Hartlepool & (latterly) North Shropshire

[zerkalo]

Droid Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> zerkalo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > On a side note, I find the government plans to

> > introduce mandatory voter ID and change the

> system

> > for local elections to FPTP very insidious.

>

> Please explain your basis for this considering it

> insidious. The current system is easily open to

> large scale abuse because it is based on a

> voluntary (and unverified) declaration of names

> living at an address. No cross check with any form

> of ID is required.

There you go, have a look. This is effectively voter suppression out of the Trump playbook.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/electoral-fraud-data

[Sephiroth]

Of all the things that need doing, this is what they spend time and money on?

A solution without a problem

[Droid]

zerkalo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > > On a side note, I find the government plans

> to

> > > introduce mandatory voter ID and change the

> > system

> > > for local elections to FPTP very insidious.

> >

> > Please explain your basis for this considering

> it

> > insidious. The current system is easily open to

> > large scale abuse because it is based on a

> > voluntary (and unverified) declaration of names

> > living at an address. No cross check with any

> form

> > of ID is required.

>

I'm going on what I read in the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/22/postalvoting.politics

[Sephiroth]

2008 eh?

Let?s look at all the elections and referendums since then

Even if I disagree with every result, voter fraud is not an issue

[TheCat]

I totally agree that there are bigger issues for the govt to focus on. But I'm genuinely amazed at the level of opposition to the voter ID thing.

I say this from a totally non-partisan perspective, when first coming from Australia, I was totally shocked to find that you don't require ID to vote here.

I mean...most modern democracies (Canada, NZ, Sweden, Norway, Germany, France etc etc) all require photo ID to vote. Surely this is just catching up with the rest of the world?....and should be very much a non issue.

I would say that just as the govt has other things it should focus on as a priority, so too should govt opponents have better things to criticise them about....

[Sephiroth]

Those democracies have safeguards and constitutions to protect against abuse of ID cards

This country has nothing

People who support any uk party regardless of politics should required proper checks and balances before any introduction into this country

(We should also question why they?re being suggested now. By THIS PM. the same guy who swore blind he would swallow any card rather than present one. Was he unaware of any ?issues? then?

Fraud and charlatan. And a dangerous one)

[Sephiroth]

People will already have seen the clip

But (apart from gaining power and wanting to keep it) what has changed this mans opinion

[alex_b]

I?d suggest Cat that either you?re being disingenuous or you just haven?t thought very hard about it. Any new law has consequences beyond the simple claim of ?preventing X? For voter ID we saw this with the pilots last election, the direct consequence was that 800 legitimate voters in pilot areas were prevented from exercising their democratic right due to lack of ID.

For me the biggest difference for the UK compared to Europe is a lack of a mandatory national ID. Passports and Drivers Licences are nowhere near universal, especially in poorer areas. Even if ?Voter ID cards? were free they?ll presumably require people to know about them, know how to apply, have the time to apply, the money to send supporting documents and photos securely to whoever is issuing them, and the update them every time you move or when they expire. The people least able to do this, the people least able to get a new ID card in the six weeks after a snap general election is called: poor people and people of colour. Hell you don?t even need to be that poor, I think my pensioner father still has a paper licence and hasn?t been abroad in years so doesn?t have or need a current passport.

Of course since it?s clear the government are acting in bad faith here, I have zero reason to believe they?ll do anything to make ID accessible for those people currently excluded from photo ID.

I?ve no idea how it works in Australia, is ID universal? How does lack of ID in Australia intersect with compulsory voting?

[TheCat]

I should point out that it's only certain states in Australia where you require ID to vote, and I think federal elections still don't require it to this day

Voting is compulsory,as you point out, and the list of acceptable ID is very long, and includes non-photo ID's, and there are provisions from various govt departments to provide certification for people who cannot provide the required ID.

I guess I'd say that all your concerns above must have also been faced in all the other countries that do require photo ID...and they all got through it somehow (are you claiming British exceptionalism?:)).

In anycase...it sounds like your objection is not around the requirement for ID per se, but the provisions made for people who don't have the most common forms of ID....

Is there a reason why the criticism seems to focused on the concept of requiring ID, rather than on the process for ensuring people have access to it?

[alex_b]

I think the objection to the concept is that the UK doesn?t have a tradition of compulsory ID - indeed the current Prime Minister and his party were vocally opposed to them - voting is a fundamental democratic right and therefore requiring ID to vote is making ID compulsory by the backdoor. This is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the state and the citizen and properly be debated. Personally I?m not against a national ID programme if it is done competently, securely and equitably - but others will disagree and that?s a debate to be had in the round not over a strawman of voter fraud.

The other point is the brazenly cynical nature of this proposal. We have a Conservative party who have campaigned against ID cards, have no evidence of in person voter fraud and have presided over the systematic denial of citizenship rights to elderly Caribbean immigrants - claiming that a measure shown to suppress voter turnout in poorer areas is necessary to safeguard our elections. It?s an attempt at voter suppression pure and simple - surely you must see that?

As for the experience in other countries - I don?t know what evidence there is that ID requirements don?t suppress turnout, it certainly does when it has been introduced in US states especially amongst black and Latino voters. European countries have had compulsory ID cards for decades along with very different voting systems, and so it?s simply impossible to cherry pick one part of their national infrastructure and say ?it works ok there should be fine here?.

And no that isn?t British exceptionalism, if anything it?s expecting any attempt to do this in the UK to be done in the cheapest, least competent way to give a show of protecting voters while really achieving the aim of stopping younger, poorer, people of colour voting.

[malumbu]

Things were better when the nobility and bishops ran the country, they knew what was best for us, we didn't have the masses, and particularly women, voting. A facetious post of course but the current proposals do feel this way a little.

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is absolutely zero reason to bring in mandatory voter ID other than to suppress votes. It?s a Trump policy from ?Britain Trump?.

[TheCat]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the objection to the concept is that the

> UK doesn?t have a tradition of compulsory ID -

> indeed the current Prime Minister and his party

> were vocally opposed to them - voting is a

> fundamental democratic right and therefore

> requiring ID to vote is making ID compulsory by

> the backdoor. This is a fundamental shift in the

> relationship between the state and the citizen and

> properly be debated. Personally I?m not against a

> national ID programme if it is done competently,

> securely and equitably - but others will disagree

> and that?s a debate to be had in the round not

> over a strawman of voter fraud.

>

> The other point is the brazenly cynical nature of

> this proposal. We have a Conservative party who

> have campaigned against ID cards, have no evidence

> of in person voter fraud and have presided over

> the systematic denial of citizenship rights to

> elderly Caribbean immigrants - claiming that a

> measure shown to suppress voter turnout in poorer

> areas is necessary to safeguard our elections.

> It?s an attempt at voter suppression pure and

> simple - surely you must see that?

>

> As for the experience in other countries - I don?t

> know what evidence there is that ID requirements

> don?t suppress turnout, it certainly does when it

> has been introduced in US states especially

> amongst black and Latino voters. European

> countries have had compulsory ID cards for decades

> along with very different voting systems, and so

> it?s simply impossible to cherry pick one part of

> their national infrastructure and say ?it works ok

> there should be fine here?.

>

> And no that isn?t British exceptionalism, if

> anything it?s expecting any attempt to do this in

> the UK to be done in the cheapest, least competent

> way to give a show of protecting voters while

> really achieving the aim of stopping younger,

> poorer, people of colour voting.

Fair enough. I come from what is widely regarded as a 'nanny state'...so have less conceptual problem accepting the idea of universal ID, particularly to vote. My bias is to say that if people want to exercise their democratic right to vote, then its not that much of an ask to get organised and get yourself an ID. But I appreciate that others feel very differently (as evidenced above), and this is of course all dependent on how easy/free/safeguarded the process to get the right ID is made (I don't disagree with concerns that this govt will probably make a half-hearted, sh!tty attempt at an easy process). So I do hear and appreciate the concerns raised...and wont argue the point any further as I dont really feel strongly enough on it to do so....but appreciate the insight into britsh mentality on the issue (and for the civil discussion!)

[Sephiroth]

As I'm not British I don't have quite the same hostility to the concept of ID cards as many British people do

When Blair govt was kicking the idea around, I wondered why so many people were QUITE so upset at the idea

But to see those opponents now pushing the idea is deeply suss

And if any UK govt wants to change such a fundamental part of it's (non)constitution it should campaign on the idea - many Johnson voters will have voted for him with every much the notion that he was dead-set against the idea

Mind you, bait and switch seems to be order of the day with this lot

[Droid]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As I'm not British I don't have quite the same

> hostility to the concept of ID cards as many

> British people do

>

> When Blair govt was kicking the idea around, I

> wondered why so many people were QUITE so upset at

> the idea

>

> But to see those opponents now pushing the idea is

> deeply suss

>

> And if any UK govt wants to change such a

> fundamental part of it's (non)constitution it

> should campaign on the idea - many Johnson voters

> will have voted for him with every much the notion

> that he was dead-set against the idea

>

> Mind you, bait and switch seems to be order of the

> day with this lot

Spot on. Party leaders only show their true colours when they are secure with a large majority in parliament. In opposition they suppress their real feelings but once in power, then watch out! Boris is the most blatant exponent of this tactic. Inevitably he will go too far on several other sensitive issues and the Tories will get booted out. Look back at poll tax.

[alex_b]

Where I take an even more cynical view that Johnson is genuine in his opposition to ID cards, but sees imposing voter ID laws without doing anything about the ID infrastructure in this country as a cheap and consequence free way of suppressing the rights of Labour voters.

[Sephiroth]

I would go with "any opposition" rather than Labour specifically, but yes

[JohnL]

A potential employer mentioned my passport once as if it was inconceivable I didn't have one.

At the time I'd spilled beer over the photo page which didn't have protective plastic on it - so had to quickly replace - and that required a signature of a Vicar/Doctor or Teacher - not as easy as you'd think.

[Droid]

Was checking into a small town hotel in Rockport on the Texas Gulf coast 5 years ago and the receptionist asked for some ID. I said "would my passport be OK".

She responded, "Oh, I've never seen a passport before."

She was delighted with the experience, if not the PP photo!

[TheCat]

A bit of a long read this one...but it's Tony Blair writing in the New Statesman about the fundamental challenges he sees for Labour (and progressives more broadly)

It's all fairly high-level, and the practicalities of implementing his suggestions are not easy, but makes sense to me. Key takeaway is encapsulated by the following...

"The progressive problem is that, in an era where people want change in a changing world, and a fairer, better and more prosperous future, the radical progressives aren?t sensible and the sensible aren?t radical. The choice is therefore between those who fail to inspire hope and those who inspire as much fear as hope"

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/tony-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die

[Droid]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A bit of a long read this one...but it's Tony

> Blair writing in the New Statesman about the

> fundamental challenges he sees for Labour (and

> progressives more broadly)

>

> It's all fairly high-level, and the practicalities

> of implementing his suggestions are not easy, but

> makes sense to me. Key takeaway is encapsulated by

> the following...

>

> "The progressive problem is that, in an era where

> people want change in a changing world, and a

> fairer, better and more prosperous future, the

> radical progressives aren?t sensible and the

> sensible aren?t radical. The choice is therefore

> between those who fail to inspire hope and those

> who inspire as much fear as hope"

>

> https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2021/05/ton

> y-blair-without-total-change-labour-will-die

Indeed, a very comprehensive, accurate and well presented analysis; but then Tony's presentational skills were always superb.

Any chance he can make a come back?

[alex_b]

Droid Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Was checking into a small town hotel in Rockport

> on the Texas Gulf coast 5 years ago and the

> receptionist asked for some ID. I said "would my

> passport be OK".

>

> She responded, "Oh, I've never seen a passport

> before."

>

> She was delighted with the experience, if not the

> PP photo!

My friend had his British passport turned down as proof of age in San Diego as it was ?out of state? ID!

[DuncanW]

San Diego is strict on ID in my experience.

I went there from LA and forgot to take my passport. Found it very difficult to get served or even gain entry into any bars. I did however have my paper driving license on me and a passport style photo which I stuck on the license. Amazingly that worked in a couple of places...

[diable rouge]

100...

[diable rouge]

alex_b Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where I take an even more cynical view that

> Johnson is genuine in his opposition to ID cards,

> but sees imposing voter ID laws without doing

> anything about the ID infrastructure in this

> country as a cheap and consequence free way of

> suppressing the rights of Labour voters.

My take is even more cynical. Why would a Gov with a recentish won large parliamentary majority, that is still doing well in the polls despite it's abject handling of lockdowns etc, and has just convincingly won a by-election in a seat it hasn't held for 50 odd years, plus throw in boundary changes at the next GE that work in their favour, feel the need for voter suppression?

I get why Trump and the GOP went down this road, he knew he was going to lose so his voter suppression tactics were a response to that, as well as laying down the narrative of the 'big steal'...