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.
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.
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
So what? The Electoral Commission recommendation wasn't that the polling card should be the exclusive means of identification. It was that it should be one such means, so that, barring a highly unusual and selective cock-up in the UK postal system as in your case, everyone on the electoral register would be guaranteed to have automatic access to AT LEAST one acceptable form of voter ID.
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.
Do you have a source for your claim that "25 out of 26" EU countries require photo ID to vote, and which is the one that you think doesn't?
And for your claim that only half EU countries have ID cards? Can you list the ones that don't please.
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.
They wouldn't - remember you only need your passport as photo ID and that doesn't have your address on it.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
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
But it was cynically politicised by Johnson in the first place. He found a solution for a non-existant problem, which he believed gave him an advantage. If you can't see that I am quite willing to sell you your invisible garden bridge back
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…
I’m voting for the window cleaner.
The very definition of the intrusive state! I shall be voting for the party that has my interests at heart - the local pizza restaurant.
In 1747 a wise scotsman, Alexander fraser Tylter opined the following
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
Sounds a lot like where we are frankly so I fail to get worked up by minor changes to democracy as I think as western democracies hit the buffers from kicking cans down the road for decades rather than fixing them that we will enter a post democratic era. Is it something I want no, I think though its come to the point where the only way any of the big issues get addressed is by finding another form of governance. Hopefully brief in nature followed by a return to a new democracy but I suspect not people rarely like to give up power.
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.
Like Churchill going to the trenches, drawing a line under past mistakes and coming back the country’s saviour. Yes. You are spot on how this plays 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 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.
They wouldn't - remember you only need your passport as photo ID and that doesn't have your address on it.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
But if you produced a foreign passport at the polling station, it might prompt some awkward questions.
NB, the case I'm thinking of was a general election.
The Scotland shift, which began two or three years ago and long before the SNP woes, is very interesting and increases my confidence in a Labour landslide.
Meanwhile I voted by post in today's locals. I voted for 3 LibDems and 1 Labour because I'm in a Lib-Con marginal and I will do anything to vote out the tories.
The next General Election will be more of an anti-tory vote than most people on here recognise.
I wouldn't be surprised. The Tory Party in its present incarnation is vile. I just received a text from an old friend saying she had just received her Austrian passport. Her late father was an Austrian refugee and apparently that entitles her and her whole family- children included -to an Austrian (EU) passport.
There seems to be quite a scramble in London in particular to look for for loopholes that will get people EU passports. How ridiculous that people are having to go through hoops to get what we all had by right before this Tory/UKIP government took power
A member of my family has managed to get hold of a German passport even though he's British because a relative was born in Königsberg in the 1920s. I'm not sure whether I'd be able to do the same thing. Interesting idea.
Go for it. Apparently you end up with an EU and a British passport. So when one runs out you can use the other.
He did warn that it could make you eligible for being called up for the German armed forces. That wouldn't apply to him because he's over 60.
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.
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?
Trusting people to be who they say they are when voting was a distinctive part of British culture until today. I think it was worth keeping because there was no evidence of any significant fraud as OGH has shown.
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.
They wouldn't - remember you only need your passport as photo ID and that doesn't have your address on it.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
But if you produced a foreign passport at the polling station, it might prompt some awkward questions.
I was thinking more you register yourself at 2 different houses in different wards / towns.
You could then legitimately vote twice with the same photo ID - literally the only way you would be caught is if you try to vote twice in the same polling station.
Granted you can no longer be John Smith in one location and Jack Jones in another but it's not really removed that old fashioned opportunity.
This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.
Ridiculous. I might have a go at doing this with an old passport.
Yes, I shall have a crack at this too.
It is perfectly acceptable to use an expired photo ID, so there isn’t really anything for you to have a crack at.
You endlessly go out to bat for this ridiculous, transparently restrictive, shambolically managed policy. London isn't voting, sadly, but if it were, I'd drag up the oldest 'ID' I could find of myself, wear a funny hat and see what happened.
A new DeSantis-backed bill would prohibit Chinese citizens from owning land — or homes — anywhere in the state of Florida. Asian American groups fear the bill will lead to racial profiling. https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1654104871505903616
This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.
Ridiculous. I might have a go at doing this with an old passport.
Yes, I shall have a crack at this too.
It is perfectly acceptable to use an expired photo ID, so there isn’t really anything for you to have a crack at.
You endlessly go out to bat for this ridiculous, transparently restrictive, shambolically managed policy. London isn't voting, sadly, but if it were, I'd drag up the oldest 'ID' I could find of myself, wear a funny hat and see what happened.
This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.
Ridiculous. I might have a go at doing this with an old passport.
Yes, I shall have a crack at this too.
It is perfectly acceptable to use an expired photo ID, so there isn’t really anything for you to have a crack at.
You endlessly go out to bat for this ridiculous, transparently restrictive, shambolically managed policy. London isn't voting, sadly, but if it were, I'd drag up the oldest 'ID' I could find of myself, wear a funny hat and see what happened.
I was deeply hurt when the nice lady at my polling station looked at me, then my driving licence, and appeared deep in thought before accepting me. It’s only five years old - I didn’t let myself go that much during Covid!
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.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
Donkeygate and Currygate are two separate incidents that gained media attention and controversy in recent years.
Donkeygate: Donkeygate refers to a political scandal that occurred in New Zealand in 2008. The scandal involved the New Zealand First party, which was led by Winston Peters, who was also the country's foreign affairs minister at the time.
The scandal started when the media received information about large donations made to the New Zealand First party by a businessman named Owen Glenn. Peters initially denied receiving any donations from Glenn, but later admitted that the party had received $100,000 from Glenn.
However, the scandal deepened when it was alleged that Peters had known about the donation and had not disclosed it, which would be a violation of the country's political donation laws. The scandal became known as "Donkeygate" because of a reference to a donkey made by Peters during a press conference.
The scandal led to an investigation by New Zealand's Electoral Commission, and Peters was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. However, the scandal damaged his reputation and his party's performance in the subsequent general election.
Currygate: Currygate is a term that refers to a controversy that emerged in 2019 when the Indian cricket team was served a meal during the Cricket World Cup in England. The controversy started when it was alleged that the food served to the Indian cricket team contained beef, which is considered a taboo in the Hindu religion.
The controversy gained attention in India and sparked outrage among some Hindu nationalists. The Indian cricket team manager later clarified that the food did not contain beef, but rather was a non-vegetarian dish made with chicken.
This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.
Ridiculous. I might have a go at doing this with an old passport.
Yes, I shall have a crack at this too.
It is perfectly acceptable to use an expired photo ID, so there isn’t really anything for you to have a crack at.
The game is to have the oldest one that is accepted.
I wonder if anyone has yet been able to use their nursery yearbook mugshot from 50 years ago?
(What is bizarre is not that one ends up with the whole set of 9 Red Arrows, but - so far as I can see - nine models of the same individual plane, with the same serial number. Likewise the two other jet types. Or at least there is no evidence presented otherwise.)
This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.
Ridiculous. I might have a go at doing this with an old passport.
Yes, I shall have a crack at this too.
It is perfectly acceptable to use an expired photo ID, so there isn’t really anything for you to have a crack at.
What is the point of requiring photo ID if a) the photo doesn't bear any resemblance to the individual and b) the photo was never validated in the first place?
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.
One of the inevitable dangers of switching off proper government, hiding from problems to sort out, and going so ultra safety first a year before election as Sunak and Hunt have done - voters then start thinking of you as not governing properly by going safety first. This was how it played out 09-10 under the government of Peter Mandleson?
This morning, I took a selection of my outdated passports to my Polling Station as my ID in order to vote. The Poll clerk accepted the photo in my cancelled UK Visitor's Passport valid from 1985 to 1986. That photo was taken 38 years ago. I have since changed significantly. My hair in the photo was almost black - and it is now totally white. So I wore a cap, and the colour of my hair couldn't be seen. I was given a ballot paper and voted. What a time wasting nonsense this this having to produce ID is.
Ridiculous. I might have a go at doing this with an old passport.
Yes, I shall have a crack at this too.
It is perfectly acceptable to use an expired photo ID, so there isn’t really anything for you to have a crack at.
You endlessly go out to bat for this ridiculous, transparently restrictive, shambolically managed policy. London isn't voting, sadly, but if it were, I'd drag up the oldest 'ID' I could find of myself, wear a funny hat and see what happened.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Donkeygate and Currygate are two separate incidents that gained media attention and controversy in recent years.
Donkeygate: Donkeygate refers to a political scandal that occurred in New Zealand in 2008. The scandal involved the New Zealand First party, which was led by Winston Peters, who was also the country's foreign affairs minister at the time.
The scandal started when the media received information about large donations made to the New Zealand First party by a businessman named Owen Glenn. Peters initially denied receiving any donations from Glenn, but later admitted that the party had received $100,000 from Glenn.
However, the scandal deepened when it was alleged that Peters had known about the donation and had not disclosed it, which would be a violation of the country's political donation laws. The scandal became known as "Donkeygate" because of a reference to a donkey made by Peters during a press conference.
The scandal led to an investigation by New Zealand's Electoral Commission, and Peters was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. However, the scandal damaged his reputation and his party's performance in the subsequent general election.
Currygate: Currygate is a term that refers to a controversy that emerged in 2019 when the Indian cricket team was served a meal during the Cricket World Cup in England. The controversy started when it was alleged that the food served to the Indian cricket team contained beef, which is considered a taboo in the Hindu religion.
The controversy gained attention in India and sparked outrage among some Hindu nationalists. The Indian cricket team manager later clarified that the food did not contain beef, but rather was a non-vegetarian dish made with chicken.
CHATbot 2, PB 0
Certainly in terms of political significance . . . unless of course you are part of UK Tory payroll vote (ministers, MPs, very special advisers, crony lobby, media auxiliary, etc., etc.)
You can't get a usual mortgage for houses of atypical construction. There are specialist firms that offer it, but by definition they are limited to nice middle-class people with the money and the time to navigate the bureaucracy, so it's definitely niche. The numbers are non-zero - selfbuilds etc and I think some houses in Scotland use SIPs (structural insulated panels) - but as a rule of thumb outside of wartime damage reconstruction if it doesn't involve brick or stone, you be dead (dunno about breeze blocks).
Modular factory-built housing in as a mass market solution in the UK is simply a dead end. Grand Designs: yes. Coronation Street/Brookside: no.
I didn't realise that about the mortgages. Presumably that is the same as a Park Home which are predominantly bought by the mortgage free.
Indeed. Post-war prefabs are difficult. Usually you can't get a normal mortgage on studio flats under 30sq metres. Ditto flats (on or) over the sixth floor. Some leasehold flats/houses sold with iniquitous conditions/ground rents are difficult to mortgage. And so on and so on...
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
Even though brought up in Tory household, where we delivered leaflets and put up signs on our land down by the road, I always read all political leaflets as pointlessly biased. We only got one Labour leaflet I can remember my mum carrying with marigolds on to put in the bin. Must have been 2005.
On the one hand what is even the point making delivering something not even remotely balanced. On the other hand my mum daily reads Daily Mail cover to cover, believes every word of it, and gets worked up by the hypocrisy of Starmer and Labour.
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?
Trusting people to be who they say they are when voting was a distinctive part of British culture until today. I think it was worth keeping because there was no evidence of any significant fraud as OGH has shown.
British, maybe. Not Northern Irish.
The nature of fraud is that it's hidden. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm fairly indifferent to whether we require ID to vote or not, though in the days when I need about seven passwords, PINs and logins to get into my work email or internet banking, it seems to be the way the world is going. But the real scandal is postal voting - that's what we should be looking at.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
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?
Trusting people to be who they say they are when voting was a distinctive part of British culture until today. I think it was worth keeping because there was no evidence of any significant fraud as OGH has shown.
British, maybe. Not Northern Irish.
The nature of fraud is that it's hidden. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm fairly indifferent to whether we require ID to vote or not, though in the days when I need about seven passwords, PINs and logins to get into my work email or internet banking, it seems to be the way the world is going. But the real scandal is postal voting - that's what we should be looking at.
The UK is unique in this legislation in that:
(a) there is no photo ID that is carried by the vast majority of people (b) there is a very limited set of acceptable IDs and (c) there is no backup for people who don't have ID on them when they arrive at the polling station
If you look at Canada, for example. They have a requirement for photo ID, but if you don't have it, another voter (with ID) can attest to your Identity, or you can cast a provisional vote, or you can provide two pieces of non photo ID and sign a declaration.
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
Jeremy Corbyn, please explain
You've got the wrong person, sorry. Never been a Corbynite; was opposed to Jezza from the start. He's far too right wing for me.
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.
They wouldn't - remember you only need your passport as photo ID and that doesn't have your address on it.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
But if you produced a foreign passport at the polling station, it might prompt some awkward questions.
I was thinking more you register yourself at 2 different houses in different wards / towns.
You could then legitimately vote twice with the same photo ID - literally the only way you would be caught is if you try to vote twice in the same polling station.
Granted you can no longer be John Smith in one location and Jack Jones in another but it's not really removed that old fashioned opportunity.
Potentially there is no issue necessarily of getting caught because it is legal to vote twice on the same day at different places provided it is not in the same election. So if you have a house in Surrey and one in Suffolk you could register for both and vote in parish, town, borough, county elections in both on the same day. You cannot do so in a General Election or National Referendum because it is the same parliament/event you are voting for.
Students of course are the ones that could do this easily with a postal vote for one and in person for the other. They are free to vote at home and at Uni for their local councillors in both places, but can't vote in both places for 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.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
I never had you down as a follower of the Woke Communist Squad.
But have we got to the stage where a Supreme Court Justice can't accept help on behalf of a potentially underprivileged grand-nephew from a dear personal friend and Republican mega-donor without being forced to fill out some tedious paperwork to make it public?
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
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.
Needing photo ID for voting makes it inevitable compulsory ID cards will soon follow, doesn’t it. If you want to disagree, note the Tory who screamed to media loudest how utterly wrong voter ID is - David Davies - he would know this slippery slope better than anyone wouldn’t he?
American experience - seeing as how Tories are copying from US Republican Party playbook - suggest otherwise?
For example, in WA State, where GOP is relatively powerless at state level, state law requires a prospective voter to present valid drivers license, state ID, military ID, tribal ID and few other options upon registering to vote, AND subsequently when voting in PERSON.
However, note that all but a relative handful of WA voters cast their vote via the mail OR official drop boxes; further note that all active registered voters automatically are mailed a ballot for any election where they are eligible to vote.
In these cases, WA law requires that voters sign oath on return ballot envelope AND that election workers check EVERY signature against copy on file with the voter's registration record. Voters who signatures do NOT match (or forget to sign return envelope) are notified AND given opportunity to "cure" their ballot with a valid sig.
ADDENDUM - Meant to say, my main point is that in US we do NOT have a national ID card. Rather, a patchwork of IDs recognized for various diverse purposes - such voting, driving, entering federal buildings & host of others - issued and/or recognized by US and state governments.
A new DeSantis-backed bill would prohibit Chinese citizens from owning land — or homes — anywhere in the state of Florida. Asian American groups fear the bill will lead to racial profiling. https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1654104871505903616
I think we have reached crossover where I would be more comfortable with Trump than De Santis. At least with Tucker, Trump, Marjorie, Info Wars we know enough that it’s about exploiting people for power and money, the protagonists are not actually so stupid but highly intelligent and actually don’t believe the shit they are selling. With De Santis it’s the opposite, you sense he genuinely believes he’s doing good, more so than simply doing it to exploit people into giving him money.
Think of it like the Protestant reformation, someone rich making money selling bits of the sandals of Jesus knowing full well it’s definite not from the sandals of Jesus, versus someone selling it believing it is from the sandals of Jesus, and if we bathe in it, and then make beer out of the bath water the world will be a better place.
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.
They wouldn't - remember you only need your passport as photo ID and that doesn't have your address on it.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
But if you produced a foreign passport at the polling station, it might prompt some awkward questions.
NB, the case I'm thinking of was a general election.
A dual citizen could use their non UK passport so I don't see why it would prompt any questions.
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
A new DeSantis-backed bill would prohibit Chinese citizens from owning land — or homes — anywhere in the state of Florida. Asian American groups fear the bill will lead to racial profiling. https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1654104871505903616
I think we have reached crossover where I would be more comfortable with Trump than De Santis. At least with Tucker, Trump, Marjorie, Info Wars we know enough that it’s about exploiting people for power and money, the protagonists are not actually so stupid but highly intelligent and actually don’t believe the shit they are selling. With De Santis it’s the opposite, you sense he genuinely believes he’s doing good, more so than simply doing it to exploit people into giving him money.
Think of it like the Protestant reformation, someone rich making money selling bits of the sandals of Jesus knowing full well it’s definite not from the sandals of Jesus, versus someone selling it believing it is from the sandals of Jesus, and if we bathe in it, and then make beer out of the bath water the world will be a better place.
I would choose Trump over DeSantis any day of the week.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
If you were 15 and looked 15 you could get a beer in a lot of pubs. #greatdays.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
In certain pubs you could get a beer as long as you were tall enough to reach the bar.
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
Your grandfather was NOT alone in this. He respected the spirit, if not letter, of the law.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
My guess - fwiw - is that 2 and 3 solve 99.9% of potential fraud, while not dampening turnout, while 4 solves 100% of potential fraud while disenfranchising tens of thousands (or maybe hundreds of thousands) of voters.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
If you were 15 and looked 15 you could get a beer in a lot of pubs. #greatdays.
There were various qualifiers around my way:
1) You looked at least 15 2) You were female, had long hair and wore lipstick 3) Your dad knew the landlord
It was a more liberal time – only one of the above was required
I never had you down as a follower of the Woke Communist Squad.
But have we got to the stage where a Supreme Court Justice can't accept help on behalf of a potentially underprivileged grand-nephew from a dear personal friend and Republican mega-donor without being forced to fill out some tedious paperwork to make it public?
Nothing to see here, IMHO.
You DO make your point!
Maybe one way to handle this situation, is to require SCOTUS justices to wear their sponsorship(s) on their judicial robes?
Remember Chief Rehnquist with his nifty racing stripes during the Bill Clinton impeachment? Just like NASCAR!
You can't get a usual mortgage for houses of atypical construction. There are specialist firms that offer it, but by definition they are limited to nice middle-class people with the money and the time to navigate the bureaucracy, so it's definitely niche. The numbers are non-zero - selfbuilds etc and I think some houses in Scotland use SIPs (structural insulated panels) - but as a rule of thumb outside of wartime damage reconstruction if it doesn't involve brick or stone, you be dead (dunno about breeze blocks).
Modular factory-built housing in as a mass market solution in the UK is simply a dead end. Grand Designs: yes. Coronation Street/Brookside: no.
I didn't realise that about the mortgages. Presumably that is the same as a Park Home which are predominantly bought by the mortgage free.
Indeed. Post-war prefabs are difficult. Usually you can't get a normal mortgage on studio flats under 30sq metres. Ditto flats (on or) over the sixth floor. Some leasehold flats/houses sold with iniquitous conditions/ground rents are difficult to mortgage. And so on and so on...
I recall a few years ago a spate of articles from people with very onerous ground rents that doubled every 10 years which, effectively, made their homes nigh on impossible to sell.
We really don’t do housing very well at all in this country.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
Your grandfather was NOT alone in this. He respected the spirit, if not letter, of the law.
Plus honoring the greatest law of all: love.
Ironically, according to their children, when they were much younger they both used to agree they weren't going to be voting as it'd be a waste to cancel out each others' votes... then my grandmother would secretly vote during the day and my grandfather on his way back from work.
Although I strongly suspect both knew the pact would always be broken, and it was something of a private joke in front of the kids.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that the man is corrupt. Even if it was a simple case of (lavish) friendship, one of the top judges in the land would know the dangers of the appearance of impropriety. And judges cannot claim to be too dumb to understand these things and remain credible.
But his politics fit, so he's going nowhere, and even if he did they'd presumably find a way to delay appointment until after the next election.
To believe clear, he could be the most conservative man in existence and thatd be fine, if he maintained personal and professional standards.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
My guess - fwiw - is that 2 and 3 solve 99.9% of potential fraud, while not dampening turnout, while 4 solves 100% of potential fraud while disenfranchising tens of thousands (or maybe hundreds of thousands) of voters.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
This is great, but would set a problem now as several million lifelong Tories have no intention whatever of voting for them this time, out of pure traditional Tory principle.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
As a nation we rejected New Labour's ID card roll out, so this seems incongruous. Why haven't we had a vanity by election in Haltemprice and Howden?
I suspect many of us aren't too triggered by the notion of ID cards to ensure fair elections. Nonetheless when it has been rolled out against the express advice of the EC and the terms and conditions have appeared to benefit the party promoting the project by the selective use of ID (over 60 and a postage stamp will do nicely, under 30 and you'll need a birth certificate countersigned by all eight Great Grandparents) rightly or wrongly we are outraged.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
and didn't do anything to resolved the known issues within the electoral system where postal fraud is a known problem but no changes were made.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
Sounds cosy.
Tackling that one would ensure a charge of racism.
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
Your grandfather was NOT alone in this. He respected the spirit, if not letter, of the law.
Plus honoring the greatest law of all: love.
I wonder if any lawyer has attempted that line at trial.
You can't get a usual mortgage for houses of atypical construction. There are specialist firms that offer it, but by definition they are limited to nice middle-class people with the money and the time to navigate the bureaucracy, so it's definitely niche. The numbers are non-zero - selfbuilds etc and I think some houses in Scotland use SIPs (structural insulated panels) - but as a rule of thumb outside of wartime damage reconstruction if it doesn't involve brick or stone, you be dead (dunno about breeze blocks).
Modular factory-built housing in as a mass market solution in the UK is simply a dead end. Grand Designs: yes. Coronation Street/Brookside: no.
I didn't realise that about the mortgages. Presumably that is the same as a Park Home which are predominantly bought by the mortgage free.
Indeed. Post-war prefabs are difficult. Usually you can't get a normal mortgage on studio flats under 30sq metres. Ditto flats (on or) over the sixth floor. Some leasehold flats/houses sold with iniquitous conditions/ground rents are difficult to mortgage. And so on and so on...
I recall a few years ago a spate of articles from people with very onerous ground rents that doubled every 10 years which, effectively, made their homes nigh on impossible to sell.
We really don’t do housing very well at all in this country.
It looks like that stuff is being abolished/constrained to the point of non-existence in the near future.
Watching Andor on Disney which is quite an entertaining Star Wars spin-off. However I have reached the bit where they steal “the Empire’s entire monthly payroll for this quadrant of the universe” etc etc, and it appears to be in the form of massive gold coins
I’m somewhat surprised that, given they have developed the ability to reformulate galaxies and destroy solar systems, the Empire hasn’t got the hang of digital banking and is still relying on cash
Next episode: an urchin steals Darth Vader’s kerchief
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
Watching Andor on Disney which is quite an entertaining Star Wars spin-off. However I have reached the bit where they steal “the Empire’s entire monthly payroll for this quadrant of the universe” etc etc, and it appears to be in the form of massive gold coins
I’m somewhat surprised that, given they have developed the ability to reformulate galaxies and destroy solar systems, the Empire hasn’t got the hang of digital banking and is still relying on cash
Next episode: an urchin steals Darth Vader’s kerchief
To be fair there is an interesting (well, boring and no one will ever touch it as a theme in fiction) question of how you’d manage to have a currency with a galactic empire that is, presumably, always expanding. It’s the eurozone problem in steroids. The Rebel Alliance could have just waited for it to fall apart when the evil Sith failed to set a workable monetary policy.
Watching Andor on Disney which is quite an entertaining Star Wars spin-off. However I have reached the bit where they steal “the Empire’s entire monthly payroll for this quadrant of the universe” etc etc, and it appears to be in the form of massive gold coins
I’m somewhat surprised that, given they have developed the ability to reformulate galaxies and destroy solar systems, the Empire hasn’t got the hang of digital banking and is still relying on cash
Next episode: an urchin steals Darth Vader’s kerchief
It's because they can do these things that they know the dangers of electronic money.
Watching Andor on Disney which is quite an entertaining Star Wars spin-off. However I have reached the bit where they steal “the Empire’s entire monthly payroll for this quadrant of the universe” etc etc, and it appears to be in the form of massive gold coins
I’m somewhat surprised that, given they have developed the ability to reformulate galaxies and destroy solar systems, the Empire hasn’t got the hang of digital banking and is still relying on cash
Next episode: an urchin steals Darth Vader’s kerchief
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Watching Andor on Disney which is quite an entertaining Star Wars spin-off. However I have reached the bit where they steal “the Empire’s entire monthly payroll for this quadrant of the universe” etc etc, and it appears to be in the form of massive gold coins
I’m somewhat surprised that, given they have developed the ability to reformulate galaxies and destroy solar systems, the Empire hasn’t got the hang of digital banking and is still relying on cash
Next episode: an urchin steals Darth Vader’s kerchief
To be fair there is an interesting (well, boring and no one will ever touch it as a theme in fiction) question of how you’d manage to have a currency with a galactic empire that is, presumably, always expanding. It’s the eurozone problem in steroids. The Rebel Alliance could have just waited for it to fall apart when the evil Sith failed to set a workable monetary policy.
I’ll send you and outline and we can go halves.
Charlie's Stross covered it in Neptune's Brood with the concept of fast and slow money
Those notes actual refer to Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber which is important because it says - Barter, Graeber points out, isn't something that emerges, and that acts as a precursor to the development of money: rather, barter is what we get in atomized societies when fiscal systems collapse and nobody trusts their neighbours. True primitive tribal societies run on interpersonal debt and/or honour systems: everybody knows what their neighbours owe them, so there's no need to provide an immediate exchange for items of value received.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
Sounds cosy.
Such a dense collection of democracy.
Are they all Lib Dems ?
A quick bit of googling will tell you which ward in Woking. As it has been won by all the 3 main parties I think it is fair to assume they have all been at it, although libel laws might restrict me to naming only those who have been 'sent down'.
I am also pretty sure that none of the main parties were actively involved. From personal knowledge I am aware that some, if not all, the main parties actively tried to prevent it happening and failed miserably.
Another day another article about apologies and reparations. This time a publicity shy Australian politician has got a round robin letter signed by a few countries and there is a petition on change.org.
Also the return of stolen artefacts. Something I have some sympathy for.
This timed perfectly for the coronation making the demand of King Charles.
It wasn't that long ago that the only time you needed ID in Britain was if you were at an airport or ferry terminal travelling to a foreign country. Everything else was done informally. If you were 15 but looked 18 you could get a beer in a pub for instance.
It's not unreasonable to ask for some ID.
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system) (2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card) (3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest (4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
In short, voter ID is not inherently bad, but its been done in a bad way.
I would modify that: 1 is actually "no ID, but a record of who has voted at the polling station is made". The status quo is the thing that eliminates 99.9% of all fraud. It's so easily detected that it is hardly worth trying.
Not really as candidates can access a list of who actually voted after the election so next election they now have a feeling for who is unlikely to vote and is ripe for personation
I thought one of the ways we detected the very few cases of actual personation was anomaly detection in voting patterns of exactly this kind.
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.
The rules say "a passport", so my gut is no.
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Articles like this are usually buried deep in the BBC's local pages. The content is jaw dropping.
There is lots of evidence of postal vote fraud, particularly in certain "communities".
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
There is a ward in Woking that has quite a reputation for this. The winner is usually assumed to be the one that has the postal vote fix best organised. The local parties don't seem to be able to get a handle on it because it gets driven by local personalities unlike most other wards where there is more central control by the parties. At one location there were 16 people registered in a one bedroom flat.
Sounds cosy.
Such a dense collection of democracy.
Are they all Lib Dems ?
A quick bit of googling will tell you which ward in Woking. As it has been won by all the 3 main parties I think it is fair to assume they have all been at it, although libel laws might restrict me to naming only those who have been 'sent down'.
I am also pretty sure that none of the main parties were actively involved. From personal knowledge I am aware that some, if not all, the main parties actively tried to prevent it happening and failed miserably.
Apoligies, I was making the Lib Dems comment in reference to the word "dense" in the previous post. As an amusement only.
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.
They wouldn't - remember you only need your passport as photo ID and that doesn't have your address on it.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
But if you produced a foreign passport at the polling station, it might prompt some awkward questions.
NB, the case I'm thinking of was a general election.
A dual citizen could use their non UK passport so I don't see why it would prompt any questions.
It prompts the question "Why are you using a Transmoldovian passport?" To which the answer is "I have dual UK/Transmoldovian citizenship, and my UK passport has been sent for renewal" The passport should be accepted as proof of ID and being on the electoral register should show your eligibility to vote. If the compilers of the electoral register are putting non-UK residents on the electoral register, then the problem is at that stage, not the proof of ID stage.
Rather sweetly (but technically fraudulently) my grandfather used to complete a postal vote for my grandmother in accordance with what he knew her wishes would be as her dementia set in.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
Your grandfather was NOT alone in this. He respected the spirit, if not letter, of the law.
Plus honoring the greatest law of all: love.
I wonder if any lawyer has attempted that line at trial.
Unfortunately, even if there is a power of attorney in place, it does not permit voting.
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.
They wouldn't - remember you only need your passport as photo ID and that doesn't have your address on it.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
But if you produced a foreign passport at the polling station, it might prompt some awkward questions.
NB, the case I'm thinking of was a general election.
A dual citizen could use their non UK passport so I don't see why it would prompt any questions.
It prompts the question "Why are you using a Transmoldovian passport?" To which the answer is "I have dual UK/Transmoldovian citizenship, and my UK passport has been sent for renewal" The passport should be accepted as proof of ID and being on the electoral register should show your eligibility to vote. If the compilers of the electoral register are putting non-UK residents on the electoral register, then the problem is at that stage, not the proof of ID stage.
As it is a valid ID that establishes the voter's identity it shouldn't prompt any questions at all.
Less serious than treason, seditious conspiracy is defined as a plot to overthrow the government or use force "to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States".
Remember though, it's unreasonable to call it an attempted coup, because only one percise definition of coup is allowed and also it didn't work.
Comments
And for your claim that only half EU countries have ID cards? Can you list the ones that don't please.
And the ward you vote in is based on your residential address.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
Sounds a lot like where we are frankly so I fail to get worked up by minor changes to democracy as I think as western democracies hit the buffers from kicking cans down the road for decades rather than fixing them that we will enter a post democratic era. Is it something I want no, I think though its come to the point where the only way any of the big issues get addressed is by finding another form of governance. Hopefully brief in nature followed by a return to a new democracy but I suspect not people rarely like to give up power.
NB, the case I'm thinking of was a general election.
You could then legitimately vote twice with the same photo ID - literally the only way you would be caught is if you try to vote twice in the same polling station.
Granted you can no longer be John Smith in one location and Jack Jones in another but it's not really removed that old fashioned opportunity.
https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1654104871505903616
What's strange is that this is a safe Labour ward so either the Tories have got lost or the candidates are doing it themselves.
Ok maybe….
Donkeygate and Currygate are two separate incidents that gained media attention and controversy in recent years.
Donkeygate:
Donkeygate refers to a political scandal that occurred in New Zealand in 2008. The scandal involved the New Zealand First party, which was led by Winston Peters, who was also the country's foreign affairs minister at the time.
The scandal started when the media received information about large donations made to the New Zealand First party by a businessman named Owen Glenn. Peters initially denied receiving any donations from Glenn, but later admitted that the party had received $100,000 from Glenn.
However, the scandal deepened when it was alleged that Peters had known about the donation and had not disclosed it, which would be a violation of the country's political donation laws. The scandal became known as "Donkeygate" because of a reference to a donkey made by Peters during a press conference.
The scandal led to an investigation by New Zealand's Electoral Commission, and Peters was eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. However, the scandal damaged his reputation and his party's performance in the subsequent general election.
Currygate:
Currygate is a term that refers to a controversy that emerged in 2019 when the Indian cricket team was served a meal during the Cricket World Cup in England. The controversy started when it was alleged that the food served to the Indian cricket team contained beef, which is considered a taboo in the Hindu religion.
The controversy gained attention in India and sparked outrage among some Hindu nationalists. The Indian cricket team manager later clarified that the food did not contain beef, but rather was a non-vegetarian dish made with chicken.
https://uk.airfix.com/products/kings-coronation-flypast-bundle-bundlea25
(What is bizarre is not that one ends up with the whole set of 9 Red Arrows, but - so far as I can see - nine models of the same individual plane, with the same serial number. Likewise the two other jet types. Or at least there is no evidence presented otherwise.)
(Last dusted down in December 2019....)
https://twitter.com/BasedMikeLee/status/1654108483975782401
Maybe for him, they are ?
Presumably (assuming it's a non Commonwealth/ Irish passport) if asked, one would simply say that one had dual citizenship.
And, of course, one doesn't need to have a British passport to get a driver's license, so long as one has a valid visa. Do driver's licenses include citizenship? I suspect not.
Certainly in terms of political significance . . . unless of course you are part of UK Tory payroll vote (ministers, MPs, very special advisers, crony lobby, media auxiliary, etc., etc.)
On the one hand what is even the point making delivering something not even remotely balanced. On the other hand my mum daily reads Daily Mail cover to cover, believes every word of it, and gets worked up by the hypocrisy of Starmer and Labour.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8327255/Man-people-New-Labour-leader-Sir-Keir-owns-seven-acres-land-Surrey-worth-10m.html
The nature of fraud is that it's hidden. So absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I'm fairly indifferent to whether we require ID to vote or not, though in the days when I need about seven passwords, PINs and logins to get into my work email or internet banking, it seems to be the way the world is going. But the real scandal is postal voting - that's what we should be looking at.
It turns out Mr Crow has been paying private school tuition fees for a Mr Thomas's nephew: https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8655697.stm
(a) there is no photo ID that is carried by the vast majority of people
(b) there is a very limited set of acceptable IDs and
(c) there is no backup for people who don't have ID on them when they arrive at the polling station
If you look at Canada, for example. They have a requirement for photo ID, but if you don't have it, another voter (with ID) can attest to your Identity, or you can cast a provisional vote, or you can provide two pieces of non photo ID and sign a declaration.
He's far too right wing for me.
Sean Thomas" (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-demand-reparations-for-my-ancestors-fall-from-grace/
Students of course are the ones that could do this easily with a postal vote for one and in person for the other. They are free to vote at home and at Uni for their local councillors in both places, but can't vote in both places for their MP.
The lack of desire to tackle a problem we know exists, over one we do not, is highly suspicious.
https://dailynigerian.com/anti-monarchist-group-britain/
"Anti-monarchist group in Britain issues digital trading cards in protest against King Charles's coronation"
I never had you down as a follower of the Woke Communist Squad.
But have we got to the stage where a Supreme Court Justice can't accept help on behalf of a potentially underprivileged grand-nephew from a dear personal friend and Republican mega-donor without being forced to fill out some tedious paperwork to make it public?
Nothing to see here, IMHO.
For example, in WA State, where GOP is relatively powerless at state level, state law requires a prospective voter to present valid drivers license, state ID, military ID, tribal ID and few other options upon registering to vote, AND subsequently when voting in PERSON.
However, note that all but a relative handful of WA voters cast their vote via the mail OR official drop boxes; further note that all active registered voters automatically are mailed a ballot for any election where they are eligible to vote.
In these cases, WA law requires that voters sign oath on return ballot envelope AND that election workers check EVERY signature against copy on file with the voter's registration record. Voters who signatures do NOT match (or forget to sign return envelope) are notified AND given opportunity to "cure" their ballot with a valid sig.
ADDENDUM - Meant to say, my main point is that in US we do NOT have a national ID card. Rather, a patchwork of IDs recognized for various diverse purposes - such voting, driving, entering federal buildings & host of others - issued and/or recognized by US and state governments.
Think of it like the Protestant reformation, someone rich making money selling bits of the sandals of Jesus knowing full well it’s definite not from the sandals of Jesus, versus someone selling it believing it is from the sandals of Jesus, and if we bathe in it, and then make beer out of the bath water the world will be a better place.
I say "sweetly" as he was lifelong Labour, and she lifelong Tory, so he was essentially sending in two votes cancelling each other out (other parties weren't a factor in their area).
https://twitter.com
But it's also not unreasonable for us to run trials.
We could have divided the country into four groups for this election:
(1) No ID required (the current system)
(2) Any ID required (i.e. like in Ireland a bank or credit card, or student ID card)
(3) Photo ID required, but with contingencies - like in Canada where you can get another voter to attest
(4) Full Photo ID required, with no contingencies.
We could then track in each of these areas, the number of people who turned up to vote to find someone else had already voted. And also we could take a random sample of 10,000 voters, which would be followed up with visits to confirm that (a) they live where they say they do, (b) that they were alive, and (c) that they voted.
This would enable us to see both the level of fraud and the level of disenfranchisement.
We could then make a clear, evidence based, decision on what measures to put in place.
Plus honoring the greatest law of all: love.
1) You looked at least 15
2) You were female, had long hair and wore lipstick
3) Your dad knew the landlord
It was a more liberal time – only one of the above was required
Maybe one way to handle this situation, is to require SCOTUS justices to wear their sponsorship(s) on their judicial robes?
Remember Chief Rehnquist with his nifty racing stripes during the Bill Clinton impeachment? Just like NASCAR!
We really don’t do housing very well at all in this country.
Although I strongly suspect both knew the pact would always be broken, and it was something of a private joke in front of the kids.
But his politics fit, so he's going nowhere, and even if he did they'd presumably find a way to delay appointment until after the next election.
To believe clear, he could be the most conservative man in existence and thatd be fine, if he maintained personal and professional standards.
I suspect many of us aren't too triggered by the notion of ID cards to ensure fair elections. Nonetheless when it has been rolled out against the express advice of the EC and the terms and conditions have appeared to benefit the party promoting the project by the selective use of ID (over 60 and a postage stamp will do nicely, under 30 and you'll need a birth certificate countersigned by all eight Great Grandparents) rightly or wrongly we are outraged.
Bit like building regs in some areas.
What is franchising for?
With voter ID the question is:
What is in-person voter ID for?
Again, a question nobody is able to answer.
I’m somewhat surprised that, given they have developed the ability to reformulate galaxies and destroy solar systems, the Empire hasn’t got the hang of digital banking and is still relying on cash
Next episode: an urchin steals Darth Vader’s kerchief
I’ll send you and outline and we can go halves.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2014/09/crib-sheet-neptunes-brood.html
Those notes actual refer to Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber which is important because it says - Barter, Graeber points out, isn't something that emerges, and that acts as a precursor to the development of money: rather, barter is what we get in atomized societies when fiscal systems collapse and nobody trusts their neighbours. True primitive tribal societies run on interpersonal debt and/or honour systems: everybody knows what their neighbours owe them, so there's no need to provide an immediate exchange for items of value received.
I am also pretty sure that none of the main parties were actively involved. From personal knowledge I am aware that some, if not all, the main parties actively tried to prevent it happening and failed miserably.
Also the return of stolen artefacts. Something I have some sympathy for.
This timed perfectly for the coronation making the demand of King Charles.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/king-charles-must-apologise-for-british-genocide-and-colonisation/ar-AA1aJCkA?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=b2ed69a3291c4bc3b127c0b0e652445a&ei=11
To which the answer is "I have dual UK/Transmoldovian citizenship, and my UK passport has been sent for renewal"
The passport should be accepted as proof of ID and being on the electoral register should show your eligibility to vote.
If the compilers of the electoral register are putting non-UK residents on the electoral register, then the problem is at that stage, not the proof of ID stage.
https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1654139899346337794
See Section 29 Mental Capacity Act 2005 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/section/29
29Voting rights
(1)Nothing in this Act permits a decision on voting at an election for any public office, or at a referendum, to be made on behalf of a person.
(2)“Referendum” has the same meaning as in section 101 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41).
Traitors.
Less serious than treason, seditious conspiracy is defined as a plot to overthrow the government or use force "to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States".
Remember though, it's unreasonable to call it an attempted coup, because only one percise definition of coup is allowed and also it didn't work.