Political round up.............

The best thing about our system is that every single person in the country gets an equal vote under equal circumstances. Unless a National ID card scheme is introduced this will just alienate poorer voters. Just another way to rig the system.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:Government laying out its plans in the Queen's Speech. Good to see a requirement for photo ID will be introduced for upcoming elections, and the pointless Fixed Term Parliaments Act will be given the chop. Conversion therapy also set to go. Nice to see some commitment towards the environment and animal welfare, too. I also like the idea of the post-16 Education Bill and the Victims Bill.

Why is voter ID a good thing? There were only 33 investigations in 2019 regarding voter impersonation. Hardly a glaring or justifiable need for this, especially given the estimations to implement this is going to be around £20m per election.

But what of those voters that don't have passport or driver's license? The vast majority of them are young, and we know which way they usually vote.

It's easy to see why this is being brought in, they're taking a leaf right out of the voter-suppressing Americans' book. If the government want to implement this, they should offer free photo IDs to any voter that wants one.

To bolster security of elections and increase trust in the electoral process, in line with the recommendations from the Electoral Commission in a 2014 report. Great Britain is one of the few places left that doesn't require voter ID (Northern Ireland of course has had it for nearly two decades).

I agree that a free or v. low-cost option should be brought in for those who don't already have ID (like in Northern Ireland, currently).

And if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Great idea if you ask me.

Still a solution looking for a problem, unless the problem is not the one we think it is.

Chances of Tories giving out free photos IDs to people most likely to vote against them?
Hmmm, let me think....

I honestly cant see why anyone would be keen on voter IDs, unless they wanted to limit the voting potential of some people.

Weird, in a world where we could be discussing lowering the voting age and engaging more people, there's people that want the opposite.

Voting age increase to 21 is also a great idea.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I honestly cant see why anyone would be keen on voter IDs, unless they wanted to limit the voting potential of some people.

Weird, in a world where we could be discussing lowering the voting age and engaging more people, there's people that want the opposite.

Voter IDs, a normal thing across Europe, are there to bolster the security and integrity of elections, not to limit voting potential. I can't see why anyone would not want elections to be secure.

Voting potential of people would not be limited provided there exists a free (or even v.low cost) form of ID (like in Northern Ireland) for those who do not currently possess it. If you want to talk about increasing voter potential - then registration dates should be extended, proportional systems introduced, politicians made more accountable, and more direct democracy on certain issues would all be a good place to start.

Is security and integrity of our elections due to false vote being placed via voter impersonation in anyway a pressing concern though?

In the 2019 election there were 595 alleged cases of voter fraud with only 33 of those related to voter impersonation at the ballot box. Spending an estimated £20m per election implementing voter IDs for the sake of 33 cases of voter fraud seems ludicrously irrational.

king_carlos wrote:Is security and integrity of our elections due to false vote being placed via voter impersonation in anyway a pressing concern though?

In the 2019 election there were 595 alleged cases of voter fraud with only 33 of those related to voter impersonation at the ballot box. Spending an estimated £20m per election implementing voter IDs for the sake of 33 cases of voter fraud seems ludicrously irrational.

Yes, absolutely a pressing concern because the potential of voter fraud through impersonation is enormous. It's like knowing a website you own is vulnerable to being hacked, or a house you reside in not being properly secure against invasion. You might not be hacked or burgled yet, but the potential of it happening is clearly evident. You need to step up the security measures.

That's what voter ID does - eliminates the possibility of voter impersonation for minimal penalty in terms of accessibility. I'm unsure as to the 'up to £20 million' figure - I've heard it bandied about, but unable to substantiate it. Even if it is £20 million, it's worth it. As I also mentioned, voter ID is a perfectly normal thing in one part of the UK and most of Europe.

Would also add that if voter impersonation currently happens, many people wouldn't know about it, hence it may be under-reported. For example, I didn't vote (and neither did 25-30 million or so) in the recent LEs. If someone obtained my address and name and voted as me, I wouldn't know about it and neither would the electoral staff. The only person who would know is the impersonator, making it virtually undetectable in this regard.

The £20m figure came from the governments own figures did it not?

electoralreform.org wrote:There’s evidence that strict voter ID rules in the USA disproportionately disadvantage already marginalised groups. Why? Unlike in mainland Europe where everyone has a mandatory national ID card, in the UK and USA the richer you are the more likely you have ID. Many citizens who can’t afford to go on foreign holidays don’t have passports, and those that can’t drive don’t have driving licences.

Here in the UK, 3.5 million citizens do not have access to photo ID and 11 million citizens do not have a passport or driving licence – research from 2019 estimated that 1.3 million people in the UK do not even have a bank account. That makes mandatory voter ID a barrier to many people exercising their right to vote.

It’s not clear how non-photographic utility bills would tackling any of the alleged problems.

Trials of free electoral ID documents involved prospective voters having to take time off work and caring responsibilities to travel to council offices to request them. Those that can most easily take time off work to do this are usually the most likely to already have ID. This expensive plan simply makes it harder for some people to vote.

Sums up the differences between mainland Europe, where everyone has a national ID card, and the UK well.

As for the last point that seems a classic case of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'. Which is true, but it's also true that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence argument is only raised when there is zero evidence to back up a claim.

If ID cards can be provided to all free of charge, without travel/time demands that poorer voters often can't spare, it can be implemented without adding delays to election days that deter voters and without the potential for voters being unable to vote due to bureaucratic mistakes then great. I highly doubt that will be delivered though, let alone for £20m per election. Given that all investigation into voter fraud in the UK has shown it to be a negligible problem an expensive solution will naturally make people ask what the real motivation is?

If implemented well enough to not deter voters in any way I naturally have no issue with making elections more secure. The enormous loopholes in lobbying laws seem a much bigger threat to democracy in the UK in my opinion though.

33 cases of voter fraud are too many, but 300,000 homeless and god knows how many cases of hungry children are fine for this government and their bootlickers

Johnson is also not keen on those going to the pub having to have a vaccine passport. The hypocrisy would be comical were it not so alarming.

king_carlos wrote:The £20m figure came from the governments own figures did it not?

electoralreform.org wrote:There’s evidence that strict voter ID rules in the USA disproportionately disadvantage already marginalised groups. Why? Unlike in mainland Europe where everyone has a mandatory national ID card, in the UK and USA the richer you are the more likely you have ID. Many citizens who can’t afford to go on foreign holidays don’t have passports, and those that can’t drive don’t have driving licences.

Here in the UK, 3.5 million citizens do not have access to photo ID and 11 million citizens do not have a passport or driving licence – research from 2019 estimated that 1.3 million people in the UK do not even have a bank account. That makes mandatory voter ID a barrier to many people exercising their right to vote.

It’s not clear how non-photographic utility bills would tackling any of the alleged problems.

Trials of free electoral ID documents involved prospective voters having to take time off work and caring responsibilities to travel to council offices to request them. Those that can most easily take time off work to do this are usually the most likely to already have ID. This expensive plan simply makes it harder for some people to vote.

Sums up the differences between mainland Europe, where everyone has a national ID card, and the UK well.

As for the last point that seems a classic case of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'. Which is true, but it's also true that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence argument is only raised when there is zero evidence to back up a claim.

If ID cards can be provided to all free of charge, without travel/time demands that poorer voters often can't spare, it can be implemented without adding delays to election days that deter voters and without the potential for voters being unable to vote due to bureaucratic mistakes then great. I highly doubt that will be delivered though, let alone for £20m per election. Given that all investigation into voter fraud in the UK has shown it to be a negligible problem an expensive solution will naturally make people ask what the real motivation is?

If implemented well enough to not deter voters in any way I naturally have no issue with making elections more secure. The enormous loopholes in lobbying laws seem a much bigger threat to democracy in the UK in my opinion though.

Yes, I just looked it up. There was a 2018 report which tested three different models of identification. Estimated costs were as low as £4m, up to as high as £20m. I don't actually believe that to be an expensive solution, compared to the overall costs of running a normal GE anyway.

It's not a case that there's zero evidence to back up a claim - it's just factual that if someone who doesn't vote (roughly one-third of the population at GEs, two-thirds at LEs) will not know if they've been a victim of voter impersonation, therefore it's impossible to get any wholly accurate statistics.

Requiring voter IDs has been successful in Northern Ireland, there's no reason why it can't be here. I do think there should be greater transparency with regards to lobbying.

Pr4wn wrote:Johnson is also not keen on those going to the pub having to have a vaccine passport. The hypocrisy would be comical were it not so alarming.

This isn't hypocrisy as it's two entirely different issues.

Duty281 wrote:

king_carlos wrote:The £20m figure came from the governments own figures did it not?

electoralreform.org wrote:There’s evidence that strict voter ID rules in the USA disproportionately disadvantage already marginalised groups. Why? Unlike in mainland Europe where everyone has a mandatory national ID card, in the UK and USA the richer you are the more likely you have ID. Many citizens who can’t afford to go on foreign holidays don’t have passports, and those that can’t drive don’t have driving licences.

Here in the UK, 3.5 million citizens do not have access to photo ID and 11 million citizens do not have a passport or driving licence – research from 2019 estimated that 1.3 million people in the UK do not even have a bank account. That makes mandatory voter ID a barrier to many people exercising their right to vote.

It’s not clear how non-photographic utility bills would tackling any of the alleged problems.

Trials of free electoral ID documents involved prospective voters having to take time off work and caring responsibilities to travel to council offices to request them. Those that can most easily take time off work to do this are usually the most likely to already have ID. This expensive plan simply makes it harder for some people to vote.

Sums up the differences between mainland Europe, where everyone has a national ID card, and the UK well.

As for the last point that seems a classic case of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'. Which is true, but it's also true that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence argument is only raised when there is zero evidence to back up a claim.

If ID cards can be provided to all free of charge, without travel/time demands that poorer voters often can't spare, it can be implemented without adding delays to election days that deter voters and without the potential for voters being unable to vote due to bureaucratic mistakes then great. I highly doubt that will be delivered though, let alone for £20m per election. Given that all investigation into voter fraud in the UK has shown it to be a negligible problem an expensive solution will naturally make people ask what the real motivation is?

If implemented well enough to not deter voters in any way I naturally have no issue with making elections more secure. The enormous loopholes in lobbying laws seem a much bigger threat to democracy in the UK in my opinion though.

Yes, I just looked it up. There was a 2018 report which tested three different models of identification. Estimated costs were as low as £4m, up to as high as £20m. I don't actually believe that to be an expensive solution, compared to the overall costs of running a normal GE anyway.

It's not a case that there's zero evidence to back up a claim - it's just factual that if someone who doesn't vote (roughly one-third of the population at GEs, two-thirds at LEs) will not know if they've been a victim of voter impersonation, therefore it's impossible to get any wholly accurate statistics.

Requiring voter IDs has been successful in Northern Ireland, there's no reason why it can't be here. I do think there should be greater transparency with regards to lobbying.

On the estimated costs, in recent times things have tended to run a touch over budget though it's fair to say!

Probably an agree to disagree situation. I think we're on the same page that there's of course nothing wrong with trying to make elections more secure in principal, in fact it should obviously be the aim. We just disagree on the scale of the problem that this would actually fix and how many problems the solution could create in the short term.

My frustration as said is that other far greater concerns, in my opinion, to election security actually have very simple solutions with no obvious complication that could be enforced for very little and to great effect. Such as online political adverts not needing to display who paid for them which I find ludicrous. Yet a smaller concern with a complicated and potentially costly solution, but several potential complications is poorly executed is being chased instead. Again it seems that we agree that loopholes such as that need urgently addressing though, so simply different concerns and priorities.

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Johnson is also not keen on those going to the pub having to have a vaccine passport. The hypocrisy would be comical were it not so alarming.

This isn't hypocrisy as it's two entirely different issues.

He voted 12 times against national ID cards but now wants to restrict voting to only those with photo ID. It's patently obvious that this move is about voter suppression and nothing else. I'd have thought that a so-called democracy lover like yourself would be capable of seeing through something quite so obvious.

Does anyone here work in a regulated industry where having a CCJ against you could be a matter for dismissal? Luckily, Alexander Johnson in his capacity as First Lord of the Treasury is setting a precedent where that doesn't apply, so fill your boots!

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Johnson is also not keen on those going to the pub having to have a vaccine passport. The hypocrisy would be comical were it not so alarming.

This isn't hypocrisy as it's two entirely different issues.

He voted 12 times against national ID cards but now wants to restrict voting to only those with photo ID. It's patently obvious that this move is about voter suppression and nothing else. I'd have thought that a so-called democracy lover like yourself would be capable of seeing through something quite so obvious.

And part of being a democracy lover is wanting a secure voting system. Our current system is not secure, whether it's the unchecked potential of voter impersonation or the problem of postal vote harvesting. This is not about voter suppression for four reasons:

1) The vast majority of people already have an acceptable form of ID; we're talking about a tiny minority who (presently) don't have one.
2) It is not difficult or inordinately expensive to obtain a usual form of photo ID. A provisional driving licence costs £34.
3) If, for whatever reason, that is unobtainable, it is almost certain that a free form of acceptable ID will be provided by the local council, when the time comes, as is the case in Northern Ireland.
4) The vast majority of mainland European nations have voter ID as a requirement already. Are nations such as France, Sweden, Italy actively involved in voter suppression? Of course not.

Duty281 wrote:It is almost certain that a free form of acceptable ID will be provided by the local council, when the time comes, as is the case in Northern Ireland.

If the Government had plans for free acceptable ID to be provided, couldn't they have announced that at the same time as announcing the new requirement to show photo ID at polling stations? For me, it says it all that there was no such announcement. The two have to go hand in hand.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

Duty281 wrote:It is almost certain that a free form of acceptable ID will be provided by the local council, when the time comes, as is the case in Northern Ireland.

If the Government had plans for free acceptable ID to be provided, couldn't they have announced that at the same time as announcing the new requirement to show photo ID at polling stations? For me, it says it all that there was no such announcement. The two have to go hand in hand.

Perhaps, but I don't think they really go in for details at the Queen's Speech. Regardless, one Tory minister (Chloe Smith) has stated:

"The list of approved photo ID will not be limited to UK passports or driving licences. A broad range of documents already in use will be accepted, including, for example, various concessionary travel passes, Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) cards, and photocard parking permits issued as part of the Blue Badge scheme. In addition, expired photographic ID will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.

For any voter who does not have one of the required forms of photographic ID, a free, local Voter Card will be available from their local authority."

This Chloe Smith?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-minister-chloe-smith-slammed-14276387

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:This Chloe Smith?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-minister-chloe-smith-slammed-14276387

Probably. I remember Paxman embarrassing her on Newsnight, a very long time ago now.

Regardless, as a Minister when she talks about free voter IDs she's speaking on behalf of the government, not in a personal capacity.

Yes, she was speaking on behalf of the government when she compared voter fraud with something I almost certainly won't be allowed to type on here.

Jesus

Pr4wn wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:Johnson is also not keen on those going to the pub having to have a vaccine passport. The hypocrisy would be comical were it not so alarming.

This isn't hypocrisy as it's two entirely different issues.

He voted 12 times against national ID cards but now wants to restrict voting to only those with photo ID. It's patently obvious that this move is about voter suppression and nothing else. I'd have thought that a so-called democracy lover like yourself would be capable of seeing through something quite so obvious.

It benefits the right so we need to do some real mental gymnastics to justify it. It might be true that theres only a tiny majority of the population who have no form of photo ID, but I'd still bet anything that its a much larger number than confirmed cases of fraud from the past 30 years combined. Inventing a solution to a problem that doesnt exist to masquerade their own intentions.

“If I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and when I am simply ambling along and breathing God's fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.”

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, 2004

Decent result for Labour last night, cutting into the SNP's majority in the Airdrie by-election.

Less good news for Starmer is the latest YouGov poll, putting Labour 15% behind the Tories.

And Labour got politically out-manoeuvred on the London Assembly, as the LDs/Greens/Tories form an alliance, which reduces Labour's power. Labour didn't think that outcome would happen.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/tories-greens-lib-dems-alliance-london-assembly-b935170.html

'Why were Pakistan and Bangladesh put on the red list before India?

'Bangladesh had the South Africa but not the Brazil variant and Pakistan had neither when they were added to the red list on 9 April.

'India had both, as well as a new variant, but was not added for another two weeks.

'On 9 April:

'Pakistan had a seven-day average of 21 cases per million people

'Bangladesh had twice as many

'India had four times as many'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56801288

Not just the voter suppression tool known as Voter ID which hits the Black population more than any other apparently but remember Boundary changes are due to be put through soon making Labour's currently 7 point lead for a majority margin up nearer 11 points..

Stuck record I maybe but Labour seriously need to consider if Yvette Cooper or Andy Burnham would do a better job..

Hard to see this guy winning a raffle.

Stuck record indeed.

Kind of relevant when you look at the local elections. I can't help but think that the current attacks on the government may have had an effect were it Cooper rather than Starmer.

Picking your battles well in politics is more important than picking many battles badly.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a445fbaa-b7ac-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=be2152d35204485147d3a7a32b775889

Kier Starmer planning to star in a fly-on-the-wall documentary. Bonus points if he manages to say 'Do I not like that'.

Duty281 wrote:https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a445fbaa-b7ac-11eb-9a91-c8c89595f50e?shareToken=be2152d35204485147d3a7a32b775889

Kier Starmer planning to star in a fly-on-the-wall documentary. Bonus points if he manages to say 'Do I not like that'.

Labour ‘til i(t) dies.

Thoughts on the evidence Cummings is giving the Health Committee?

If it's reported even adequately in the press, it should probably be the end of many at the top end of government, but I'm not expecting either to happen

It should. But it wont. Remember when Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes? The Tories are way past that point.

Expectations are so low (and nobody is there to hold them to account) plus the media could easily forget all of this in a few days.

Sadly they could brazen this out.

Imagine working so hard to appear so crap at your job that nobody notices when you really feck up.

Cummings isn't telling us anything we didn't already know - government is too large, mostly inefficient and overly bureaucratic; politicians are liars; the media is a circus; the only thing the government got right was the vaccine programme (because it was properly delegated); borders should have been closed down but politicians are scared of being called 'racist'.

Nothing we didn't know already. Cummings wants/wanted Hancock sacked? No wonder as Cummings has an axe to grind because Johnson ended up preferring Hancock to his former chief aide.

What is also interesting is that Cummings is very specific with his attacks on some of government but Gove was not mentioned and Sunak mostly in glowing terms.

Presumably because he sees Gove and Sunak as the most likely replacement to Johnson and doesn't want to burn bridges with them.

Gove's also his mate. Or as close to Cummings gets to having mates, given he worked with Gove as a SPAD at Education for years. The Rishi/Raab praise seems a more cynical attempt to curry favour with the next PM.

Bizarre really given how DC tried to paint himself as being more pro lockdown, and if reports are to be believed Rishi was the biggest anti lockdown member of cabinet.

I just want to say that I hate this idea that if enough of the public doesn't care about something, it doesn't matter.

Matt Hancock in the Commons this afternoon:

"A variant that undermines the vaccine would put us in a much more difficult place as a country."

You don't f*cking say!

He also said that cases are rising fastest among older schoolchildren, which I'm sure has nothing to do with last month's decision to end the requirement for pupils in England to wear masks....

16 candidates confirmed for the Batley and Spen by-election, being held on the 1st July, which could end Starmer's relatively short leadership of the Labour Party.

Good news for the Tories is Paul Halloran (a popular independent who got 12% in the GE in this constituency; most of that vote will likely go Tory) and Reform UK aren't standing.

Bad news for Labour is George Galloway is standing. While Galloway is highly unlikely to win, he could well siphon off a decent portion of the Muslim vote which would otherwise be expected to go Labour's way. The Greens aren't standing - their candidate was withdrawn by his party after the discovery of historic homophobic tweets - so that's a minor boost for Labour, though the LDs are.

LDs give Tories a bloody nose in a by-election.

That's what by-elections should be like!

Duty281 wrote:LDs give Tories a bloody nose in a by-election.

That's what by-elections should be like!

The victory has to be qualified by saying that around 15k people who voted last time out didn't this time, and there was a good deal of tactical voting, but an 8000 majority is nothing to be sneezed at.

The tweet from the Tory candidate is a great example of arrogance and failed entitlement, although he is right about the work needed. If the local population is at all well informed, regaining that trust might be harder than he imagines.

Peter Fleet wrote:I am deeply disappointed that the people of #CheshamAndAmersham have, under the extraordinary circumstances of a by-election, voted for someone else to represent them in Parliament. Our work to regain the trust of local people begins today

Just noticed - and this really is the kind of thing you cannot make up. The twitter feed for the Chesham & Amersham Conservatives Association uses the initials plus 'tories'.

It is actually @caca_tories.

I am assuming that they are so insular that none of them have ever come across the Spanish language?

Seems a lack of awareness!

Only just looked at the result from Chesham properly:

1) Turnout was 52%, very good for a by-election.

2) Another horrific night for Labour, just 622 (!) votes. The worst result in by-election history for Labour. Starmer will have to step down if Labour lose Batley. This result in Chesham proves the Tories are not some unstoppable machine; they can be beaten in the way that governing parties usually are at by-elections. This makes Labour's defeat in Hartlepool look all the worse.

3) The result is unlikely to have major significance, but it's a boost for Ed Davey. This seat will most probably go back to the Tories at the next GE. However it is a small step closer to the LDs supplanting Labour as the main opposition to the Tories...but still a very long way off.

4) Seems opposition to HS2 was the key factor. The Lib Dem candidate was certainly vocal in her opposition to HS2, but I thought the LDs supported it nationally, unless they've changed under Ed Davey.

5) This isn't a huge blow for Johnson, and it will be forgotten about if the Tories win in Batley. However it may underline a shift where the Tories are finding it harder to retain seats in middle-class areas than they are in more working-class areas. We saw signs of that during the LEs.

The Labour turn out is at least part explained by tactical voting.

Starmer isn't in a great position but there are not good alternatives. He also has the kind of actual ability and experience which is in short supply in front line UK politics.