Got Your ID To Allow You To Vote

[Yellow Fever 3,842]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The problem with undetected crime is you don't actually know how much is going on; our system has been lax compared to the rest of Europe, so it's quite possible there are far more cases than those where people are actually caught.

When Labour first introduced postal voting, there were industrial scale voter fraud operations found; the motivation for fraudulent voting is there.

What the government is doing simply brings us into line with the rest of Europe regarding checks, and all councils have the systems in place to provide free photo ID for voting on application with name, NI number, and a digital photofor the 3-4 million people out of over 60 million in the UK population who have no photo ID .

It seems to me that all of the grounds for objection to the change don't really hold up to scrutiny.

You missed the point. Why exclude say Student Union photo ID but allow OAP bus passes? What's wrong with rail passes?

For post office collections a bill with your address on will do etc.

Agree postal voting is much more open to fraud. I'd ban it or make it on line online only!

[Nuff Said 5,182]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The problem with undetected crime is you don't actually know how much is going on; our system has been lax compared to the rest of Europe, so it's quite possible there are far more cases than those where people are actually caught.

When Labour first introduced postal voting, there were industrial scale voter fraud operations found; the motivation for fraudulent voting is there.

What the government is doing simply brings us into line with the rest of Europe regarding checks, and all councils have the systems in place to provide free photo ID for voting on application with name, NI number, and a digital photofor the 3-4 million people out of over 60 million in the UK population who have no photo ID .

It seems to me that all of the grounds for objection to the change don't really hold up to scrutiny.

The massive hole in your and CC’s argument that it already happens in Europe is that almost, possibly all, European countries already have compulsory photo ID. So asking for that before you can vote is trivial since everyone already has it. 
 

The new rules here will exclude people who don’t have a driving licence (or still have the old paper one, like me), a passport, an over-65 (?) bus pass or some other rarer forms of ID. Yes, you can get a voter certificate but you have to 1) be aware of the requirement and 2) do it in sufficient time to be able to use it (I’ve no idea how long it takes, but doubt it is immediate). Who are the estimated 2.1 million (estimated by this government) who don’t already have suitable photo ID? The young, the poor, the disabled and other groups of

…wait for it…

those who are very broadly not Conservative voters. In fact, those who have suffered the most under Tory governments.

 

Gerrymandering, pure and simple.

 

A few other points:

 

Conflating electoral fraud and this is confused thinking at best, deceptive at worst. There is cross-party consensus that there needs to be action on fraud by postal vote. This is completely separate, and opposed by all parties - apart from the Tories.

 

It’s going to cost 18 million a year for the next ten years by the government’s own estimates.
 

As has been said by others, it fixes a problem that doesn’t exist. 
 

It’s also going to present problems for those who have changed their names, have expired documentation or whose appearance has changed. Which will slow up the process of voting for *everyone*.

 

We have appallingly low levels of participation at elections. We should be encouraging more to vote, instead the government is actively making it harder.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Did you mean "Wussa Tory dear"  "Bleddy ell, that Useless chap".

That is his local nickname here. He is now sending out literature trying to become Mayor of Cornwall.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

You missed the point. Why exclude say Student Union photo ID but allow OAP bus passes? What's wrong with rail passes?

For post office collections a bill with your address on will do etc.

Agree postal voting is much more open to fraud. I'd ban it or make it on line online only!

It may be open to fraud but is there really any to believe there is fraud on a scale that could alter outcomes? Why do people not put a cross but write "none of the above". If enough mess their papers, the result becomes contentious in a close vote.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

46 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

The massive hole in your and CC’s argument that it already happens in Europe is that almost, possibly all, European countries already have compulsory photo ID. So asking for that before you can vote is trivial since everyone already has it. 
 

The new rules here will exclude people who don’t have a driving licence (or still have the old paper one, like me), a passport, an over-65 (?) bus pass or some other rarer forms of ID. Yes, you can get a voter certificate but you have to 1) be aware of the requirement and 2) do it in sufficient time to be able to use it (I’ve no idea how long it takes, but doubt it is immediate). Who are the estimated 2.1 million (estimated by this government) who don’t already have suitable photo ID? The young, the poor, the disabled and other groups of

…wait for it…

those who are very broadly not Conservative voters. In fact, those who have suffered the most under Tory governments.

 

Gerrymandering, pure and simple.

 

A few other points:

 

Conflating electoral fraud and this is confused thinking at best, deceptive at worst. There is cross-party consensus that there needs to be action on fraud by postal vote. This is completely separate, and opposed by all parties - apart from the Tories.

 

It’s going to cost 18 million a year for the next ten years by the government’s own estimates.
 

As has been said by others, it fixes a problem that doesn’t exist. 
 

It’s also going to present problems for those who have changed their names, have expired documentation or whose appearance has changed. Which will slow up the process of voting for *everyone*.

 

We have appallingly low levels of participation at elections. We should be encouraging more to vote, instead the government is actively making it harder.

Seriously, the process for a voter authentification certificate is basic. It's an online process where you have to give your name, your NI number, and a digital photo. That's all that's needed and it's free.

Given the argument here is that it will be youngsters potentially disenfranchised, I find it hard to believe that a basic online process like this is going to be any challenge.

The total number without photo ID of some sort of less than four million or of a population of 60+ million.

Ease of voting is not the problem with voter engagement; the problem there is two utterly crap main parties in a system where other parties struggle to get a look in.

It's easy to say it's a problem that doesn't exist, but the fact is voting in person is so open to abuse without proper verification that it's really impossible to say how much abuse goes on; we're at odds with the rest of Europe in believing this isn't something to worry about.

Edited February 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,838]

I'm not sure how much more simpler it has to be....

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

19 minutes ago, Herman said:

I'm not sure how much more simpler it has to be....

 

This is a fair point, but I have to ask: This legislation was passed in 2022. Why was there no public interest in this when it was still passing through parliament?

Edited February 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[ricardo 7,414]

39 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

It may be open to fraud but is there really any to believe there is fraud on a scale that could alter outcomes? Why do people not put a cross but write "none of the above". If enough mess their papers, the result becomes contentious in a close vote.

Drawing a **** and balls is a much more artistic solution. Ive got it off to a T now.

[Aggy 766]

29 minutes ago, Herman said:

I'm not sure how much more simpler it has to be....

 

Is a strange one though because when I first read it I thought it’s most likely to be  older people who don’t have any photo id laying around and therefore seems almost counterintuitive for a party who has a lot of older voters. 

Does seem strange to include oap passes but not young peoples passes for the same mode of transport and which, as far as I’m aware, require the same process to apply for though.

 

[sonyc 5,541]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

The massive hole in your and CC’s argument that it already happens in Europe is that almost, possibly all, European countries already have compulsory photo ID. So asking for that before you can vote is trivial since everyone already has it. 
 

The new rules here will exclude people who don’t have a driving licence (or still have the old paper one, like me), a passport, an over-65 (?) bus pass or some other rarer forms of ID. Yes, you can get a voter certificate but you have to 1) be aware of the requirement and 2) do it in sufficient time to be able to use it (I’ve no idea how long it takes, but doubt it is immediate). Who are the estimated 2.1 million (estimated by this government) who don’t already have suitable photo ID? The young, the poor, the disabled and other groups of

…wait for it…

those who are very broadly not Conservative voters. In fact, those who have suffered the most under Tory governments.

 

Gerrymandering, pure and simple.

 

A few other points:

 

Conflating electoral fraud and this is confused thinking at best, deceptive at worst. There is cross-party consensus that there needs to be action on fraud by postal vote. This is completely separate, and opposed by all parties - apart from the Tories.

 

It’s going to cost 18 million a year for the next ten years by the government’s own estimates.
 

As has been said by others, it fixes a problem that doesn’t exist. 
 

It’s also going to present problems for those who have changed their names, have expired documentation or whose appearance has changed. Which will slow up the process of voting for *everyone*.

 

We have appallingly low levels of participation at elections. We should be encouraging more to vote, instead the government is actively making it harder.

One of the posts of the year (admittedly it's only February) and you've made so many points in a very logical way. Of course it's pure political manoeuvring by the Tories. Not even a hint of smoke and daggers about it. It's also been discussed before on these pages.

Overall, I believe many folk just expect this kind of policy, this kind of practice - from the usual suspects.

It's like Rees Mogg today stating that the king meeting von der Leyen was "constitutionally unwise". The same person who travelled all the way to Scotland to see the Queen personally with a view to tell her about prorogation of parliament. That wasn't constitutionally improper of course - except the Supreme Court declared it was.

With this lot, you just need to believe the opposite of what they say. Improving democracy via voter ID?.... my ar5e.

Edited February 27, 2023 by sonyc

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

42 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Drawing a **** and balls is a much more artistic solution. Ive got it off to a T now.

As you are a bit older than me, did you have to wait until you were 21 to vote?

[ricardo 7,414]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

As you are a bit older than me, did you have to wait until you were 21 to vote?

Yes I think so. If my memory is correct it was the 1966 General Election.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

So everyone's in agreement then that foreigners on the continent need voter ID, but Brits are too honest and decent for that sort of thing?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

So everyone's in agreement then that foreigners on the continent need voter ID, but Brits are too honest and decent for that sort of thing?

Nope. Brits should have ID no matter what. Elections, picking up parcels, going into hospital, buying tickets etc. I can think of numerous ways it just becomes a matter of showing your ID.

After all, we are expecting some immigrants to provide biometric IDs.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

Nope. Brits should have ID no matter what. Elections, picking up parcels, going into hospital, buying tickets etc. I can think of numerous ways it just becomes a matter of showing your ID.

After all, we are expecting some immigrants to provide biometric IDs.

A requirement to carry ID at all times is not necessary for everybody to be able to provide photographic ID for the purposes of voting.

An obvious answer would be to have photos on NI cards.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

6 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

The massive hole in your and CC’s argument that it already happens in Europe is that almost, possibly all, European countries already have compulsory photo ID. So asking for that before you can vote is trivial since everyone already has it. 
 

The new rules here will exclude people who don’t have a driving licence (or still have the old paper one, like me), a passport, an over-65 (?) bus pass or some other rarer forms of ID. Yes, you can get a voter certificate but you have to 1) be aware of the requirement and 2) do it in sufficient time to be able to use it (I’ve no idea how long it takes, but doubt it is immediate). Who are the estimated 2.1 million (estimated by this government) who don’t already have suitable photo ID? The young, the poor, the disabled and other groups of

…wait for it…

those who are very broadly not Conservative voters. In fact, those who have suffered the most under Tory governments.

 

Gerrymandering, pure and simple.

 

A few other points:

 

Conflating electoral fraud and this is confused thinking at best, deceptive at worst. There is cross-party consensus that there needs to be action on fraud by postal vote. This is completely separate, and opposed by all parties - apart from the Tories.

 

It’s going to cost 18 million a year for the next ten years by the government’s own estimates.
 

As has been said by others, it fixes a problem that doesn’t exist. 
 

It’s also going to present problems for those who have changed their names, have expired documentation or whose appearance has changed. Which will slow up the process of voting for *everyone*.

 

We have appallingly low levels of participation at elections. We should be encouraging more to vote, instead the government is actively making it harder.

Stated like a true Labour voter whose chosen Party is the chief beneficiary of electoral fraud 😀

It's okay, Nuffy, the current day so-called conservatives are losing members and voters everyday, although todays deal wouldn't have harmed the latter.

[Nuff Said 5,182]

31 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

A requirement to carry ID at all times is not necessary for everybody to be able to provide photographic ID for the purposes of voting.

An obvious answer would be to have photos on NI cards.

Can you clarify what you mean by an NI card? I seem to remember receiving a piece of cardboard with a hand-written number on it when I was 16 (some time ago now) but I also have vague recall of a credit card type-thing too. I guess my inexpertly expressed point is that NI cards are hardly the same to the Carte d’Identité in France or its equivalent.

Edited February 27, 2023 by Nuff Said

[Nuff Said 5,182]

7 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Stated like a true Labour voter whose chosen Party is the chief beneficiary of electoral fraud 😀

It's okay, Nuffy, the current day so-called conservatives are losing members and voters everyday, although todays deal wouldn't have harmed the latter.

Did you read this bit?

 

Conflating electoral fraud and this is confused thinking at best, deceptive at worst. There is cross-party consensus that there needs to be action on fraud by postal vote. This is completely separate, and opposed by all parties - apart from the Tories.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

10 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Can you clarify what you mean by an NI card? I seem to remember receiving a piece of cardboard with a hand-written number on it when I was 16 (some time ago now) but I also have vague recall of a credit card type-thing too. I guess my inexpertly expressed point is that NI cards are hardly the same to the Carte d’Identité in France or its equivalent.

Plastic credit card thing that you get at 16 with your NI number on it. I still have mine somewhere.

My point is they don't need to be full on ID cards. They just need to be official with name, photo and NI number, which uniquely identifies everyone.

Edited February 27, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

12 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Did you read this bit?

 

 

Conflating electoral fraud and this is confused thinking at best, deceptive at worst. There is cross-party consensus that there needs to be action on fraud by postal vote. This is completely separate, and opposed by all parties - apart from the Tories.

 

We've been talking about Northern Ireland tonight and did you know photo identification has been required there since 2003?

And do you know which Party introduced said policy? 😉

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

I also recall our very own, Chloe Smith, pointing out Labour’s stonking hypocrisy in their opposition to voter ID, while at the same time requiring identification from members to attend party meetings and to join: 'ID is already requested normally and reasonably in many areas of life, including by many constituency Labour parties, who require voter identification to vote in Labour Party selection meetings. The Labour Party’s NEC also mandates two forms of ID for any members joining an association which is in special measures'

NEXT!

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

50 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Plastic credit card thing that you get at 16 with your NI number on it. I still have mine somewhere.

My point is they don't need to be full on ID cards. They just need to be official with name, photo and NI number, which uniquely identifies everyone.

I never got one of those

I don´t think I got anything 😞

[Nuff Said 5,182]

9 hours ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

We've been talking about Northern Ireland tonight and did you know photo identification has been required there since 2003?

And do you know which Party introduced said policy? 😉

I talking about whether voter ID was justified in mainland UK, not who introduced it in Northern Ireland . I think we all probably recognise that the are unique circumstances there. I don’t have a slavish loyalty to the Labour Party, if the details of its introduction there were the same and there weren’t any special factors that justified it, then it was wrong.

[sonyc 5,541]

18 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

I talking about whether voter ID was justified in mainland UK, not who introduced it in Northern Ireland . I think we all probably recognise that the are unique circumstances there. I don’t have a slavish loyalty to the Labour Party, if the details of its introduction there were the same and there weren’t any special factors that justified it, then it was wrong.

People use a different angle to criticise you when they begin to realise an argument is lost or a set of beliefs (often strongly held) are challenged. They then argue against you on a the same general subject but a different point. One that is more difficult to counter, because there is often a truth in it. I suppose I've tried to give a definition of what has become called 'whataboutery' or 'whataboutism'. Used much more in recent years...the kind of approach that makes up one element for someone adept at propaganda. In other words, a deflection technique.

Many people understood your original post which was well explained and I believe anyway, (even though I cannot prove it absolutely), contained many points that many politics students or political commentators  (just to select two groups of people) would agree with. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

39 minutes ago, sonyc said:

People use a different angle to criticise you when they begin to realise an argument is lost or a set of beliefs (often strongly held) are challenged. They then argue against you on a the same general subject but a different point. One that is more difficult to counter, because there is often a truth in it. I suppose I've tried to give a definition of what has become called 'whataboutery' or 'whataboutism'. Used much more in recent years...the kind of approach that makes up one element for someone adept at propaganda. In other words, a deflection technique.

Many people understood your original post which was well explained and I believe anyway, (even though I cannot prove it absolutely), contained many points that many politics students or political commentators  (just to select two groups of people) would agree with. 

That sounds like the natural evolution of a debate to me. One of the main reasons I enjoy debating so much is I learn a lot in the process, which results in me either improving my arguments or changing my views.

The more I'm learning on this subject though, the more I think the accusations that this is purely gerrymandering are over the top and unnecessary. In fact, the approach taken appears to be almost a carbon copy of the NI approach, which has functioned with very little fuss or comment for 20 years, to such an extent I had no idea it was required there until today.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-forms-photo-id

https://www.eoni.org.uk/Electoral-Identity-Card/Electoral-Identity-Card-FAQs

The sole exception in there is the contrast that Northern Ireland accepts any railcards while GB excludes those for younger users. That does seem unreasonable; I'd like to know how and why the bill got through both houses of parliament without the matter generating as much public interest as it is now.

It seems to me that this is a good contender for amendment of the bill. In the meantime, though, perhaps the sentiment that government is trying to stop young people voting will inspire more of them to get up off their backsides and vote.

Edited February 28, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[sonyc 5,541]

4 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

perhaps the sentiment that government is trying to stop young people voting will inspire more of them to get up off their backsides and vote

Yep, agree. That is a massive challenge.  As someone earlier posted though (very eloquently I felt) this legislation is not wrong per se but it's the way it is being brought in and doesn't solve the problem you've outlined but rather makes that more difficult. 

There is that old phrase "follow the money" and one just has to ask why (in a FPTP system) would a ruling administration wish to change electoral rules! To help them of course. Same with changing boundaries etc etc. It's been happening for decades. It's part of our politics. It can be covered up with all manner of distractions and 'clever' stories and narratives. But lift up the stone and....

The other piece of advice that some might wish to follow is "Never trust a Tory". 

Of course, some would say that and I couldn't possibly comment.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Yep, agree. That is a massive challenge.  As someone earlier posted though (very eloquently I felt) this legislation is not wrong per se but it's the way it is being brought in and doesn't solve the problem you've outlined but rather makes that more difficult. 

There is that old phrase "follow the money" and one just has to ask why (in a FPTP system) would a ruling administration wish to change electoral rules! To help them of course. Same with changing boundaries etc etc. It's been happening for decades. It's part of our politics. It can be covered up with all manner of distractions and 'clever' stories and narratives. But lift up the stone and....

The other piece of advice that some might wish to follow is "Never trust a Tory". 

Of course, some would say that and I couldn't possibly comment.

Personally, I don't see any reason to trust Labour either.

[ricardo 7,414]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

, though, perhaps the sentiment that government is trying to stop young people voting will inspire more of them to get up off their backsides and vote.

Probably a lot easier to get off their backsides and get the appropriate ID.

[Yellow Fever 3,842]

1 hour ago, sonyc said:

Yep, agree. That is a massive challenge.  As someone earlier posted though (very eloquently I felt) this legislation is not wrong per se but it's the way it is being brought in and doesn't solve the problem you've outlined but rather makes that more difficult. 

There is that old phrase "follow the money" and one just has to ask why (in a FPTP system) would a ruling administration wish to change electoral rules! To help them of course. Same with changing boundaries etc etc. It's been happening for decades. It's part of our politics. It can be covered up with all manner of distractions and 'clever' stories and narratives. But lift up the stone and....

The other piece of advice that some might wish to follow is "Never trust a Tory". 

Of course, some would say that and I couldn't possibly comment.

First to LYB - there was indeed a big fuss made about this change when it was brought in and the blatant bias. However, as with all the other ongoing Tory fracas at the time it faded.

As to postal voting - as I've said far more open to fraud so I'd prefer now to make it online only - but then I suspect I'd be accused of then making it difficult for the computer illiterate by example 'Dotty' to vote  - although her and her type profess to be 'with-it' experts on all other matters!

A wide form of photo ID should suffice i.e. all bus passes, rail passes, student IDs, driving licenses, 'age' cards & passports or it should be very narrow - passports or formal voter ID only.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,605]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

First to LYB - there was indeed a big fuss made about this change when it was brought in and the blatant bias. However, as with all the other ongoing Tory fracas at the time it faded.

As to postal voting - as I've said far more open to fraud so I'd prefer now to make it online only - but then I suspect I'd be accused of then making it difficult for the computer illiterate by example 'Dotty' to vote  - although her and her type profess to be 'with-it' experts on all other matters!

A wide form of photo ID should suffice i.e. all bus passes, rail passes, student IDs, driving licenses, 'age' cards & passports or it should be very narrow - passports or formal voter ID only.

I agree with your last paragraph; consistency is important and there are holes in the consistency of what was passed.

I'd definitely like an online means of voting. At the referendum, there were so many problems with overseas postal votes that I finished up applying for an emergency proxy vote via the Lib Dem office in Norwich because my vote wasn't likely to make it back to the UK in time.

Online voting could actually be far more secure than any alternative. You could have a phone app, photograph your passport, photograph a proof of address, then vote on the phone with a camera shot of you at the same moment to check against your passport photo on file, with two-factor authentification using phone number or email as belt and braces.

I've said it before on here, but the idea that the super-IT-literate younger generation should have a problem with applying for a voting authority certificate when all they have to give is name and NI number strikes me as a bit of a weak argument; as you point out, it's likely to be older people who have more difficulty with that. It's interesting that uptake for VACs is low across the board, in spite of the simplicity of the process.