Not The Politics Thread.

[Buce]

37 minutes ago, twoleftfeet said:

The voter ID will stop the poor voting? what the poor who need to provide ID to claim benefits, Get a free bus pass when you reach retirement, you even need ID to rent from a slum landlord. i get it you don't agree with voter ID but if you were really worried about the poor you would call for the BBC licence fee to be abolished, as £20 to renew a driving licence for 10 years is still cheaper than £159 for the Tv licence for 1 year. 

 

 

Voter ID may disenfranchise over 2 million people, with older, disabled, and homeless people disproportionately affected.

Those are the government's own figures:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/more-than-2m-voters-may-lack-photo-id-required-under-new-uk-bill

Edited 11 May 2021 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, twoleftfeet said:

The voter ID will stop the poor voting? what the poor who need to provide ID to claim benefits, Get a free bus pass when you reach retirement, you even need ID to rent from a slum landlord. i get it you don't agree with voter ID but if you were really worried about the poor you would call for the BBC licence fee to be abolished, as £20 to renew a driving licence for 10 years is still cheaper than £159 for the Tv licence for 1 year. 

 

 

It's not so much being "worried about the poor" or saving people money, it's about the undermining of democracy and universal suffrage.

 

As per the article that I linked above, the Electoral Commission estimates that 3m voters have no photo ID and 11m have no passport or driving licence (unclear what photo ID will be accepted yet).

Maybe the Govt will provide those millions of people with free photo ID, but that would cost a bomb and be a hell of a task......entirely disproportionate to the tiny number of election fraud cases.

 

Also, it is not just "the poor" who risk being discouraged or effectively excluded from voting. Lots of young people have no driving licence or passport, as do lots of elderly and a lot of people from ethnic minorities.

I know that none of my brother (50s, in work), my nephew (30, in work) and my ex-mother-in-law (90s) have either of those documents. A lot of people in big cities do not drive - and a significant minority among them will have no passport.

Depending on the ID required, there's also the issue of whether people want to carry, say, their passport around with them - maybe to/from work if voting after work, or around a dodgy area if that's where they live.

 

They've done pilot studies: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/13/second-voter-id-trial-sees-800-people-unable-to-vote-in-local-elections.......and this is just in a handful of pilot areas:

"Across the eight out of 10 test areas that have so far given figures, 819 people were turned away from polling stations and did not return, according to the Local Government Chronicle (LGC)".

 

 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Voter ID may disenfranchise over 2 million people, with older, disabled, and homeless people disproportionately affected.

Those are the government's own figures:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/may/11/more-than-2m-voters-may-lack-photo-id-required-under-new-uk-bill

Might have helped in 2016 then? 

[twoleftfeet]

6 hours ago, Strokes said:

Might have helped in 2016 then? 

Strokes but they didn't know what they were voting for thus should have been ignored.

 

[twoleftfeet]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

They've done pilot studies: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/13/second-voter-id-trial-sees-800-people-unable-to-vote-in-local-elections.......and this is just in a handful of pilot areas:

"Across the eight out of 10 test areas that have so far given figures, 819 people were turned away from polling stations and did not return, according to the Local Government Chronicle (LGC)".

 

 

Northern Ireland 1983, 949 turn up to find their votes had already been cast.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, twoleftfeet said:

Northern Ireland 1983, 949 turn up to find their votes had already been cast.

 

Yes, I'm aware that there have been problems in N. Ireland in the past. There was a common saying "vote early and vote often" (black humour).

 

But it's interesting that your only response is to quote figures from almost 40 years ago, from a part of the UK that was then engaged in violent sectarian conflict.

 

If this were happening often in the UK now, we'd surely hear about it?

@Bucehas quoted you figures that in 2019, only 33 cases of voter impersonation were investigated, out of 58m votes cast. Do you have any alternative figures from the wider UK from any time more recent than 1983?

 

I've quoted you credible data showing 819 people's votes being lost in just a handful of areas during a 2019 pilot study and suggesting that 3m people have no photo ID and 11m have no passport or driving licence.

Should I take your lack of response as meaning that you don't think that matters? Perhaps the right to vote doesn't matter so long as you end up with a reactionary right-wing govt? 

 

I'm not saying everything is perfect. For example, I'm against the over-use of postal votes - and particularly one person submitting all the votes cast by a household.

But I'm also not keen on thousands or potentially millions of people (depending on the ID required) finding it very difficult or impossible to vote....especially when I strongly suspect the aim is to skew the electorate in favour of 1 party.

 

Anticipating counter-arguments:

- If the Govt offers to provide millions of people with photographic ID free of charge, is that a good use of taxpayers' money when there seem to be very few cases of impersonation?

- If photo ID other than passports and driving licences were accepted (limiting those excluded to 3m or less), how effective would that be at combatting impersonation? A lot easier to forge an age ID card, work ID or bus pass than a passport....

- Those staffing polling stations would require an awful lot of training to be able to identify forged ID of multiple kinds (unless dedicated photographic voter ID cards were introduced)

[Dunge]

With this topic, I just flatly don’t like unnecessary ID cards, and this is an unnecessary ID card.

I’m disappointed there aren’t a load of Conservative MPs kicking up a right fuss about this because you can be sure as hell they would if it was an idea from a Labour government.

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 minutes ago, Dunge said:

With this topic, I just flatly don’t like unnecessary ID cards, and this is an unnecessary ID card.

I’m disappointed there aren’t a load of Conservative MPs kicking up a right fuss about this because you can be sure as hell they would if it was an idea from a Labour government.

Great point. I think David Davis is the only one who has been consistent on this. The rest move about like piss in the wind.

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, Dunge said:

With this topic, I just flatly don’t like unnecessary ID cards, and this is an unnecessary ID card.

I’m disappointed there aren’t a load of Conservative MPs kicking up a right fuss about this because you can be sure as hell they would if it was an idea from a Labour government.

We now have covid passports on one hand and voter ID on the other, can anyone smell something funny?

[StanSP]

Not a good look for someone who's meant to be squeaky clean, in his position, no? 

 

 

 

[Zear0]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Not a good look for someone who's meant to be squeaky clean, in his position, no? 

 

 

 

Make for an interesting episode of "The Sheriffs are Coming"

[Guest Kopfkino]

19 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's subtle! You've switched from asking me about "all the other countries that require ID to vote" to asking about particular countries that suit your argument.

 

And, as I understand it, you're saying even those countries make people carry ID generally (not just for voting)......which wouldn't be the case in the UK.

 

 

I didn't say that it was ID cards by the back door. I said that it would face a lot of opposition as "ID cards by the back door" (words deliberately in quotation marks, anticipating what others would say - not what I was saying).

 

If you're going to make arrogant, confrontational, insulting replies, please learn to read the posts you're replying to properly.

 

 

"Emotionally incontinent reaction", eh?

 

In my post, I wrote "the devil will be in the detail, to some extent" and stated that it might not be a problem if all potential voters were given photo ID free of charge......in other words, I'm waiting for the details.

But I'm not optimistic of a cynical, opportunistic Govt led by a proven liar who will do anything for power and who has already tried to prorogue parliament.

 

Whereas you rush in assuming that "it's likely" the Govt will follow Electoral Commission recommendations and issue free photographic ID to how many millions of voters? 45 million?

A bit of an "emotionally incontinent reaction" on your part, I'd say! 

I asked what the motivation for other countries to require ID to vote given the UK’s is ‘Trumpian voter suppression’. You didn’t answer that and just told me that they require citizens to carry ID as standard and how it would disenfranchise some people. I chose those countries because you’d selected the USA under Trump specifically as the given motivation for the UK because that suits your stance on the current government. If you’re gonna highlight selective information, at least do it when you haven’t already done it yourself on a topic.

 

Not every country that requires citizens to carry ID, requires it for voting, so I’m just wondering what Sweden and Netherlands’ motivation was. Was it ‘foreshadowed Trumpian voter suppression’? You can say the requirement to show ID to vote has less impact in those places as people have it as standard but those places highlight that obtaining ID at a cost isn’t a barrier. The assumption being that it will be costly to obtain in this country being pretty significant in defining it as voter suppression.
 

At no point did I say that you said it was ID cards by the back door. I just pointed out why that’s a nonsense. And actually ID cards aren’t that unpopular anymore, it’d be the tinpot libertarians that kick up a stink about it so little need to worry about that.

 

Your original post was ‘Trumpian voter suppression’, that drivel has framed the rest of your output in my mind. You’ve jumped to conclusions based on your prejudices that are baseless in terms of evidence for the particular topic. Whereas I’ve cited the recommendation of the independent body that’s in charge of elections in the UK which also recommended them in the first place, presumably because in 2014 it was staffed by Trump-minded people keen to suppress votes to benefit the Conservatives for that is the motivation, and an example of what happens within part of this very nation, and did also happen in the trials. 

See when information is low and the devil to be in the detail, it tends to be better to build your assumptions with the information you do have on the actual topic rather than some generic, copy-and-paste-to-every-matter emotive personal prejudice. 

 

For the record, I have zero care whether they introduce voter ID or not

[doverfox]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

For the record, I have zero care whether they introduce voter ID or not

I think most people dont care either way about not onlt voter id but id cards in general

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Not a good look for someone who's meant to be squeaky clean, in his position, no? 

 

 

 

Send the boys round.

 

[leicsmac]

35 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

I asked what the motivation for other countries to require ID to vote given the UK’s is ‘Trumpian voter suppression’. You didn’t answer that and just told me that they require citizens to carry ID as standard and how it would disenfranchise some people. I chose those countries because you’d selected the USA under Trump specifically as the given motivation for the UK because that suits your stance on the current government. If you’re gonna highlight selective information, at least do it when you haven’t already done it yourself on a topic.

 

Not every country that requires citizens to carry ID, requires it for voting, so I’m just wondering what Sweden and Netherlands’ motivation was. Was it ‘foreshadowed Trumpian voter suppression’? You can say the requirement to show ID to vote has less impact in those places as people have it as standard but those places highlight that obtaining ID at a cost isn’t a barrier. The assumption being that it will be costly to obtain in this country being pretty significant in defining it as voter suppression.
 

At no point did I say that you said it was ID cards by the back door. I just pointed out why that’s a nonsense. And actually ID cards aren’t that unpopular anymore, it’d be the tinpot libertarians that kick up a stink about it so little need to worry about that.

 

Your original post was ‘Trumpian voter suppression’, that drivel has framed the rest of your output in my mind. You’ve jumped to conclusions based on your prejudices that are baseless in terms of evidence for the particular topic. Whereas I’ve cited the recommendation of the independent body that’s in charge of elections in the UK which also recommended them in the first place, presumably because in 2014 it was staffed by Trump-minded people keen to suppress votes to benefit the Conservatives for that is the motivation, and an example of what happens within part of this very nation, and did also happen in the trials. 

See when information is low and the devil to be in the detail, it tends to be better to build your assumptions with the information you do have on the actual topic rather than some generic, copy-and-paste-to-every-matter emotive personal prejudice. 

 

For the record, I have zero care whether they introduce voter ID or not

Judging by the length and language of this response, the lack of care is most evident. 

[Bellend Sebastian]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

Not a good look for someone who's meant to be squeaky clean, in his position, no? 

 

 

 

Bit careless, innit? The story, and it is very much a story, as told by supposed insiders and recycled by political commentators and journalists is that Johnson supposedly needs in excess of 300 grand a year to keep his head above water. A combined mixture of having an undetermined number of children to pay maintenance on, his other half's supposedly expensive tastes and a prime minister's salary of a mere 150 thousand quid is why he supposedly is always moaning about how skint he is and is notoriously tight fisted (apparently he's adept at getting other folk to pay for his drinks).

 

I mean, he always seemed so responsible, it doesn't make sense

[WigstonWanderer]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

Not a good look for someone who's meant to be squeaky clean, in his position, no? 

 

 

 

What a shyster, but people seem to love him. What with  him and Trump, it’s a strange world we live in now, integrity seems to mean nothing anymore.

Edited 12 May 2021 by WigstonWanderer

[The Horse's Mouth]

37 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

What a shyster, but people seem to love him. What with  him and Trump, it’s a strange world we live in now, integrity seems to mean nothing anymore.

Tbf the only PMs in my life time with intergrity you could argue were may(at a push) and brown and both were losers

[David Guiza]

 

I'm sure the thousands of Teachers who have been doing their job three times over and having to roll with every punch the government throws at them are delighted with this sort of dribble.

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Judging by the length and language of this response, the lack of care is most evident. 

The care was over Alf’s unbecoming crap,. The actual topic of voter ID is of little interest to me hence I’ve not offered any real arguments for or against it.
But I need not tell you that, your neurons are plenty able enough to fire up and deduce that

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

The care was over Alf’s unbecoming crap,. The actual topic of voter ID is of little interest to me hence I’ve not offered any real arguments for or against it.
But I need not tell you that, your neurons are plenty able enough to fire up and deduce that

I personally would have thought citing an official source (in this case the election commission) being in favour of something as part of an argument (to say nothing of the length and breadth of the discussion as a whole) would suggest that the citer is themselves in favour of that position too, given the nature of debate, but you're honourable so I'll take you at your word.

 

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

I asked what the motivation for other countries to require ID to vote given the UK’s is ‘Trumpian voter suppression’. You didn’t answer that and just told me that they require citizens to carry ID as standard and how it would disenfranchise some people. I chose those countries because you’d selected the USA under Trump specifically as the given motivation for the UK because that suits your stance on the current government. If you’re gonna highlight selective information, at least do it when you haven’t already done it yourself on a topic.

 

Not every country that requires citizens to carry ID, requires it for voting, so I’m just wondering what Sweden and Netherlands’ motivation was. Was it ‘foreshadowed Trumpian voter suppression’? You can say the requirement to show ID to vote has less impact in those places as people have it as standard but those places highlight that obtaining ID at a cost isn’t a barrier. The assumption being that it will be costly to obtain in this country being pretty significant in defining it as voter suppression.
 

At no point did I say that you said it was ID cards by the back door. I just pointed out why that’s a nonsense. And actually ID cards aren’t that unpopular anymore, it’d be the tinpot libertarians that kick up a stink about it so little need to worry about that.

 

Your original post was ‘Trumpian voter suppression’, that drivel has framed the rest of your output in my mind. You’ve jumped to conclusions based on your prejudices that are baseless in terms of evidence for the particular topic. Whereas I’ve cited the recommendation of the independent body that’s in charge of elections in the UK which also recommended them in the first place, presumably because in 2014 it was staffed by Trump-minded people keen to suppress votes to benefit the Conservatives for that is the motivation, and an example of what happens within part of this very nation, and did also happen in the trials. 

See when information is low and the devil to be in the detail, it tends to be better to build your assumptions with the information you do have on the actual topic rather than some generic, copy-and-paste-to-every-matter emotive personal prejudice. 

 

For the record, I have zero care whether they introduce voter ID or not

 

I won't pursue this dialogue after this as I have work to do and don't want to annoy other posters, but.....

 

I don't know what the motivation is for other countries that require ID to vote - a perceived risk of voter fraud in their countries? It seems that some countries do not require any more ID than we do (Denmark) or do not require photographic ID (RoI) and the same applies to many states in the USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_identification_laws But, regardless of what other countries do, we should decide based on evidence of what is necessary and beneficial here.

 

I mentioned how most countries require citizens to carry or be able to produce photographic ID (usually, but not always an ID card) as that clearly reduces the risk of voter suppression massively. If an ID card or other photographic ID is a legal requirement, very few people will not have one - even if it costs. Whereas, if it is not a legal requirement and there's a charge or it's difficult to obtain, a lot more people risk being excluded from voting: an estimated 3m in the UK with no photo ID & 11m with no passport/driving licence supports that.

 

As we've both said, the details of this proposal will really matter. I hope you're right that the Govt will take up the Electoral Commission proposal and make photographic ID easily available, free of charge to all voters who need it.

I have less trust in this Govt or this PM than you do, clearly. 

 

It seems like "Trumpian voter suppression" to me partly because the USA is one of the minority that doesn't have national ID cards - and some states, mainly under Republican control, have been imposing requirements for photo ID - arguably to suppress the potential Democrat vote, given that national ID cards don't exist and many have no other photo ID. Maybe that isn't the UK Govt's aim? Maybe despite pilot study evidence of voter exclusion, they have non-partisan reasons? Maybe they also have non-partisan reasons for seeking to introduce FPTP for mayoral elections? Maybe Johnson genuinely misread the Brexit Deal and thought there'd be no checks in the Irish Sea and had non-partisan reasons for seeking to suspend democracy in 2019?

 

Precisely what sort of voters risk being effectively excluded from voting would depend on the ID required, cost etc. Some of them would doubtless be Tory voters, but it seems likely that a majority would be non-Tories if you think of the groups where more people tend not to have photo ID or a passport/driving licence: residents of big cities, especially some of the young & poorer people & ethnic minorities; very elderly, especially poorer elderly; disabled etc.

 

You're simply wrong if you believe either that this is personal bias or emotional incontinence on my part. It's emotional, alright, but also rational - as explained. It's emotional because I care about democracy - and I think it's a shame more people don't care about it, particularly our current Govt. I would also be angry if it was a Labour Govt doing this and potentially standing to benefit electorally from voter suppression. As I've mentioned before, when the Blair Govt reneged on its promised electoral reform referendum, I went to lobby my Labour MP - and as I was dissatisfied with his response, I voted LD against him in 2001. Likewise, I voted LD in 2005 partly because of my disgust at the Iraq War as justified by Campbell's anti-democratic dodgy dossier.

 

If they make it free and easy to obtain photo ID, I'd be less bothered by it.....we'll see. I have no strong views on ID cards more generally.

 

I'll ignore your personal abuse, but it's disappointing that someone who's usually such an intelligent, thought-provoking poster (even if we often disagree) should resort to petulant unpleasantness.

[LiberalFox]

Having worked at the job centre briefly it was amazing how many people didn't have bank accounts or ID and needed help setting them up. I suspect these people already do not vote but as a liberal it's important to me that we try to get more people voting not less. Tackle voting fraud with the police where necessary and I could support limited powers that could impose some sort of requirement locally where fraud is/is suspected to be an issue as they do in NI. I miss when the Conservative party actually conserved things. Turning into a hybrid nationalist party more and more. 

[Facecloth]

7 hours ago, StanSP said:

Not a good look for someone who's meant to be squeaky clean, in his position, no? 

 

 

 

This will probably get made fun of, well it already has been, and it is funny. The thought of Boris Johnson this ex Etonian, the idea that he'd be clamouring around for £500 is pretty funny. But let's not lose sight of the sight of the more troubling aspect of this. If you worked in say financial screening in an investment bank, and you had a CCJ against your name, that would be it, out the door. Because you'd be seen as high risk  they'd be worried you could approached and bribed or blackmailed for sensitive data. Who more high risk than a financial broken prime minister?

 

Also your typical Conservative is all about self determination and responsibility, which this kind of flies in the face of.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Labour has suspended Unite's assistant general secretary from the party after he tweeted that Home Secretary Priti Patel "should be deported".

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57109007