Got Your ID To Allow You To Vote

[KiwiScot 1,489]

30 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Same way I know there's not a china teapot orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars. Nobody has shown that it's the case.

So voter ID means banana republic? You really are getting more and more ridiculous. What about today's results indicate that the introduction of voter ID has drastically affected outcomes in the government's favour?

Amazed you're paying attention to the ERS on anything given your hidebound support of Labour's position on First Past the Post.

 

I think the general theme I'm getting from reading is the principle of ID to vote is sound, but the need for it is not that great and aggravating. Given the unpolularity of the goverment this aggravation is giving to focusing on all the details which appears to be not as efficient and inclusive as you hope for such a fundamental of goverment.

In short they've decided to do it on principle, but it's not needed and badly implemented with corrupt undertones.

[sonyc 5,541]

5 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

I think the general theme I'm getting from reading is the principle of ID to vote is sound, but the need for it is not that great and aggravating. Given the unpolularity of the goverment this aggravation is giving to focusing on all the details which appears to be not as efficient and inclusive as you hope for such a fundamental of goverment.

In short they've decided to do it on principle, but it's not needed and badly implemented with corrupt undertones.

There is  quite a cost too having a checker on duty at poll booths.

#government priorities I suppose

Edited May 5, 2023 by sonyc

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Labour has just won control of Slough and Windsor, an area that includes Eton College as well as the Castle. The swing was 22%. Blimey

I wouldn't compare SLough with Windsor mate. I know both well.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, KiwiScot said:

I think the general theme I'm getting from reading is the principle of ID to vote is sound, but the need for it is not that great and aggravating. Given the unpolularity of the goverment this aggravation is giving to focusing on all the details which appears to be not as efficient and inclusive as you hope for such a fundamental of goverment.

In short they've decided to do it on principle, but it's not needed and badly implemented with corrupt undertones.

Voter ID is certainly a good idea. But in tandem with other voting reforms such as compulsory voting. The majority of those who vote because they know its a right would have no objections to voter ID as long as it was the same for everyone. So why not an Identity card? 

All the bull about privacy? Our local Redruth Neighbourhood site can tell me everything you need to know about me. It even tells me I haven't read certain topics for a while. Just accept that so many cry foul about ID cards but are willing to tell you their life story on Social Media.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

1 hour ago, KiwiScot said:

I think the general theme I'm getting from reading is the principle of ID to vote is sound, but the need for it is not that great and aggravating. Given the unpolularity of the goverment this aggravation is giving to focusing on all the details which appears to be not as efficient and inclusive as you hope for such a fundamental of goverment.

In short they've decided to do it on principle, but it's not needed and badly implemented with corrupt undertones.

I can accept most of that, but the corrupt undertones are largely opposition innuendo rather than anything of substance; it's not a point worthy of real consideration in my view other than the usual low political argy bargy.

Ultimately, the legislation does provide mechanisms for every person with a right to vote to be able to vote and there's nothing compelling suggesting that the change in legislation has given the government any advantage at all. In fact, a lot of others on here have pretty much spelled out why most of these changes couldn't be reasonably expected to give the Conservatives a benefit through their introduction.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Voter ID is certainly a good idea. But in tandem with other voting reforms such as compulsory voting. The majority of those who vote because they know its a right would have no objections to voter ID as long as it was the same for everyone. So why not an Identity card? 

All the bull about privacy? Our local Redruth Neighbourhood site can tell me everything you need to know about me. It even tells me I haven't read certain topics for a while. Just accept that so many cry foul about ID cards but are willing to tell you their life story on Social Media.

Personally, I'm against compulsory voting. I don't believe it's in the interests of any liberal democratic country to force people who don't have enough interest in wider politics or value their right to vote enough to even want to bother to turn up to go to a voting booth. Additionally, it makes it much harder to get a picture of real engagement in the political system; if voter turnout is low, you know there's a problem with your politics.

[dylanisabaddog 5,015]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Same way I know there's not a china teapot orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit between Earth and Mars. Nobody has shown that it's the case.

So voter ID means banana republic? You really are getting more and more ridiculous. What about today's results indicate that the introduction of voter ID has drastically affected outcomes in the government's favour?

Amazed you're paying attention to the ERS on anything given your hidebound support of Labour's position on First Past the Post.

 

Try reading my post again. The banana republic comment specifically referred to placing people outside polling stations to stop those without ID from going in.

The people recording the number of potential voters who couldn't vote were inside and never actually got to see those turned away outside and their numbers weren't recorded. So if they turned away 100 people outside but 5 made it through to the officials in the voting hall then the number recorded as not voting due to lack of ID was 5, not 105.  Do you find that acceptable? Or do you think it smacks of a banana republic? 

It's the latest of many corrupt acts by the current Government. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

58 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Personally, I'm against compulsory voting. I don't believe it's in the interests of any liberal democratic country to force people who don't have enough interest in wider politics or value their right to vote enough to even want to bother to turn up to go to a voting booth. Additionally, it makes it much harder to get a picture of real engagement in the political system; if voter turnout is low, you know there's a problem with your politics.

Its not having an interest in politics that counts. Politics is the way you control your own Government. And everyone must be a part of that control. Who knows what Governments and their policies might have been with as close to 100% voting as possible.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,832]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Try reading my post again. The banana republic comment specifically referred to placing people outside polling stations to stop those without ID from going in.

The people recording the number of potential voters who couldn't vote were inside and never actually got to see those turned away outside and their numbers weren't recorded. So if they turned away 100 people outside but 5 made it through to the officials in the voting hall then the number recorded as not voting due to lack of ID was 5, not 105.  Do you find that acceptable? Or do you think it smacks of a banana republic? 

It's the latest of many corrupt acts by the current Government. 

How many countries in the EU require voter id?

[dylanisabaddog 5,015]

48 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

How many countries in the EU require voter id? 

I give in. How many is it? I do know we're not in the EU and we don't have ID cards. I also know that the number of people accused of voting fraud in the UK in the last 10 years is, err, zero

Edited May 5, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[cambridgeshire canary 6,832]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identity_cards_in_the_European_Economic_Area

Had a spare couple of minutes so I looked it up for you. 

So all but one of the countries in the EU require voter ID.

 

Interesting.

[dylanisabaddog 5,015]

4 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

So all but one of the countries in the EU require voter ID.

 

Interesting.

Not really. 

We're not in the EU. 

We don't have ID cards (strangely the Conservative Party campaigned against them) 

The number of people accused of electoral fraud in the UK in the last 10 years is zero. 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,360]

29 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The number of people accused of electoral fraud in the UK in the last 10 years is zero. 

I'm not sure that's true.

Since 2018, there have been nine convictions and six police cautions issued in connection with cases of electoral fraud, according to the Electoral Commission.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65492275

[Mr Angry 1,571]

53 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Not really. 

We're not in the EU. 

We don't have ID cards (strangely the Conservative Party campaigned against them) 

The number of people accused of electoral fraud in the UK in the last 10 years is zero. 

As I posted in March, a local authority colleague who works in the Electoral Roll section said that it is easy to commit electoral fraud. In fact he said that it is so easy that you would have to be really stupid to get caught.

[benchwarmer 625]

5 hours ago, sonyc said:

There is  quite a cost too having a checker on duty at poll booths.

#government priorities I suppose

It seems that the checkers didn't count those they turned away.  Cockup or conspiracy?

[sonyc 5,541]

 

 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,832]

So far Tories have lost 850 seats.. Can it get to -1000?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

So far Tories have lost 850 seats.. Can it get to -1000?

It will do.

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

7 hours ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

So far Tories have lost 850 seats.. Can it get to -1000?

Is it because Labour have massively increased the amount of people voting for them or has the Tory vote said phook you and stayed at home? Turn out seems to suggest the latter...

Message to cchq: Be conservative not limp dumb/labour lite.

That said, cchq obviously don't care. They'll be quite happy with a Labour government -- One can tell that by the way they keep copying Labour policies, no matter how many times the majority vote against it.

 

Edited May 6, 2023 by Hook's-Walk-Canary

[Herman 9,838]

As has been pointed out, the central and left of centre parties won. The right and far right got a hammering. Does that really suggest that the tories should go even further right to win? 

[KiwiScot 1,489]

I'd call that not a great result for Labour. Tories lost 1000 councillors and Labour only took half of them with Lib Dems taking a large chunk as well. I know it's council elections, but.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

4 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

I'd call that not a great result for Labour. Tories lost 1000 councillors and Labour only took half of them with Lib Dems taking a large chunk as well. I know it's council elections, but.

Totally. The rise in interest is spread across opposition parties. Also, I just had a look at the 2019 results and the Lib Dems were the second place party in 90 seats, with 79 of those seats currently held by the Conservatives, so arguably if Labour make a serious challenge to take those 79 seats then they'll be giving the Conservatives a better chance of keeping them because they will be fighting head to head with the Lib Dems.

[Herman 9,838]

22 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

I'd call that not a great result for Labour. Tories lost 1000 councillors and Labour only took half of them with Lib Dems taking a large chunk as well. I know it's council elections, but.

A good result for Labour. 

A great result for the LibDems. 

A fantastic result for the Greens. 

Overall a happy set of results for progressive voters. 

[Daz Sparks 1,189]

4 hours ago, Herman said:

As has been pointed out, the central and left of centre parties won. The right and far right got a hammering. Does that really suggest that the tories should go even further right to win? 

No, but yeah, but, yeah, but no....

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,442]

29% turnout in my ward. This is gonna be a big problem come the general election.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The Greens have obviously captured many disillusioned Labour voters like myself. Great result for them locally all around the country. And great to seat it win a Council.

But will they do other than take votes from others at the GE. For me its important to get rid of the Tories. And as Billy Bragg said, it may be time for tactical voting just to get change.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

A good result for Labour. 

A great result for the LibDems. 

A fantastic result for the Greens. 

Overall a happy set of results for progressive voters. 

Absolutely - seems to me that the Labour performance was good but still not especially impressive in the current climate and as you say nowhere near as impressive as the Lib Dems and the Greens who were the real winners yesterday.

if this set of results doesn't finally convince Starmer to work with the Lib Dems and the Greens rather than foolishly pretending that Labour has all the answers then I really don't know what will. It was hughly enjoyable watching the Tories lose seat after seat and council after council yesterday but remain concerned that Starmer/Labour will mess up the GE next year unless they engage their brains and sharpen up their ideas considerably and most of all adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach to actually winning the General  Election.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

5 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Absolutely - seems to me that the Labour performance was good but still not especially impressive in the current climate and as you say nowhere near as impressive as the Lib Dems and the Greens who were the real winners yesterday.

if this set of results doesn't finally convince Starmer to work with the Lib Dems and the Greens rather than foolishly pretending that Labour has all the answers then I really don't know what will. It was hughly enjoyable watching the Tories lose seat after seat and council after council yesterday but remain concerned that Starmer/Labour will mess up the GE next year unless they engage their brains and sharpen up their ideas considerably and most of all adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach to actually winning the General  Election.

 

He is going to bask in this result for a while, quite naturally. But those who bothered to vote have said they would like Labour to take over.

So he now has to start telling those people what they will be getting. Not just the usual its going to be better and we have a plan.

Edited May 6, 2023 by keelansgrandad

[Herman 9,838]

 

[Herman 9,838]

So inept that they can't even rig an election.