really struggle to see an upside.
They will be audited eventually by someone appointed by the Electoral Commission reporting to them, not the SNP. And god help them when that happens.

You can take this contrarian approach too far you know.

I do agree. But then [redacted] was still willing to audit [redacted] after they [redacted], presumably for the money, and in expectation of turning blind eyes. So if [redacted] won’t do it it, then…. ouch.

MoonRabbit said:

PoliticalBetting post, money to be made?

Update from Snookie - my Green friend down in Bristol. Labour will now definitely lose all seats in Bristol at the next election, in voter anger at the Labour mayor supporting the monstrous building on the Clifton Zoological Gardens.

Just seen the plans on the local news, and frankly I don’t see the issue. Sympathetically designed, 20% cheap flats, up to six stories so keeping the idea of greater density. Keeps the central gardens and open to all.
Frankly the objections are just classic nimbyism.

solarflare said:

How long might such an audit take from a cold start, i.e. auditor familiarising itself with a new client?

Might depend how many of their staff quit rather than deal with the SNP leadership.

DavidL said:

solarflare said:

How long might such an audit take from a cold start, i.e. auditor familiarising itself with a new client?

Might depend how many of their staff quit rather than deal with the SNP leadership.

There would also be a trust level issue.

A consultancy I worked for was called into do some auditing of operations by the UK arms of a certain American financial company. Not "Auditing" auditing, but checking what was going on.

Within 15 minutes, the guys told phoned home to say that we couldn't trust any records in their building. We walked out.

The next day, the American end folded - they'd been trying to pull funds out of the UK end as they went down, due to extensive fraud...

MoonRabbit said:

Omnium said:

MoonRabbit said:

PoliticalBetting post, money to be made?

Update from Snookie - my Green friend down in Bristol. Labour will now definitely lose all seats in Bristol at the next election, in voter anger at the Labour mayor supporting the monstrous building on the Clifton Zoological Gardens.

Well I'll bet you 10 pounds that they don't lose all seats (at evens) - winnings to charity.

I’m not taking it.

But for sure things have moved in that strange city since the last election. A shock green there would not be a surprise. So closer to the election I will look at the green most likely to win their contest, and put some money on them. And let you know. There has been boundary changes there, and whatever Lab candidate to defend the new green dominated central seat likely most in trouble.

Green in the Clifton seat is possible, but the others will be rock solid Labour.

biggles said:

bondegezou said:

eristdoof said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?

The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.

The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.

The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.

I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….

I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

I am prepared to incorporate PioneerCo Ltd to provide audit services to the SNP. I am not an accountant but not having a clue about the product when contracts are awarded is the done thing these days.

Not for the first time in this, I feel a bit sorry for the SNP. Someone should do their audit.

If you were a private company why in hell would you take on the SNP audit? Their previous auditors have withdrawn after an obvious problem which doubled the audit fee, they are, to put it kindly, a shower of poisonous lying snakes, the reputational risk of signing off stuff proven to false in a criminal court is enormous, I really struggle to see an upside.
They will be audited eventually by someone appointed by the Electoral Commission reporting to them, not the SNP. And god help them when that happens.

You can take this contrarian approach too far you know.

I'm sorry, I can't help it.

algarkirk said:

DavidL said:

solarflare said:

How long might such an audit take from a cold start, i.e. auditor familiarising itself with a new client?

Might depend how many of their staff quit rather than deal with the SNP leadership.

The auditors of Enron and FTX might be looking for work; this job might suit their style.

Arthur Anderson will be somewhat hard to contact.

pigeon said:

turbotubbs said:

MoonRabbit said:

PoliticalBetting post, money to be made?

Update from Snookie - my Green friend down in Bristol. Labour will now definitely lose all seats in Bristol at the next election, in voter anger at the Labour mayor supporting the monstrous building on the Clifton Zoological Gardens.

Just seen the plans on the local news, and frankly I don’t see the issue. Sympathetically designed, 20% cheap flats, up to six stories so keeping the idea of greater density. Keeps the central gardens and open to all.
Frankly the objections are just classic nimbyism.

I've no idea as to the merits or otherwise of this particular development, but the Greens more broadly have obviously cottoned onto the fact, like the Lib Dems before them, that Nimbyism is good for business. Apparently their push for power in Mid Suffolk - classic rural Tory territory, heavy car dependency, lots of homes reliant on oil for their heating - is largely grounded in the fact that absolutely nobody who already owns a house wants a new build within fifteen miles of them (and none of them cares about the smelly peasants who rent, either.)

Try the racism accusation - when you point out that they are being institutionally racist by opposing house building, they are sometimes reduced to jaw flapping.

biggles said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

I guess you could add the elderly and also "leavers" into that group of people who might not have ID (obvious Venn diagram there) whom, we are told, are more likely to vote Conservative. It is possible that some of these will either not be bothered to vote, or possibly forget that on these *local* elections they need ID. If it is the former they can't also can't be bothered to register, and no doubt there will be those who will screech that this is because of so-called voter suppression. If the Tories really were motivated by this they would have introduced ahead of the more important GE. They haven't.

The idea that people should be allowed to vote without being able to prove they have the right to, seems to be irrational.

The elderly are very likely to have bus passes, though. Or to postal vote.

Neverthless, you are missing my fundamental point, which is that it is perfectly possible to implement safeguards against personation without disenfranchising voters.

I think you are patronising the poor, the young and even (God forbid) the metropolitan. You are saying they are too stupid to a) understand they need ID and get it, b) present it when needed.

If I were lucky enough to look under 25 I would be ID checked to buy an energy drink or a beer. All of the groups you describe offer ID on a regular basis for various things. It is a vacuous argument to try and suggest there is a subversion of democracy and such a divisive suggestion is Trumpian in itself IMO

And, again, you are deliberately choosing to ignore my point.

There are numerous ways you could essentially guarantee no personation without disenfranchising voters.

Next Thursday, tens of thousands of people will turn up at polling stations without ID and be turned away.

Some will have ID at home (most people don't carry their passport with them).
Some will not have ID.

But they will be turned away. To stop a problem that there is no evidence exists.

Not only that, but it's insanely simple to stop personation without disenfranchising voters. Either (a) let people cast provisional ballots that can be "cured" later in the event that the result is close enough or (b) take Polaroid photos of voters and get them to sign the back. In both cases, you'd avoid personation, and avoid disenfranchising voters.

Because, that's the goal right? That everybody who is allowed to vote should able to do so, right?

I can see major problems with both of your "solutions": a) would cause serious administrative headaches and possible legal challenges

b) almost certainly discriminatory and non-GDPR compliant

A much more simple and fair solution is to ...er.... use ID like almost every other aspect of society requires. Maybe Labour does suspect there is a problem but don't want to address it.

Genuine question... what do other western democracies do with respect to voter ID?

Ah, I just found the answer to my question. 46 out of 47 European countries require photo ID to vote. Good old British exceptionalism eh?

How many of them have compulsory ID cards anyway? Completely different case if they do.

Essentially all of them I think although in a few countries the state mandated ID is nominally optional.

ydoethur said:

eek said:

CALL TO ACTIVISM

@CalltoActivism
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Smartmatic WINS its first major legal battle as Fox News will have to turn over additional documents.

Smartmatic will now receive deposition transcripts, and exhibits from the recently settled Dominion Voting Systems defamation case.

This is a significant development as Smartmatic reportedly has already received over 30,0000 documents from Fox News.

Fox will also give Smartmatic documents related to the Murdoch’s and Raj Shah, a former Trump administration official who is now a vice president at Fox Corp.

The monster case brought by Smartmatic is against Fox News, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, and former host Lou Dobbs.

Smartmatic’s suit is currently biggest pending defamation case against Fox News. It is suing $2.7 billion in damages and has said they won’t settle for less than Dominion’s $785 billion settlement.

That's either a truly bank busting figure or an epic typo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRAkobf-tVI

eek said:

CALL TO ACTIVISM

@CalltoActivism
🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: Smartmatic WINS its first major legal battle as Fox News will have to turn over additional documents.

Smartmatic will now receive deposition transcripts, and exhibits from the recently settled Dominion Voting Systems defamation case.

This is a significant development as Smartmatic reportedly has already received over 30,0000 documents from Fox News.

Fox will also give Smartmatic documents related to the Murdoch’s and Raj Shah, a former Trump administration official who is now a vice president at Fox Corp.

The monster case brought by Smartmatic is against Fox News, Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo, Jeanine Pirro, and former host Lou Dobbs.

Smartmatic’s suit is currently biggest pending defamation case against Fox News. It is suing $2.7 billion in damages and has said they won’t settle for less than Dominion’s $785 million settlement.

The opening amount is not really indicative of much is my understanding, but if there case is even slightly comparable to the Dominion one - which it should be given discussion of the two was rife - then they'd be fools to settle for less. A cool billion has to be on the cards.

pigeon said:

biggles said:

bondegezou said:

eristdoof said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?

The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.

The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.

The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.

I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….

I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...

The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.

Malmesbury said:

ohnotnow said:

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

I am prepared to incorporate PioneerCo Ltd to provide audit services to the SNP. I am not an accountant but not having a clue about the product when contracts are awarded is the done thing these days.

Not for the first time in this, I feel a bit sorry for the SNP. Someone should do their audit.

If you were a private company why in hell would you take on the SNP audit? Their previous auditors have withdrawn after an obvious problem which doubled the audit fee, they are, to put it kindly, a shower of poisonous lying snakes, the reputational risk of signing off stuff proven to false in a criminal court is enormous, I really struggle to see an upside.
They will be audited eventually by someone appointed by the Electoral Commission reporting to them, not the SNP. And god help them when that happens.

You can take this contrarian approach too far you know.

I guess if you were a corrupt-as-feck company hoping for a corrupt-as-feck post-indy contract....

You'd be thinking "Can these guys keep their shit in a bag, or will I get covered in it?"

And 'If I do - will it be lovely, lovely gold-laden shit?'. "Might be worth a punt"...

ohnotnow said:

Malmesbury said:

ohnotnow said:

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Jesus, Mary & Joseph, and the wee donkey.

SNP ‘cold calls’ auditors as accounts deadline looms

Failure to file on time could cost the party £1 million

The SNP’s acting chief executive has been sending “cold-call” emails to auditors as the party stands on the brink of losing more than £1 million because of its failure to find someone to sign off its books.

In another sign of panic at the nationalists’ headquarters, a template note with the subject line “Audit enquiry” was sent to a firm this morning, weeks before key deadlines have to be met.

“We are urgently seeking a statutory auditor to comply with our obligations to the Electoral Commission as well as an audit of our Westminster group at the House of Commons,” the email said. “Would you have any capacity to assist in either of the above?”

It was sent by Susan Ruddick, who is acting chief executive of the SNP following the resignation of Peter Murrell, who is married to Nicola Sturgeon, in a row over party membership numbers.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snp-cold-calls-auditors-as-accounts-deadline-looms-0lcpcpfxb

I am prepared to incorporate PioneerCo Ltd to provide audit services to the SNP. I am not an accountant but not having a clue about the product when contracts are awarded is the done thing these days.

Not for the first time in this, I feel a bit sorry for the SNP. Someone should do their audit.

If you were a private company why in hell would you take on the SNP audit? Their previous auditors have withdrawn after an obvious problem which doubled the audit fee, they are, to put it kindly, a shower of poisonous lying snakes, the reputational risk of signing off stuff proven to false in a criminal court is enormous, I really struggle to see an upside.
They will be audited eventually by someone appointed by the Electoral Commission reporting to them, not the SNP. And god help them when that happens.

You can take this contrarian approach too far you know.

I guess if you were a corrupt-as-feck company hoping for a corrupt-as-feck post-indy contract....

You'd be thinking "Can these guys keep their shit in a bag, or will I get covered in it?"

And 'If I do - will it be lovely, lovely gold-laden shit?'. "Might be worth a punt"...

Also, the Conservative campaign slogan for 2024.

turbotubbs said:

MoonRabbit said:

PoliticalBetting post, money to be made?

Update from Snookie - my Green friend down in Bristol. Labour will now definitely lose all seats in Bristol at the next election, in voter anger at the Labour mayor supporting the monstrous building on the Clifton Zoological Gardens.

Just seen the plans on the local news, and frankly I don’t see the issue. Sympathetically designed, 20% cheap flats, up to six stories so keeping the idea of greater density. Keeps the central gardens and open to all.
Frankly the objections are just classic nimbyism.

The green party appear to be taking on an anti housebuilding agenda, in Bristol as in other places around the country.

https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/council-to-consider-green-motion-challenging-unachievable-government-housing-targets/

The thing about this is that it always goes this way in politics. Political careers from all sides are built on expedient considerations connected to the politics of urban development, transcending ideology and belief.

Cookie said:

Foxy said:

pigeon said:

biggles said:

bondegezou said:

eristdoof said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

Driver said:

biggles said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

Mexicanpete said:

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.

So you consider the disenfranchisement of potentially hundreds of thousands of voters to be a proportional response?

This is Trumpian politics.

Noone has been disenfranchised save for those who are too stupid to have any form of ID. If they don’t have ID, why not?

Passports are £93. Driving licenses you commit a criminal offence if you don't keep the address up to date or renew your photo every 10 years - not great if you are a lodger or flat sharer changing address a couple of times a year.

Life is different for different people. The 2m are not stupid (well some are, some aren't just like the rest of us), but they have different lives to a pb regular.

More to the point, for years it was a point of pride that an Englishman (I think was a peculiarly English thing) need never present “papers” to the authorities. I like that old idea. And as noted above, there’s many ways to skin this cat without going back on it.

In the sense of if you're just walking along the street, yes.

That's different from having to show ID to do a particular thing, like travel abroad, drive, pick up a parcel or - yes - vote.

You don’t have to have your driving licence with you when you drive.

No, but if you're stopped by the police and you don't have it you might need to take it to a police station later, so...

I can't understand why people are getting worked up about this. People know what ID is. Voting is an important, not frivolous activity. ID is needed for a lot less important activities than voting. Those that say that Tories have used this as voter suppression are suggesting that the non-Tory vote is more stupid than the Tory one. At one time I might have agreed with that suggestion. Not so sure now.

I agree with the bit in bold.

So why is there no meaningful safeguard for postal voting, which has been the subject of the *only* widespread and serious electoral fraud in this country since the Irish constituencies of the election of 1918?

I agree with you that there should be safeguards for postal voting. Postal votes should be extremely limited IMO. IIRC it was greatly expanded under the Blair government.

As I say, the suggestion that non-Tory voters are somehow less likely to know how to use ID than Tory ones is ludicrous. This is just a new cause celebre for Labour and LD supporters that is without any logic, and is divisive and corrosive in itself

I don't think it's conspiritorial to note that there are three different groups who are particularly likely not to have photo ID to hand:

- the young (because they haven't need it yet)
- the poor (because they can't afford a car and don't travel abroad)
- the metropolitan (because they don't need to drive)

None of those demographic groups are particularly friendly to the Conservatives.

And I hate to bang this drum again, but there are lots of additional safeguards one could add if you were worried about personation, but didn't want to disenfranchise voters. One could allow provisional ballots to be cast; or one could take Polaroids of people who wished to vote without IDs. Or one could make sure that polling cards had photos on them.

All easy enough to implement, and would ensure that you don't have a situation where potentially hundreds of thousands of people will be turned away on polling day to solve a problem that there is scant evidence exists.

The young need ID cards to prove their age if they want to drink alcohol. This is either a driving license or a specific POA card, are the latter accepted?

The metropolitan are less likely to have driving license but more likely to have passports after contolling for wealth.

The dominant group in this list is going to be the poor.

The Young are increasingly temperate, so no need for ID to buy booze.

I never had to show my ID to buy booze. I just had to know which pubs and offies to use….

I never even had to bother with subterfuge, even when I was actually (slightly) underage. Must either have had a remarkable nose for dodgy boozers or (more likely) I just looked old and knackered before my time...

The thing with underage drinking in pubs was that you had to act maturely, indeed soberly, follow the rules and be discreet. There is no better way to train young drinkers in being responsible drinkers. While it needs to remain illegal to be effective in this function, it should be tacitly winked at as performing a vital social role.

Agree entirely.

Indeed - as someone who helped run a student union, the contrast with the Americans... They'd never been allowed near alcohol and had a high rate of medical intervention required after drinking themselves insensible.

Taz said:

Aww, friends again. Focus on the future. Wonder what that is for the SNP.

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/1651292696588189939?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

I think the subtext from the picture is that the future lies in London.

darkage said:

turbotubbs said:

MoonRabbit said:

PoliticalBetting post, money to be made?

Update from Snookie - my Green friend down in Bristol. Labour will now definitely lose all seats in Bristol at the next election, in voter anger at the Labour mayor supporting the monstrous building on the Clifton Zoological Gardens.

Just seen the plans on the local news, and frankly I don’t see the issue. Sympathetically designed, 20% cheap flats, up to six stories so keeping the idea of greater density. Keeps the central gardens and open to all.
Frankly the objections are just classic nimbyism.

The green party appear to be taking on an anti housebuilding agenda, in Bristol as in other places around the country.

https://bristolgreenparty.org.uk/council-to-consider-green-motion-challenging-unachievable-government-housing-targets/

The thing about this is that it always goes this way in politics. Political careers from all sides are built on expedient considerations connected to the politics of urban development, transcending ideology and belief.

Why it's taken them this long to tap into a majority hatred of any new building whatsoever I don't know, it's a good fit for them at least.