Just voted. Nobody had forgotten their voter ID so far. (Although they did have a good hard look at my driving licence, the photo taken when I was a couple of stone heavier....)
Hopefully you had your Conservative Party membership card in your wallet. That should have done the trick.
US inflation is now steeply down, and EU is coming down too.
UK seems to be an outlier. I presume expectations around Bank of England interest rates are now for more prolonged rises; only a month or so ago there was a general hope they’d start to come down toward the back half of 2023.
I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.
I voted for one of the two independents who had also bothered to leaflet my house. Leaflets received: Independents - 2 Labour 2 Green (incumbent) - 1 - after the postal ballot had gone in - LD/Con: 0
Voted accordingly.
Voting on the basis of quantity of doormat clutter is a curious approach.
That would mean I would have to vote for the Double Glazing Party.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
Let's repeat the question from earlier that you didn't answer
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
Does anyone know how facial recognition works when someone has a heavy beard and moustache compared to a photo that was taken when they were clean shaven?
I think it has more to do with the shape of the face, distance between the eyes, that sort of thing.
Yup - the latests system are sometimes better than humans at seeing through changes/disguises.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
Let's repeat the question from earlier that you didn't answer
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Too many specific voter cohorts not voting Conservative?
Just voted, but not without difficulty. Bear with me. Mrs Al and I got married 11 years ago. In due course, she decided to change her surname to mine, and did so bit by bit. But yes, you guessed it, one thing she didn't get round to changing was the name on her driving licence, which as a result didn't match her name on the electoral register. She had no other ID with her. Luckily, there was no queue, so protracted negotiations weren't a problem. They wouldn't, of course, accept the polling card. Eventually they did accept our word backed up by a load of 'official' emails on her phone showing her current name.
Technically, they should have made her go home to fetch her passport, and refused to let her vote, because she didn't have any acceptable ID. To their credit, they didn't. But what a farce.
Is it to their credit? If someone else has a similar story but gets sent away, and is therefore unable to vote, is that fair?
I only said 'to their credit' because they saved us the hassle of going home to fetch the passport. Of course you're right - it's not fair, and they should have refused her. But my final three words (what a farce) was meant to convey that. Voting should not of course be at the discretion of whoever happens to be checking one's ID. My little story illustrates edge cases, of which I suspect there will be many.
There will be loads because the Labour Party will try and make as much divisive capital out of it as they can. The Labour Party - forever the protector of electoral fraud.
PS. For those who say "there is no evidence" I offer you "The Russia Report" that demonstrated, very clearly, that there was no Russian interference in British political life. I also have a bridge to sell you.
Just voted, but not without difficulty. Bear with me. Mrs Al and I got married 11 years ago. In due course, she decided to change her surname to mine, and did so bit by bit. But yes, you guessed it, one thing she didn't get round to changing was the name on her driving licence, which as a result didn't match her name on the electoral register. She had no other ID with her. Luckily, there was no queue, so protracted negotiations weren't a problem. They wouldn't, of course, accept the polling card. Eventually they did accept our word backed up by a load of 'official' emails on her phone showing her current name.
Technically, they should have made her go home to fetch her passport, and refused to let her vote, because she didn't have any acceptable ID. To their credit, they didn't. But what a farce.
Is it to their credit? If someone else has a similar story but gets sent away, and is therefore unable to vote, is that fair?
I only said 'to their credit' because they saved us the hassle of going home to fetch the passport. Of course you're right - it's not fair, and they should have refused her. But my final three words (what a farce) was meant to convey that. Voting should not of course be at the discretion of whoever happens to be checking one's ID. My little story illustrates edge cases, of which I suspect there will be many.
There will be loads because the Labour Party will try and make as much divisive capital out of it as they can.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
My aunt and mother (88 & 93) haven't got any photo ID at all and are both sharp as tacks but everything is much more of an effort than it was and hence aren't about to look out or do anything about getting any kind of photo ID.
I doubt they are the only octo/nonagenarians in the same position.
Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.
Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.
Feeling it silently inside is just as c**ty as saying it aloud either privately or publicly. Arguably it's even more c**ty.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
Let's repeat the question from earlier that you didn't answer
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
You’ve ignored @rcs100 on this topic, who demonstrates that the UK is now a significant outlier.
You keep insisting that you’re right and then trying to moan about Labour.
Just voted, but not without difficulty. Bear with me. Mrs Al and I got married 11 years ago. In due course, she decided to change her surname to mine, and did so bit by bit. But yes, you guessed it, one thing she didn't get round to changing was the name on her driving licence, which as a result didn't match her name on the electoral register. She had no other ID with her. Luckily, there was no queue, so protracted negotiations weren't a problem. They wouldn't, of course, accept the polling card. Eventually they did accept our word backed up by a load of 'official' emails on her phone showing her current name.
Technically, they should have made her go home to fetch her passport, and refused to let her vote, because she didn't have any acceptable ID. To their credit, they didn't. But what a farce.
Isn't it illegal to have the wrong name on your driving licence?
Doubtless. She's a forgetful anarchist. You going to report her?
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
It's a daft and un-needed policy, and I said on a previous thread a couple of weeks ago I thought the older voter would ended being disenfranchised more. We're told from polling that the older vote leans heavily Tory, so it may well be this policy has suppressed their vote at the margins. Which would be most unfortunate for them. But I also suspect this is a dog that doesn't bark in a significant way with most of the ID-less being habitual non voters.
Just voted, but not without difficulty. Bear with me. Mrs Al and I got married 11 years ago. In due course, she decided to change her surname to mine, and did so bit by bit. But yes, you guessed it, one thing she didn't get round to changing was the name on her driving licence, which as a result didn't match her name on the electoral register. She had no other ID with her. Luckily, there was no queue, so protracted negotiations weren't a problem. They wouldn't, of course, accept the polling card. Eventually they did accept our word backed up by a load of 'official' emails on her phone showing her current name.
Technically, they should have made her go home to fetch her passport, and refused to let her vote, because she didn't have any acceptable ID. To their credit, they didn't. But what a farce.
Is it to their credit? If someone else has a similar story but gets sent away, and is therefore unable to vote, is that fair?
I only said 'to their credit' because they saved us the hassle of going home to fetch the passport. Of course you're right - it's not fair, and they should have refused her. But my final three words (what a farce) was meant to convey that. Voting should not of course be at the discretion of whoever happens to be checking one's ID. My little story illustrates edge cases, of which I suspect there will be many.
There will be loads because the Labour Party will try and make as much divisive capital out of it as they can.
Talk about rabid tribalism.
He’s another Tory troll. Astonishing how persistent it is. It’s like congenital syphilis, it always outs in the end.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Just voted, but not without difficulty. Bear with me. Mrs Al and I got married 11 years ago. In due course, she decided to change her surname to mine, and did so bit by bit. But yes, you guessed it, one thing she didn't get round to changing was the name on her driving licence, which as a result didn't match her name on the electoral register. She had no other ID with her. Luckily, there was no queue, so protracted negotiations weren't a problem. They wouldn't, of course, accept the polling card. Eventually they did accept our word backed up by a load of 'official' emails on her phone showing her current name.
Technically, they should have made her go home to fetch her passport, and refused to let her vote, because she didn't have any acceptable ID. To their credit, they didn't. But what a farce.
Isn't it illegal to have the wrong name on your driving licence?
Doubtless. She's a forgetful anarchist. You going to report her?
Mate I am the one who inwardly leaps for joy when a cyclist rides past me, through the red light that I am patiently waiting at, and then gets nabbed by the polis 100yds down the road.
But no, I am not going to report her although I am generally not in favour of law-breakers. Just that you would be surprised how circumstance might conspire to make for a very awkward moment or perhaps an insurance invalidation if your or your wife's paperwork is not in order.
Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.
Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.
Feeling it silently inside is just as c**ty as saying it aloud either privately or publicly. Arguably it's even more c**ty.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
Excuse the self-commenting, but I meant to say that the king's deep feeling of insecurity must surely be one of the main reasons for the mass public oath national embarrassment? This is about as obvious as Donald Trump's narcissism.
Just voted, but not without difficulty. Bear with me. Mrs Al and I got married 11 years ago. In due course, she decided to change her surname to mine, and did so bit by bit. But yes, you guessed it, one thing she didn't get round to changing was the name on her driving licence, which as a result didn't match her name on the electoral register. She had no other ID with her. Luckily, there was no queue, so protracted negotiations weren't a problem. They wouldn't, of course, accept the polling card. Eventually they did accept our word backed up by a load of 'official' emails on her phone showing her current name.
Technically, they should have made her go home to fetch her passport, and refused to let her vote, because she didn't have any acceptable ID. To their credit, they didn't. But what a farce.
Is it to their credit? If someone else has a similar story but gets sent away, and is therefore unable to vote, is that fair?
I only said 'to their credit' because they saved us the hassle of going home to fetch the passport. Of course you're right - it's not fair, and they should have refused her. But my final three words (what a farce) was meant to convey that. Voting should not of course be at the discretion of whoever happens to be checking one's ID. My little story illustrates edge cases, of which I suspect there will be many.
There will be loads because the Labour Party will try and make as much divisive capital out of it as they can. The Labour Party - forever the protector of electoral fraud.
PS. For those who say "there is no evidence" I offer you "The Russia Report" that demonstrated, very clearly, that there was no Russian interference in British political life. I also have a bridge to sell you.
Thanks, but I wouldn't buy a vote from you, let alone a bridge.
I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.
I voted for one of the two independents who had also bothered to leaflet my house. Leaflets received: Independents - 2 Labour 2 Green (incumbent) - 1 - after the postal ballot had gone in - LD/Con: 0
Voted accordingly.
Voting on the basis of quantity of doormat clutter is a curious approach.
That would mean I would have to vote for the Double Glazing Party.
If that was the basis of my voting it would have been a toss up between the pizza delivery and Chinese takeaway parties. More a reflection of “not taking the voter for granted” in my case…
Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.
Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.
Feeling it silently inside is just as c**ty as saying it aloud either privately or publicly. Arguably it's even more c**ty.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
Excuse the self-commenting, but I meant to say that the king's deep feeling of insecurity must surely be one of the main reasons for the mass public oath national embarrassment? This is about as obvious as Donald Trump's narcissism.
Someone investigated the story and it's the consequences of a Archbishop press release differing from the far more restrained statement within the order of service.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.
Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.
Feeling it silently inside is just as c**ty as saying it aloud either privately or publicly. Arguably it's even more c**ty.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
Excuse the self-commenting, but I meant to say that the king's deep feeling of insecurity must surely be one of the main reasons for the mass public oath national embarrassment? This is about as obvious as Donald Trump's narcissism.
Someone investigated the story and it's the consequences of a Archbishop press release differing from the far more restrained statement within the order of service.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
It's a daft and un-needed policy, and I said on a previous thread a couple of weeks ago I thought the older voter would ended being disenfranchised more. We're told from polling that the older vote leans heavily Tory, so it may well be this policy has suppressed their vote at the margins. Which would be most unfortunate for them. But I also suspect this is a dog that doesn't bark in a significant way with most of the ID-less being habitual non voters.
Let’s face it lots of poll clerks will use their discretion and let people off having ID if they look legit. This will increase the Tory advantage.
I very much expect those staffing the polling booths to be more lenient to the “nice old lady from the old people’s home” who comes in flustered, than the anonymous young bloke in a hoodie who “looks a bit shifty”. Just human nature.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
You’ve ignored @rcs100 on this topic, who demonstrates that the UK is now a significant outlier.
You keep insisting that you’re right and then trying to moan about Labour.
You’re becoming a hysterical version of Big G.
Much as I often like some of your views, I think that you calling me hysterical is nice bit of pure projection. There are lots of shrinks in the US to help you with that little problem. I am not the one being hysterical here, I am being purely rational. See my earlier answer.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
Or rather, we’ve all seen the tremendous success the US Republicans have achieved in this field in recent years.
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.
I voted for one of the two independents who had also bothered to leaflet my house. Leaflets received: Independents - 2 Labour 2 Green (incumbent) - 1 - after the postal ballot had gone in - LD/Con: 0
Voted accordingly.
Voting on the basis of quantity of doormat clutter is a curious approach.
That would mean I would have to vote for the Double Glazing Party.
Didn’t someone post the only actual use of the leaflets was excellent lining in the pets litter box 😆
People manning the polling station said so far no problems with the ID rules . They were however scathing of the government for bringing in the new rules .
I live in a strong Lib Dem area . That Survation poll showed only 1% of Lib Dems not having the right ID which might explain the lack of issues so far .
The real test though is when more urban areas vote in other elections .
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Same experience here. It’s outrageous they’re not holding local elections in London today.
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Have you checked your polling card? My polling station has changed too (to one without a bar, sadly) due to a boundary change in Trafford.
I considered spoiling my ballot paper in protest at this shambles.
But I decided it would annoy the Tories far more if they lost the seat.
Not sure whether the Green candidate can take it, but maybe if enough Labour voters vote Green I won’t have voted in vain.
Important to give feedback to the team politely but forcibly, and ask them to feedback your views on ID to the returning officer.
I asked. They said they were not permitted to feed my complaint back.
Perfectly sensible. The Returning Officer and staff will be well aware of views about it, many hate it themselves, and it doesn't matter whether people moan to a polling station volunteer (almost all of whom are not electoral staff) en masse as they have no discretion about it and nor does the RO.
I know feedback is important but it needs to go to the right place.
What they need to do is be told to moan to their MP.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Just voted, but not without difficulty. Bear with me. Mrs Al and I got married 11 years ago. In due course, she decided to change her surname to mine, and did so bit by bit. But yes, you guessed it, one thing she didn't get round to changing was the name on her driving licence, which as a result didn't match her name on the electoral register. She had no other ID with her. Luckily, there was no queue, so protracted negotiations weren't a problem. They wouldn't, of course, accept the polling card. Eventually they did accept our word backed up by a load of 'official' emails on her phone showing her current name.
Technically, they should have made her go home to fetch her passport, and refused to let her vote, because she didn't have any acceptable ID. To their credit, they didn't. But what a farce.
Is it to their credit? If someone else has a similar story but gets sent away, and is therefore unable to vote, is that fair?
I only said 'to their credit' because they saved us the hassle of going home to fetch the passport. Of course you're right - it's not fair, and they should have refused her. But my final three words (what a farce) was meant to convey that. Voting should not of course be at the discretion of whoever happens to be checking one's ID. My little story illustrates edge cases, of which I suspect there will be many.
There will be loads because the Labour Party will try and make as much divisive capital out of it as they can. The Labour Party - forever the protector of electoral fraud.
PS. For those who say "there is no evidence" I offer you "The Russia Report" that demonstrated, very clearly, that there was no Russian interference in British political life. I also have a bridge to sell you.
Thanks, but I wouldn't buy a vote from you, let alone a bridge.
My vote is not for sale. I am surprised you don't go for the bridge though, seeing as you are about the only poor soul who still believes in Jeremy Corbyn.
BJO is succoured by the SKS lie about voter suppression
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Same experience here. It’s outrageous they’re not holding local elections in London today.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
You’ve ignored @rcs100 on this topic, who demonstrates that the UK is now a significant outlier.
You keep insisting that you’re right and then trying to moan about Labour.
You’re becoming a hysterical version of Big G.
Much as I often like some of your views, I think that you calling me hysterical is nice bit of pure projection. There are lots of shrinks in the US to help you with that little problem. I am not the one being hysterical here, I am being purely rational. See my earlier answer.
Um, nope you are completely irrational trying to justify an attempt at vote subpression while being unable to provide any reason why the change was required.
All your arguments so far have miss out that very simple (and surely very easy to answer) starting point - what problem is being ACTUALLY fixed by insisting on people having to show ID?
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Didn't the voting card say where the polling station is?
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Didn't the voting card say where the polling station is?
I was just joking. There are no local elections where I am.
Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.
Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.
Feeling it silently inside is just as c**ty as saying it aloud either privately or publicly. Arguably it's even more c**ty.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
Excuse the self-commenting, but I meant to say that the king's deep feeling of insecurity must surely be one of the main reasons for the mass public oath national embarrassment? This is about as obvious as Donald Trump's narcissism.
Someone investigated the story and it's the consequences of a Archbishop press release differing from the far more restrained statement within the order of service.
That's interesting. And also manages to push ALL my buttons! We can blame the ABoC AND the BBC. And also specifically blame the ABoC trying to show how modern and down with the kids the monarchy and the CoE are. Twats.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
What the Electoral Commission actually said was, "Finally, we should move to a system where voters are required to produce identification at polling stations. We gathered substantial evidence during our review that the lack of a requirement for ID is both an actual and a perceived weakness in the system. This move would introduce a new requirement for voters casting their ballot in a polling station, and we have considered carefully whether this will deter some voters from taking part. Our conclusion, again based on the evidence we gathered during the review, is that this risk can be managed and that it is therefore right to make this change, for the sake of the benefits it will bring in terms of improving the security of the system. A similar requirement already exists in Northern Ireland, where ID to vote has been required since 2002, as well as in many other countries."
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
It's a daft and un-needed policy, and I said on a previous thread a couple of weeks ago I thought the older voter would ended being disenfranchised more. We're told from polling that the older vote leans heavily Tory, so it may well be this policy has suppressed their vote at the margins. Which would be most unfortunate for them. But I also suspect this is a dog that doesn't bark in a significant way with most of the ID-less being habitual non voters.
Let’s face it lots of poll clerks will use their discretion and let people off having ID if they look legit. This will increase the Tory advantage.
I very much expect those staffing the polling booths to be more lenient to the “nice old lady from the old people’s home” who comes in flustered, than the anonymous young bloke in a hoodie who “looks a bit shifty”. Just human nature.
I dont expect that in my area when we get a vote. The professionals drill in to the teams that rules are rules.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
What the Electoral Commission actually said was, "Finally, we should move to a system where voters are required to produce identification at polling stations. We gathered substantial evidence during our review that the lack of a requirement for ID is both an actual and a perceived weakness in the system. This move would introduce a new requirement for voters casting their ballot in a polling station, and we have considered carefully whether this will deter some voters from taking part. Our conclusion, again based on the evidence we gathered during the review, is that this risk can be managed and that it is therefore right to make this change, for the sake of the benefits it will bring in terms of improving the security of the system. A similar requirement already exists in Northern Ireland, where ID to vote has been required since 2002, as well as in many other countries."
We will consult widely and work with others to identify and develop a proportionate and accessible scheme for verifying the identity of electors at polling stations. Such a scheme must: • Be sufficiently robust to verify electors’ identities. • Be sufficiently accessible to electors. • Provide for electors to obtain an alternative form of identification specifically for the purpose of voting if they do not have access to any other specified form of identification. • Be cost-effective and affordable. We will publish our detailed proposals for a proof of identity scheme, with an estimate of the likely costs of implementing such as scheme, by the end of 2014.
So 2 points to make
1) there is a subsequent report you aren't quoting 2) they don't say photo ID is required just a better means of verifying identity - the polling card would be enough...
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
It's a daft and un-needed policy, and I said on a previous thread a couple of weeks ago I thought the older voter would ended being disenfranchised more. We're told from polling that the older vote leans heavily Tory, so it may well be this policy has suppressed their vote at the margins. Which would be most unfortunate for them. But I also suspect this is a dog that doesn't bark in a significant way with most of the ID-less being habitual non voters.
Let’s face it lots of poll clerks will use their discretion and let people off having ID if they look legit. This will increase the Tory advantage.
I very much expect those staffing the polling booths to be more lenient to the “nice old lady from the old people’s home” who comes in flustered, than the anonymous young bloke in a hoodie who “looks a bit shifty”. Just human nature.
They shouldn't really, because it means the same rules aren't being applied equally everywhere. I wonder if any elections are going to be invalidated because of this.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
You’ve ignored @rcs100 on this topic, who demonstrates that the UK is now a significant outlier.
You keep insisting that you’re right and then trying to moan about Labour.
You’re becoming a hysterical version of Big G.
Much as I often like some of your views, I think that you calling me hysterical is nice bit of pure projection. There are lots of shrinks in the US to help you with that little problem. I am not the one being hysterical here, I am being purely rational. See my earlier answer.
Um, nope you are completely irrational trying to justify an attempt at vote subpression while being unable to provide any reason why the change was required.
All your arguments so far have miss out that very simple (and surely very easy to answer) starting point - what problem is being ACTUALLY fixed by insisting on people having to show ID?
See two previous posts which I have adequately answered. You want to see voter subpression (sic) because you want to see it; it is simple confirmation bias. I am a centrist who will call out parties on either side of the divide. This is not voter suppression, it is pure politics. You have been succoured.
I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.
I voted for one of the two independents who had also bothered to leaflet my house. Leaflets received: Independents - 2 Labour 2 Green (incumbent) - 1 - after the postal ballot had gone in - LD/Con: 0
Voted accordingly.
Voting on the basis of quantity of doormat clutter is a curious approach.
That would mean I would have to vote for the Double Glazing Party.
Didn’t someone post the only actual use of the leaflets was excellent lining in the pets litter box 😆
We should suggest to the electoral commision that they make a rule that all political pamphlets must be printed on soft loo roll paper so they are useful to all
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Do not confuse the number of allegations and convictions for personation fraud with the number of instances of it happening. If you know someone isn't going to vote and decide to vote for them, the likelihood of detection is low in the absence of voter ID. It will only be detected if they try to vote or if someone is at the polling station who knows them.
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.
Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.
Feeling it silently inside is just as c**ty as saying it aloud either privately or publicly. Arguably it's even more c**ty.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
Excuse the self-commenting, but I meant to say that the king's deep feeling of insecurity must surely be one of the main reasons for the mass public oath national embarrassment? This is about as obvious as Donald Trump's narcissism.
Someone investigated the story and it's the consequences of a Archbishop press release differing from the far more restrained statement within the order of service.
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
No elections in my neck of the woods either. Disgrace!
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it YET postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Do not confuse the number of allegations and convictions for personation fraud with the number of instances of it happening. If you know someone isn't going to vote and decide to vote for them, the likelihood of detection is low in the absence of voter ID. It will only be detected if they try to vote or if someone is at the polling station who knows them.
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
Oh you miss the point - my issue isn't that ID was required it's that photo ID is required.
So again the other argument about the 2014 report - go and look at the actual final recommendation where the polling card was felt sufficient.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Do not confuse the number of allegations and convictions for personation fraud with the number of instances of it happening. If you know someone isn't going to vote and decide to vote for them, the likelihood of detection is low in the absence of voter ID. It will only be detected if they try to vote or if someone is at the polling station who knows them.
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
Oh you miss the point - my issue isn't that ID was required it's that photo ID is required.
So again the other argument about the 2014 report - go and look at the actual final recommendation where the polling card was felt sufficient.
Assuming you get a polling card that is, I didn't this year and my area does have a local election
Mr. kinabalu, I'm a monarchist, but have no intention of talking to the television.
Then again, I was also firmly against the clap for the NHS nonsense, so it might just be that I loathe outward demonstrations of that nature generally.
Feeling it silently inside is just as c**ty as saying it aloud either privately or publicly. Arguably it's even more c**ty.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
Excuse the self-commenting, but I meant to say that the king's deep feeling of insecurity must surely be one of the main reasons for the mass public oath national embarrassment? This is about as obvious as Donald Trump's narcissism.
Someone investigated the story and it's the consequences of a Archbishop press release differing from the far more restrained statement within the order of service.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
It's a daft and un-needed policy, and I said on a previous thread a couple of weeks ago I thought the older voter would ended being disenfranchised more. We're told from polling that the older vote leans heavily Tory, so it may well be this policy has suppressed their vote at the margins. Which would be most unfortunate for them. But I also suspect this is a dog that doesn't bark in a significant way with most of the ID-less being habitual non voters.
Let’s face it lots of poll clerks will use their discretion and let people off having ID if they look legit. This will increase the Tory advantage.
I very much expect those staffing the polling booths to be more lenient to the “nice old lady from the old people’s home” who comes in flustered, than the anonymous young bloke in a hoodie who “looks a bit shifty”. Just human nature.
They shouldn't really, because it means the same rules aren't being applied equally everywhere. I wonder if any elections are going to be invalidated because of this.
No, because you'd need a lot of examples to indicate an issue with an overall election. It takes a lot to justify such a massive action.
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Didn't the voting card say where the polling station is?
I was just joking. There are no local elections where I am.
Ah, sorry! Whoosh, as the joke goes straight over my head.
A nice article in Unherd sort of about this today, bemoaning the wilful inconsistency of sub-national governmental units and their elections in the UK. Worth reading - I know Unherd rubs some on here up the wrong way, but this isn't a polemic: https://unherd.com/2023/05/britain-needs-a-napoleon/ I liked it because it's very much like one of my undergraduate dissertations. I still don't have a firm view: I don't particularly think the one-size-fits-all model of the French conveys more advantages than disadvantages. But the messiness of the British system can be a tad frustrating. Basically, what I want is 50 or so subnational blocs so quiz questions like "Name all the teams from Cheshire who have ever played in the football league" doesn't need to be footnoted with a long explanation of what does and doesn't count as Cheshire.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Do not confuse the number of allegations and convictions for personation fraud with the number of instances of it happening. If you know someone isn't going to vote and decide to vote for them, the likelihood of detection is low in the absence of voter ID. It will only be detected if they try to vote or if someone is at the polling station who knows them.
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
Oh you miss the point - my issue isn't that ID was required it's that photo ID is required.
So again the other argument about the 2014 report - go and look at the actual final recommendation where the polling card was felt sufficient.
Assuming you get a polling card that is, I didn't this year and my area does have a local election
In which case another form of ID should be acceptable. The whole point of an election should be that people vote and have their say - so if you want some form of ID before voting you should be maximising the options available.
A polling card or even a process where your photo is taken when ID isn't provided would be more than enough to satisfy the people on here who believe the new photo ID system is a problem.
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
No elections in my neck of the woods either. Disgrace!
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Do not confuse the number of allegations and convictions for personation fraud with the number of instances of it happening. If you know someone isn't going to vote and decide to vote for them, the likelihood of detection is low in the absence of voter ID. It will only be detected if they try to vote or if someone is at the polling station who knows them.
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
Oh you miss the point - my issue isn't that ID was required it's that photo ID is required.
So again the other argument about the 2014 report - go and look at the actual final recommendation where the polling card was felt sufficient.
Assuming you get a polling card that is, I didn't this year and my area does have a local election
In which case another form of ID should be acceptable. The whole point of an election should be that people vote and have their say - so if you want some form of ID before voting you should be maximising the options available.
A polling card or even a process where your photo is taken when ID isn't provided would be more than enough to satisfy the people on here who believe the new photo ID system is a problem.
Absolutely.
The issue is not the requirements for photo id, it is the fact that there is no backup option.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Do not confuse the number of allegations and convictions for personation fraud with the number of instances of it happening. If you know someone isn't going to vote and decide to vote for them, the likelihood of detection is low in the absence of voter ID. It will only be detected if they try to vote or if someone is at the polling station who knows them.
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
Oh you miss the point - my issue isn't that ID was required it's that photo ID is required.
So again the other argument about the 2014 report - go and look at the actual final recommendation where the polling card was felt sufficient.
Assuming you get a polling card that is, I didn't this year and my area does have a local election
In which case another form of ID should be acceptable. The whole point of an election should be that people vote and have their say - so if you want some form of ID before voting you should be maximising the options available.
A polling card or even a process where your photo is taken when ID isn't provided would be more than enough to satisfy the people on here who believe the new photo ID system is a problem.
Frankly I fail to care about the whole thing these days none of those on offer are worth voting for let alone bothering to go for the polling booth and havent been for over a decade. I will just join the ranks of those that no longer gives a shit as no party gives a shit about me. A number I suspect that is going to only increase as more and more people realise none of the main parties have any fucking answers, nor do they intend to try and find any as all they care about is getting elected.
Don't vote it only encourages them, the sooner we have a general voter strike the better.
I've cast my vote, producing 1 valid and 3 invalid forms of ID, including and I noted it as such, my son's 16-19 WY Metro bus pass, noting my objection to the age biased range of valid ID.
From chatting I understand the polling station officers can provide "general feedback" to the returning officer on an informal basis, so I'm confident a large volume of polite objections would trickle back from some stations.
Anyway, having shown her my passport, she'd taken so much notice of it that she still had to ask my name and address in the time honoured manner, and a that point maybe I could have said I was anyone and personated to my heart's content!
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
I don't think it's even partisan in the usual sense. It's an importation of talking points from the US, even if they don't make any sense in a British context.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Where have a said the Tories did this so it's wrong.
The approach is wrong for 2 reasons
1) it didn't fix the area where fraud is known to have occurred on an almost industrial scale (postal voting) 2) there were ways to do this which would have ensured you can identify everyone who voted in person without actually insisting on people having photo ID.
Ironically I could actually do a proxy vote for my daughter today if she had filled the form in. for that it requires me to hand in a photo ID but all she needed was a signature on a piece of paper.
And I would love to know how they could compare her "signature" with an official document to confirm she actually agreed to me voting on her behalf. The only signatures we've ever given the local council for voting purposes are the ones me and my other daughter gave for our postal votes.
Boris Johnson’s allies confident as partygate committee lacks ‘smoking gun’
Boris Johnson’s allies are increasingly confident of avoiding a by-election, as MPs assessing his behaviour struggle to prove he deliberately lied to parliament.
A committee investigating Johnson’s repeated insistence that no rules were broken during the Downing Street parties scandal is expected to finalise its report later this month, before handing it to the former prime minister for challenge ahead of publication.
Simon Case, the Cabinet secretary, is set to face further questions from the MPs after a new book revealed he accused Johnson of lying over the Downing Street parties scandal. Other witnesses could also be asked follow-up questions in writing as the privileges committee aims to finalise a report in late May or early June, with the aim of publishing before parliament’s summer recess.
A series of meetings of the seven-member committee will be held after the coronation to begin drafting a report and decide whether further questions need to be asked before finalising conclusions.
The committee is deliberating on whether assurances given by Johnson which turned out to be false were made inadvertently, recklessly or deliberately.
A finding that Johnson deliberately lied to parliament would almost certainly trigger a suspension from the Commons of more than ten days, the trigger for a recall petition that is likely to lead to a by-election.
However, the mass of documentary evidence and hours of testimony from Johnson is said not to provide incontrovertible proof that Johnson was explicitly warned not to say that no rules were broken in Downing Street.
“Proving someone that someone deliberately misled is really, really hard to do if you haven’t got a piece of paper saying ‘I told you to say this and you said the opposite’,” said one insider with knowledge of the process.
Johnson’s allies believe the absence of such a smoking gun would make it impossible to impose a suspension of more than ten days and insist that the charge of “recklessly” misleading parliament is an unprecedented legal innovation. Others involved in the process insist that all options remain on the table.
Johnson’s legal team is considering whether to challenge the fairness of the process and the committee’s decisions.
While the Commons standards committee introduced an appeal process in the wake of the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal, in which Johnson tried to overturn the rules to spare the former Cabinet minister from losing his seat, no such changes have been made to the privileges committee.
The committee’s decision cannot be challenged in court, but an argument of procedural unfairness could be used as the basis of a whipping operation to persuade MPs to amend a vote in the Commons to water down any punishment. Johnson’s allies insist no decision has been made.
The Conservatives risk losing the next general election and becoming the “party of nimbyism” after dropping housebuilding targets, MPs have warned.
The government has been criticised by Tory backbenchers on WhatsApp and faced accusations of “short-termism” after Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said he would reinstate the targets if his party won the next election.
Rishi Sunak dropped compulsory housebuilding targets for local areas in December after Tory MPs threatened to rebel against his Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
I don't think it's even partisan in the usual sense. It's an importation of talking points from the US, even if they don't make any sense in a British context.
True, but it is partisan in the sense that it attempts (using US type gutter politics) to suggest electoral fraud or gerrymandering by the government when there isn't any. Quite sad really to see Trumpian tactics used by the British Labour Party
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
Do not confuse the number of allegations and convictions for personation fraud with the number of instances of it happening. If you know someone isn't going to vote and decide to vote for them, the likelihood of detection is low in the absence of voter ID. It will only be detected if they try to vote or if someone is at the polling station who knows them.
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
Oh you miss the point - my issue isn't that ID was required it's that photo ID is required.
So again the other argument about the 2014 report - go and look at the actual final recommendation where the polling card was felt sufficient.
Assuming you get a polling card that is, I didn't this year and my area does have a local election
In which case another form of ID should be acceptable. The whole point of an election should be that people vote and have their say - so if you want some form of ID before voting you should be maximising the options available.
A polling card or even a process where your photo is taken when ID isn't provided would be more than enough to satisfy the people on here who believe the new photo ID system is a problem.
This thread established some time ago that the whole matter can be bypassed by taking a bear with you to vote. What is all the fuss about? I took a tiger on a fairly long lead, wandered into a polling station at random and the officials rushed me through the whole process with gratifying haste after I had shown then my Tufty Club card from 1962.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
One of the justified concerns of voter fraud is postal vote fraud which benefitted the Labour Party in places like Bradford. If we are being even handed let us stamp this out. However the effective perceived benefit for Johnson was hardly worth the effort. So Johnson chased after a non-existant problem which generated him a substantial implied advantage.
It is not necessarily the principle of voter ID that is open to question. It is why the change has been made, and why it has been implemented whilst ignoring the usual safeguards and against the advice of the EC.
Whatever the whys and wherefores, if as Mike suggested yesterday 2m voters could be disenfranchised that should worry any fair-minded citizen.
I voted for two independents, who were the only people who bothered to leaflet my house.
I voted for one of the two independents who had also bothered to leaflet my house. Leaflets received: Independents - 2 Labour 2 Green (incumbent) - 1 - after the postal ballot had gone in - LD/Con: 0
Voted accordingly.
Voting on the basis of quantity of doormat clutter is a curious approach.
That would mean I would have to vote for the Double Glazing Party.
If that was the basis of my voting it would have been a toss up between the pizza delivery and Chinese takeaway parties. More a reflection of “not taking the voter for granted” in my case…
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
I don't think it's even partisan in the usual sense. It's an importation of talking points from the US, even if they don't make any sense in a British context.
True, but it is partisan in the sense that it attempts (using US type gutter politics) to suggest electoral fraud or gerrymandering by the government when there isn't any. Quite sad really to see Trumpian tactics used by the British Labour Party
Boris Johnson’s allies confident as partygate committee lacks ‘smoking gun’
Boris Johnson’s allies are increasingly confident of avoiding a by-election, as MPs assessing his behaviour struggle to prove he deliberately lied to parliament.
A committee investigating Johnson’s repeated insistence that no rules were broken during the Downing Street parties scandal is expected to finalise its report later this month, before handing it to the former prime minister for challenge ahead of publication.
Simon Case, the Cabinet secretary, is set to face further questions from the MPs after a new book revealed he accused Johnson of lying over the Downing Street parties scandal. Other witnesses could also be asked follow-up questions in writing as the privileges committee aims to finalise a report in late May or early June, with the aim of publishing before parliament’s summer recess.
A series of meetings of the seven-member committee will be held after the coronation to begin drafting a report and decide whether further questions need to be asked before finalising conclusions.
The committee is deliberating on whether assurances given by Johnson which turned out to be false were made inadvertently, recklessly or deliberately.
A finding that Johnson deliberately lied to parliament would almost certainly trigger a suspension from the Commons of more than ten days, the trigger for a recall petition that is likely to lead to a by-election.
However, the mass of documentary evidence and hours of testimony from Johnson is said not to provide incontrovertible proof that Johnson was explicitly warned not to say that no rules were broken in Downing Street.
“Proving someone that someone deliberately misled is really, really hard to do if you haven’t got a piece of paper saying ‘I told you to say this and you said the opposite’,” said one insider with knowledge of the process.
Johnson’s allies believe the absence of such a smoking gun would make it impossible to impose a suspension of more than ten days and insist that the charge of “recklessly” misleading parliament is an unprecedented legal innovation. Others involved in the process insist that all options remain on the table.
Johnson’s legal team is considering whether to challenge the fairness of the process and the committee’s decisions.
While the Commons standards committee introduced an appeal process in the wake of the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal, in which Johnson tried to overturn the rules to spare the former Cabinet minister from losing his seat, no such changes have been made to the privileges committee.
The committee’s decision cannot be challenged in court, but an argument of procedural unfairness could be used as the basis of a whipping operation to persuade MPs to amend a vote in the Commons to water down any punishment. Johnson’s allies insist no decision has been made.
This is potentially interesting. The general understanding is that the actions of parliament (as opposed to government) cannot be challenged except by itself; it being its own supreme court.
OTOH it may suit Boris, if he still harbours unworthy ambitions, to cease to be MP for Uxbridge by force majeure, giving him cover to get out and come back for safe seat next GE.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
Indeed it may not help them - I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing blew up in their face and damaged them even more - but it's not for trying.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Where have a said the Tories did this so it's wrong.
The approach is wrong for 2 reasons
1) it didn't fix the area where fraud is known to have occurred on an almost industrial scale (postal voting) 2) there were ways to do this which would have ensured you can identify everyone who voted in person without actually insisting on people having photo ID.
Ironically I could actually do a proxy vote for my daughter today if she had filled the form in. for that it requires me to hand in a photo ID but all she needed was a signature on a piece of paper.
And I would love to know how they could compare her "signature" with an official document to confirm she actually agreed to me voting on her behalf. The only signatures we've ever given the local council for voting purposes are the ones me and my other daughter gave for our postal votes.
What are you are now arguing is that the implementation is wrong not the principle. What Labour is arguing is that voter ID is wrong completely They want any possible fraud (difficult to prove either way) to carry on, particularly as they think it favours them
Thanks for coming around to my argument which is that voter ID is common sense but it should be implemented better, along with postal voting. Everyone who is a legitimate voter and wants to vote will know what to do for GE. Just like 95% of Europeans do.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
I don't think it's even partisan in the usual sense. It's an importation of talking points from the US, even if they don't make any sense in a British context.
True, but it is partisan in the sense that it attempts (using US type gutter politics) to suggest electoral fraud or gerrymandering by the government when there isn't any. Quite sad really to see Trumpian tactics used by the British Labour Party
It is gerrymandering when all the options required to get photo ID required time, money and paperwork (a birth certificate say) that you may not have round.
Especially for those on here who could see simple solutions that would have resolved all the issues that were being complained about.
Basically in person voting fraud is hard work - there are way easier ways of doing it (postal voting being the obvious one where again the issue is known but nowt was done to implement the recommended changes).
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
One of the justified concerns of voter fraud is postal vote fraud which benefitted the Labour Party in places like Bradford. If we are being even handed let us stamp this out. However the effective perceived benefit for Johnson was hardly worth the effort. So Johnson chased after a non-existant problem which generated him a substantial implied advantage.
It is not necessarily the principle of voter ID that is open to question. It is why the change has been made, and why it has been implemented whilst ignoring the usual safeguards and against the advice of the EC.
Whatever the whys and wherefores, if as Mike suggested yesterday 2m voters could be disenfranchised that should worry any fair-minded citizen.
No-one knows if there is a problem as it is impossible to know when we have such an amateurish (gosh isn't it so uniquely British eh?) way of allowing people to vote. If 2 million people are disenfranchised that should worry people, but this has become so cynically politicised that I very much doubt the veracity of that claim
Boris Johnson’s allies confident as partygate committee lacks ‘smoking gun’
Boris Johnson’s allies are increasingly confident of avoiding a by-election, as MPs assessing his behaviour struggle to prove he deliberately lied to parliament.
A committee investigating Johnson’s repeated insistence that no rules were broken during the Downing Street parties scandal is expected to finalise its report later this month, before handing it to the former prime minister for challenge ahead of publication.
Simon Case, the Cabinet secretary, is set to face further questions from the MPs after a new book revealed he accused Johnson of lying over the Downing Street parties scandal. Other witnesses could also be asked follow-up questions in writing as the privileges committee aims to finalise a report in late May or early June, with the aim of publishing before parliament’s summer recess.
A series of meetings of the seven-member committee will be held after the coronation to begin drafting a report and decide whether further questions need to be asked before finalising conclusions.
The committee is deliberating on whether assurances given by Johnson which turned out to be false were made inadvertently, recklessly or deliberately.
A finding that Johnson deliberately lied to parliament would almost certainly trigger a suspension from the Commons of more than ten days, the trigger for a recall petition that is likely to lead to a by-election.
However, the mass of documentary evidence and hours of testimony from Johnson is said not to provide incontrovertible proof that Johnson was explicitly warned not to say that no rules were broken in Downing Street.
“Proving someone that someone deliberately misled is really, really hard to do if you haven’t got a piece of paper saying ‘I told you to say this and you said the opposite’,” said one insider with knowledge of the process.
Johnson’s allies believe the absence of such a smoking gun would make it impossible to impose a suspension of more than ten days and insist that the charge of “recklessly” misleading parliament is an unprecedented legal innovation. Others involved in the process insist that all options remain on the table.
Johnson’s legal team is considering whether to challenge the fairness of the process and the committee’s decisions.
While the Commons standards committee introduced an appeal process in the wake of the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal, in which Johnson tried to overturn the rules to spare the former Cabinet minister from losing his seat, no such changes have been made to the privileges committee.
The committee’s decision cannot be challenged in court, but an argument of procedural unfairness could be used as the basis of a whipping operation to persuade MPs to amend a vote in the Commons to water down any punishment. Johnson’s allies insist no decision has been made.
This is potentially interesting. The general understanding is that the actions of parliament (as opposed to government) cannot be challenged except by itself; it being its own supreme court.
OTOH it may suit Boris, if he still harbours unworthy ambitions, to cease to be MP for Uxbridge by force majeure, giving him cover to get out and come back for safe seat next GE.
At the start of this I felt that proving deliberate lies is near impossible (even though it relies on him admitting to titanic stupidly instead, whilst simultaneously saying he was doing great) and so he might get a punishment less than a recall petition threshold instead.
Add to that the point about alleged unfairness - and unlike Paterson he has legal opinion to claim that, even if the committee refutes it - and his supporters have pretext to reject a harsher punishment, and Rishi to allow it, and I see no reason to alter my view that he will escape on this occasion.
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Didn't the voting card say where the polling station is?
I was just joking. There are no local elections where I am.
Ah, sorry! Whoosh, as the joke goes straight over my head.
A nice article in Unherd sort of about this today, bemoaning the wilful inconsistency of sub-national governmental units and their elections in the UK. Worth reading - I know Unherd rubs some on here up the wrong way, but this isn't a polemic: https://unherd.com/2023/05/britain-needs-a-napoleon/ I liked it because it's very much like one of my undergraduate dissertations. I still don't have a firm view: I don't particularly think the one-size-fits-all model of the French conveys more advantages than disadvantages. But the messiness of the British system can be a tad frustrating. Basically, what I want is 50 or so subnational blocs so quiz questions like "Name all the teams from Cheshire who have ever played in the football league" doesn't need to be footnoted with a long explanation of what does and doesn't count as Cheshire.
Thanks for the link, btw: yes I'm not in the Unherd tribe but usually willing to read a link, even if only to dismiss it... Yes, he's exactly right about the spatchcock structure and chaos, but having said that Napoleon's motives were not pure. Napoleonic France was the first one to mobilise the entire population for war, which is why he was so successful as the other European nations, inured by years of limited warfare to semi-formalised warfare, were swept aside.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
So for the 4th time, or is it 5th or 6th. Fraud is endemic in all aspects of our daily lives. The reality is that no-one knows if it really exists in this form because it is near impossible to assess it, and even if it is not present now, it is highly likely in the future.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
1) Fraud really isn't endemic and even if there was there is little evidence that financial fraud carries over to other areas. And remember there hasn't been zero cases of in person voter id fraud - just so few cases that no one else sees the point of fixing it when postal fraud which has problems wasn't tackled (and postal fraud is easy because you can do that street by street in places taking less than 3 minutes per house).
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
You have lost the argument. Let us face it, you are completely overcome by confirmation bias. The Tories have done it so it must be bad. The suggestion that fraud isn't endemic will be news to millions.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
Where have a said the Tories did this so it's wrong.
The approach is wrong for 2 reasons
1) it didn't fix the area where fraud is known to have occurred on an almost industrial scale (postal voting) 2) there were ways to do this which would have ensured you can identify everyone who voted in person without actually insisting on people having photo ID.
Ironically I could actually do a proxy vote for my daughter today if she had filled the form in. for that it requires me to hand in a photo ID but all she needed was a signature on a piece of paper.
And I would love to know how they could compare her "signature" with an official document to confirm she actually agreed to me voting on her behalf. The only signatures we've ever given the local council for voting purposes are the ones me and my other daughter gave for our postal votes.
What are you are now arguing is that the implementation is wrong not the principle. What Labour is arguing is that voter ID is wrong completely They want any possible fraud (difficult to prove either way) to carry on, particularly as they think it favours them
Thanks for coming around to my argument which is that voter ID is common sense but it should be implemented better, along with postal voting. Everyone who is a legitimate voter and wants to vote will know what to do for GE. Just like 95% of Europeans do.
Amen to that.
Hang on - every single argument you've had to now hasn't referred to voter ID it's referred to voter Photo ID
and that's the bit we have objected to for a very long time on here - heck's we've had this discussion regarding the requirements on and off for months it's why we know our viewpoints.
Slightly different quesrtion, if you think voter ID is enough can you tell me why a photo is required but your address isn't when your vote is based on where you live?
The Conservatives risk losing the next general election and becoming the “party of nimbyism” after dropping housebuilding targets, MPs have warned.
The government has been criticised by Tory backbenchers on WhatsApp and faced accusations of “short-termism” after Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said he would reinstate the targets if his party won the next election.
Rishi Sunak dropped compulsory housebuilding targets for local areas in December after Tory MPs threatened to rebel against his Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
It was a desperation move, and wont help because as local elections show every party is nimby in their own locality, so the party wont gain support nationally for doing it.
There are already accounts on Twitter and in the Guardian of people being turned away from polling booths.
What a disgrace.
Reason #456 for why the Tories need booting out, they are not fit to govern.
Seems fairly anecdotal so far, and I'm a bit skeptical of Twitter moaners who may have an agenda rather than representing actuality on the ground, but accounts do seem to be suggesting it is (mostly) older voters falling foul of the rules.
I imagine there will be all sorts of lies put out there about this. The fact that it is largely elderly who may need to return home for ID also gives the lie to the cynical divisive arguments put forward by Labour. If it is the elderly being turned away, then it is more likely to damage the Tories, or, as seems likely to me, have zero effect whatsoever.
I forgot a document I needed for something yesterday. It was important enough to me for a me to return to my house to get it. Too lazy or too stupid to bring ID? Not taking democracy seriously. Just like the Labour Party
I’ve no idea why you are defending the indefensible on this subject.
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
I am not the one defending the indefensible. Allowing people to do something as important as voting without being able to demonstrate who they are is ludicrous, and it is state of affairs that has gone on far too long. As I have previously said, all but one EU countries requires it and only 15 of those states have compulsory ID.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
The Electoral commission said that photo ID wasn't necessary - that nothing was required and if anything was required the polling card would be more than enough evidence by itself.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections 2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less. 3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
I am utterly at a loss as to why you think someone presenting proof of ID is "jumping through hoops". Are you a hermit, or do you not engage with the modern world?
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
So for a 4th time
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
The problem they're trying to solve is that they think they will lose the next general election because they're so unpopular.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
I genuinely think it's a misguided attempt to address, very disproportionately, a problem, because I don't see how it will actually help them in partisan ways. The lack of attention on postal votes is where it is suspicious.
It isn't going to help them. It is a partisan lie.
I don't think it's even partisan in the usual sense. It's an importation of talking points from the US, even if they don't make any sense in a British context.
True, but it is partisan in the sense that it attempts (using US type gutter politics) to suggest electoral fraud or gerrymandering by the government when there isn't any. Quite sad really to see Trumpian tactics used by the British Labour Party
It is gerrymandering when all the options required to get photo ID required time, money and paperwork (a birth certificate say) that you may not have round.
Especially for those on here who could see simple solutions that would have resolved all the issues that were being complained about.
Basically in person voting fraud is hard work - there are way easier ways of doing it (postal voting being the obvious one where again the issue is known but nowt was done to implement the recommended changes).
The only example of voting fraud that I know about personally involved in person voting. The person in question put themselves on the electoral roll despite not having the right to vote. I'm not sure if the new rules on ID would have caught that.
Boris Johnson’s allies confident as partygate committee lacks ‘smoking gun’
Boris Johnson’s allies are increasingly confident of avoiding a by-election, as MPs assessing his behaviour struggle to prove he deliberately lied to parliament.
A committee investigating Johnson’s repeated insistence that no rules were broken during the Downing Street parties scandal is expected to finalise its report later this month, before handing it to the former prime minister for challenge ahead of publication.
Simon Case, the Cabinet secretary, is set to face further questions from the MPs after a new book revealed he accused Johnson of lying over the Downing Street parties scandal. Other witnesses could also be asked follow-up questions in writing as the privileges committee aims to finalise a report in late May or early June, with the aim of publishing before parliament’s summer recess.
A series of meetings of the seven-member committee will be held after the coronation to begin drafting a report and decide whether further questions need to be asked before finalising conclusions.
The committee is deliberating on whether assurances given by Johnson which turned out to be false were made inadvertently, recklessly or deliberately.
A finding that Johnson deliberately lied to parliament would almost certainly trigger a suspension from the Commons of more than ten days, the trigger for a recall petition that is likely to lead to a by-election.
However, the mass of documentary evidence and hours of testimony from Johnson is said not to provide incontrovertible proof that Johnson was explicitly warned not to say that no rules were broken in Downing Street.
“Proving someone that someone deliberately misled is really, really hard to do if you haven’t got a piece of paper saying ‘I told you to say this and you said the opposite’,” said one insider with knowledge of the process.
Johnson’s allies believe the absence of such a smoking gun would make it impossible to impose a suspension of more than ten days and insist that the charge of “recklessly” misleading parliament is an unprecedented legal innovation. Others involved in the process insist that all options remain on the table.
Johnson’s legal team is considering whether to challenge the fairness of the process and the committee’s decisions.
While the Commons standards committee introduced an appeal process in the wake of the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal, in which Johnson tried to overturn the rules to spare the former Cabinet minister from losing his seat, no such changes have been made to the privileges committee.
The committee’s decision cannot be challenged in court, but an argument of procedural unfairness could be used as the basis of a whipping operation to persuade MPs to amend a vote in the Commons to water down any punishment. Johnson’s allies insist no decision has been made.
What does this f***** have to do before justice prevails?
We demand Starmer's nuts for allegedly not following protocol when employing a former civil servant. Johnson, on the other hand, wilfully ignores his own guidance/rules/laws (delete as appropriate) oversees a programme of unprecedented public sector procurement fraud (allegedly by his mates) shakes off his minders to visit a KGB officer whilst Foreign Secretary, and we justify his blamelessness by agreeing to his absurd "the dog ate my homework" defences.
I've been disenfranchised. Went to the usual polling station and there was not even any sign of an election happening. I suspect the Tories are secretly stuffing the ballots in preparation for one-party rule.
Didn't the voting card say where the polling station is?
I was just joking. There are no local elections where I am.
I did actually do this once - rocked up at my normal polling station (which was still a polling station, with the sign outside) only to learn that my polling station had moved ten minutes down the road. I dutifully sucked it up and walked through the Cardiff rain to vote.
Comments
Who says cash is dead?
For a judge, it's utterly beyond the pale.
UK seems to be an outlier. I presume expectations around Bank of England interest rates are now for more prolonged rises; only a month or so ago there was a general hope they’d start to come down toward the back half of 2023.
Not good for the Tories.
That would mean I would have to vote for the Double Glazing Party.
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Even a single voter who is denied a vote (regardless of age) is not “zero effect whatsoever”.
The right to vote is not the same thing as your forgetting your M&S receipt when attempting to return a pair of too-small knickers.
PS. For those who say "there is no evidence" I offer you "The Russia Report" that demonstrated, very clearly, that there was no Russian interference in British political life. I also have a bridge to sell you.
I may not be in the majority on this on here, but I am in the right. The UK Labour Party and the people that it has conned into defending the indefensible (the idea that people should be allowed to do something so important without showing ID) are flying in the face of common sense, as is often the case.
I doubt they are the only octo/nonagenarians in the same position.
I'm not reading what scribblers are typing about the coronation. Have any of them made the points yet that
1) the coronation is one thing on which the king doesn't have to accept the advice of ministers, and he's making the most of it;
2) he's as insecure as f***?
Got to wonder whether there's a button so that if he tells a minion to get the f*** on with it, or to slap the oil on him the way he likes it, a grownup can stop the guy's embarrassing behaviour from getting out.
You keep insisting that you’re right and then trying to moan about Labour.
You’re becoming a hysterical version of Big G.
You going to report her?
Astonishing how persistent it is. It’s like congenital syphilis, it always outs in the end.
I live in hope.
And I'm utterly at a loss as to why you think forcing people to jump through hoops is defensible.
1) the act didn't match the recommendations of the people tasked with managing elections
2) it discourages and stops people voting when we really need more people voting not less.
3) there is known fraud in postal votes but nothing was done about that for "reasons"
And you still haven't answered the question @rsc1000 asked earler
What problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
https://coconuts.co/bali/news/russians-no-longer-amongst-the-top-5-nationalities-arriving-in-bali/
But no, I am not going to report her although I am generally not in favour of law-breakers. Just that you would be surprised how circumstance might conspire to make for a very awkward moment or perhaps an insurance invalidation if your or your wife's paperwork is not in order.
https://twitter.com/danbarker/status/1652778270163607553
Turns out the BBC is at fault.
Fraud is spreading in every aspect of daily life. There are numerous countries and individuals who are looking for gaps in our civil society to exploit. The only valid argument of the dinosaurs who wish to maintain the status quo here is the argument that postal voting is open to fraud. That needs tackling next.
The objections to this are purely political, straight out of the Trump playbook. Paint your political opponents as fraudulent/evil/malign delete as appropriate or accuse all.
I have to hand it to Labour on this one. They have duped you all.
I very much expect those staffing the polling booths to be more lenient to the “nice old lady from the old people’s home” who comes in flustered, than the anonymous young bloke in a hoodie who “looks a bit shifty”. Just human nature.
I live in a strong Lib Dem area . That Survation poll showed only 1% of Lib Dems not having the right ID which might explain the lack of issues so far .
The real test though is when more urban areas vote in other elections .
I know feedback is important but it needs to go to the right place.
What they need to do is be told to moan to their MP.
What ACTUAL problem is photo ID for in person voting at elections actually solving?
Because the number of actual cases of in person fraud can be counted on the fingers of 2 hands.
BJO is succoured by the SKS lie about voter suppression
Jeremy Corbyn, please explain
https://twitter.com/AntrimLens/status/1653399062001905666
Highly unlikely
All your arguments so far have miss out that very simple (and surely very easy to answer) starting point - what problem is being ACTUALLY fixed by insisting on people having to show ID?
And also manages to push ALL my buttons! We can blame the ABoC AND the BBC. And also specifically blame the ABoC trying to show how modern and down with the kids the monarchy and the CoE are.
Twats.
Their report, which you can read at https://web.archive.org/web/20150919173935/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/164609/Electoral-fraud-review-final-report.pdf, recommended the introduction of photo ID no later than the 2019 English local government elections - the opposite of what you claim.
Question for you. Do you think 25 out of 26 EU nations (where only half have ID cards) are wrong to insist, or do you really believe that good old blighty is a bit special so doesn't need or want to learn from the damn foreigners?
The report states in it's conclusions on page 5
We will consult widely and work with others to identify and develop a
proportionate and accessible scheme for verifying the identity of electors at
polling stations. Such a scheme must:
• Be sufficiently robust to verify electors’ identities.
• Be sufficiently accessible to electors.
• Provide for electors to obtain an alternative form of identification
specifically for the purpose of voting if they do not have access to any
other specified form of identification.
• Be cost-effective and affordable.
We will publish our detailed proposals for a proof of identity scheme, with an
estimate of the likely costs of implementing such as scheme, by the end of
2014.
So 2 points to make
1) there is a subsequent report you aren't quoting
2) they don't say photo ID is required just a better means of verifying identity - the polling card would be enough...
To quote the Electoral Commission, the absence of voter ID was "an actual and a perceived weakness in the system". You have been asking why the Electoral Commission have been ignored on the subject of voter ID. The reality is that they weren't. The Electoral Commission recommended the introduction of photo ID. You want us to ignore the Electoral Commission's recommendations.
2) I have zero problems with ID cards - and if we actually had them I would have zero problem insisting on them when people vote. The issue is we don't have ID cards so every means of getting a vote requires people to spend money on getting a driving licence / passport or even getting a digital photo of a standard the local authority required for a registration card.
So again the other argument about the 2014 report - go and look at the actual final recommendation where the polling card was felt sufficient.
A nice article in Unherd sort of about this today, bemoaning the wilful inconsistency of sub-national governmental units and their elections in the UK. Worth reading - I know Unherd rubs some on here up the wrong way, but this isn't a polemic: https://unherd.com/2023/05/britain-needs-a-napoleon/
I liked it because it's very much like one of my undergraduate dissertations. I still don't have a firm view: I don't particularly think the one-size-fits-all model of the French conveys more advantages than disadvantages. But the messiness of the British system can be a tad frustrating.
Basically, what I want is 50 or so subnational blocs so quiz questions like "Name all the teams from Cheshire who have ever played in the football league" doesn't need to be footnoted with a long explanation of what does and doesn't count as Cheshire.
But the great thing about Tory politicians is that they're as stupid as they are dishonest. So they've done it this year in the local elections, which is going to give people plenty of time to become aware of the problem - and the reasons for the problem - before the general election.
Tell me, did you believe the main thrust of The Russia Report? oh I guess not because that was commissioned by the Tories. I suspect you were a little less accepting of that one and quite rightly so. Don't trust everything the Labour Party tells you either. They tell lies too.
A polling card or even a process where your photo is taken when ID isn't provided would be more than enough to satisfy the people on here who believe the new photo ID system is a problem.
The issue is not the requirements for photo id, it is the fact that there is no backup option.
Don't vote it only encourages them, the sooner we have a general voter strike the better.
From chatting I understand the polling station officers can provide "general feedback" to the returning officer on an informal basis, so I'm confident a large volume of polite objections would trickle back from some stations.
Anyway, having shown her my passport, she'd taken so much notice of it that she still had to ask my name and address in the time honoured manner, and a that point maybe I could have said I was anyone and personated to my heart's content!
The approach is wrong for 2 reasons
1) it didn't fix the area where fraud is known to have occurred on an almost industrial scale (postal voting)
2) there were ways to do this which would have ensured you can identify everyone who voted in person without actually insisting on people having photo ID.
Ironically I could actually do a proxy vote for my daughter today if she had filled the form in. for that it requires me to hand in a photo ID but all she needed was a signature on a piece of paper.
And I would love to know how they could compare her "signature" with an official document to confirm she actually agreed to me voting on her behalf. The only signatures we've ever given the local council for voting purposes are the ones me and my other daughter gave for our postal votes.
Boris Johnson’s allies are increasingly confident of avoiding a by-election, as MPs assessing his behaviour struggle to prove he deliberately lied to parliament.
A committee investigating Johnson’s repeated insistence that no rules were broken during the Downing Street parties scandal is expected to finalise its report later this month, before handing it to the former prime minister for challenge ahead of publication.
Simon Case, the Cabinet secretary, is set to face further questions from the MPs after a new book revealed he accused Johnson of lying over the Downing Street parties scandal. Other witnesses could also be asked follow-up questions in writing as the privileges committee aims to finalise a report in late May or early June, with the aim of publishing before parliament’s summer recess.
A series of meetings of the seven-member committee will be held after the coronation to begin drafting a report and decide whether further questions need to be asked before finalising conclusions.
The committee is deliberating on whether assurances given by Johnson which turned out to be false were made inadvertently, recklessly or deliberately.
A finding that Johnson deliberately lied to parliament would almost certainly trigger a suspension from the Commons of more than ten days, the trigger for a recall petition that is likely to lead to a by-election.
However, the mass of documentary evidence and hours of testimony from Johnson is said not to provide incontrovertible proof that Johnson was explicitly warned not to say that no rules were broken in Downing Street.
“Proving someone that someone deliberately misled is really, really hard to do if you haven’t got a piece of paper saying ‘I told you to say this and you said the opposite’,” said one insider with knowledge of the process.
Johnson’s allies believe the absence of such a smoking gun would make it impossible to impose a suspension of more than ten days and insist that the charge of “recklessly” misleading parliament is an unprecedented legal innovation. Others involved in the process insist that all options remain on the table.
Johnson’s legal team is considering whether to challenge the fairness of the process and the committee’s decisions.
While the Commons standards committee introduced an appeal process in the wake of the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal, in which Johnson tried to overturn the rules to spare the former Cabinet minister from losing his seat, no such changes have been made to the privileges committee.
The committee’s decision cannot be challenged in court, but an argument of procedural unfairness could be used as the basis of a whipping operation to persuade MPs to amend a vote in the Commons to water down any punishment. Johnson’s allies insist no decision has been made.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-partygate-privileges-committee-rnh2zrv0w
The government has been criticised by Tory backbenchers on WhatsApp and faced accusations of “short-termism” after Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said he would reinstate the targets if his party won the next election.
Rishi Sunak dropped compulsory housebuilding targets for local areas in December after Tory MPs threatened to rebel against his Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tory-revolt-housebuilding-uk-leaked-whatsapp-messages-housing-policy-3pv932qmk
It is not necessarily the principle of voter ID that is open to question. It is why the change has been made, and why it has been implemented whilst ignoring the usual safeguards and against the advice of the EC.
Whatever the whys and wherefores, if as Mike suggested yesterday 2m voters could be disenfranchised that should worry any fair-minded citizen.
OTOH it may suit Boris, if he still harbours unworthy ambitions, to cease to be MP for Uxbridge by force majeure, giving him cover to get out and come back for safe seat next GE.
Thanks for coming around to my argument which is that voter ID is common sense but it should be implemented better, along with postal voting. Everyone who is a legitimate voter and wants to vote will know what to do for GE. Just like 95% of Europeans do.
Amen to that.
Especially for those on here who could see simple solutions that would have resolved all the issues that were being complained about.
Basically in person voting fraud is hard work - there are way easier ways of doing it (postal voting being the obvious one where again the issue is known but nowt was done to implement the recommended changes).
Add to that the point about alleged unfairness - and unlike Paterson he has legal opinion to claim that, even if the committee refutes it - and his supporters have pretext to reject a harsher punishment, and Rishi to allow it, and I see no reason to alter my view that he will escape on this occasion.
and that's the bit we have objected to for a very long time on here - heck's we've had this discussion regarding the requirements on and off for months it's why we know our viewpoints.
Slightly different quesrtion, if you think voter ID is enough can you tell me why a photo is required but your address isn't when your vote is based on where you live?
We demand Starmer's nuts for allegedly not following protocol when employing a former civil servant. Johnson, on the other hand, wilfully ignores his own guidance/rules/laws (delete as appropriate) oversees a programme of unprecedented public sector procurement fraud (allegedly by his mates) shakes off his minders to visit a KGB officer whilst Foreign Secretary, and we justify his blamelessness by agreeing to his absurd "the dog ate my homework" defences.