General British politics discussion thread

Joe_ Public

PommieBast wrote: »

The Conservative party is also banking on a lot of support simply not having anywhere else to go. A few places like my heavy-Remain hometown of Berkhamsted where Labour are kryptonite might swing towards the LibDems, but with FPTP a loss of a few L&SE seats like this is acceptable collateral damage.

I suspect the lib dems might do well enough the next time, modest gains at worst, though i'm still asking why they chose dull ed over lively layla. Still doesnt compute to me. I think greens might do well in may but that won't translate to national scale. As long as FPTP pertains, I'm not sure the tories are beatable, bar some kind of unprecedented opposition electoral pact. Long term demographic change is their deadliest enemy, but they are well aware of that.

Rjd2

It may pain the internet to hear this, but Boris has the likability factor which is monumental in politics. We can discuss his flaws for the next 26 years , but ultimately the man is really good at popularity contests which means beating him in 2023 or 2024 will be really tough work.

If you are Labour you want him gone before that tbh.

Keir is an odd one, he'd be a million times better as PM, but he doesn't have that liability factor that Boris has. It shouldn't matter, but it really is important when it comes to winning a general election.

I know some tried to compare him to Biden ,,but for all Biden's flaws and their are so many, he also has the likability factor that is so crucial.

Its not a good time to be a Labour supporter in the UK.

Rjd2

I think Murdoch loathes Boris compared to Gove who he has always liked so its possible something could up in the next few years, but Boris seems to be able to swim above all the **** so that's a long shot sadly.

Joe_ Public

I suppose Keir Starmer can still trade a bit on his relative newness as opposition leader, or maybe spin their problems as the fault of previous administrations for a while yet, but i cant help thinking, if it's looking this grim now, how the hells it going to look if the right wing media did actually go for him? Apart from one hit job in the mail, alleging he's some big fat cat for owning his own house or something, i cant think of anything very negative thus far. On the contrary, he's had his own LBC slot, has had periodic columns in the telegraph and mail on sunday, is getting a fair crack at it compared to others before him. If it's that they dont see him as a threat, then what does that say? I thought there were lessons to be gleaned from the way the dems built up electoral coalitions in the states, but i'm not seeing any signs of comparable strategic shifts in the uk. It seems to be flags and patriotism, rule of law and order and prepare to take the tories on on their own home patch. Only one winner in that scenario i would imagine.

Joe_ Public

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think Murdoch loathes Boris compared to Gove who he has always liked so its possible something could up in the next few years, but Boris seems to be able to swim above all the **** so that's a long shot sadly.

I think you could be right, but it may be getting late in the day for gove. I think you only get so many chances at this thing. Meanwhile, sunak is pretty much on the campaign trail 24/7. Some of the media coverage he got last week was incredibly soft soap by any comparison, "Dishy Rishi" and all that. The bbc even had him dressed up as superman not that long ago ffs.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

I do think its odd that with all the things you need ID for this most serious of things requires nothing what so ever. Also how will postal votes work.

Simple solution for the ID thing is offer a free voter card. If you cant be arsed to apply you probably were not going to vote anyway

the obvious solution is a national ID card like pretty much every other country in Europe, but that is seen as yet another attempt at removing people's liberties. One was introduced by the Labour government, but scrapped by the Comservative/Lib Dem coalition in 2011.

I haven't seen what type of ID card they are looking for (I must admit, I always presumed it was a requirement anyway) but there needs to be more than a driving licence and passport as acceptable documents.

breezy1985

Aegir wrote: »

the obvious solution is a national ID card like pretty much every other country in Europe, but that is seen as yet another attempt at removing people's liberties. One was introduced by the Labour government, but scrapped by the Comservative/Lib Dem coalition in 2011.

I haven't seen what type of ID card they are looking for (I must admit, I always presumed it was a requirement anyway) but there needs to be more than a driving licence and passport as acceptable documents.

Wasn't the problem with Labours ID card that you would have to carry it at all times. I wouldn't be a fan of that myself but what I am talking about is essentially a Garda age card

Sam Russell

breezy1985 wrote: »

Wasn't the problem with Labours ID card that you would have to carry it at all times. I wouldn't be a fan of that myself but what I am talking about is essentially a Garda age card

A card exactly like a driving licence, but without the driving bit. You would not be allowed to have both. The non-driving licence would be free.

It would be on the same system with the same level of privacy.

The Labour one was too expensive and tried to do too much.

breezy1985

Sam Russell wrote: »

A card exactly like a driving licence, but without the driving bit. You would not be allowed to have both. The non-driving licence would be free.

It would be on the same system with the same level of privacy.

The Labour one was too expensive and tried to do too much.

The Irish social services card could fil the voter ID spot easily. Pretty sure it's free

PommieBast

breezy1985 wrote: »

Wasn't the problem with Labours ID card that you would have to carry it at all times. I wouldn't be a fan of that myself but what I am talking about is essentially a Garda age card

It was also the huge database attached to the card, and just about every independent expert had doubts about the security. It was pretty clear that they wanted to scope-creep it into something much like the current Chinese system.


By this point in the mid-2000s Labour had completely lost touch. The 34% of the vote they got in 2005 should have been a warning.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

Wasn't the problem with Labours ID card that you would have to carry it at all times. I wouldn't be a fan of that myself but what I am talking about is essentially a Garda age card

Citizen card is the U.K. version. It costs £15 though. Or just stick a photo on the national insurance card.

Something like that would be ideal, if it was accepted.

breezy1985

Aegir wrote: »

Citizen card is the U.K. version. It costs £15 though. Or just stick a photo on the national insurance card.

Something like that would be ideal, if it was accepted.

You don't get a national insurance card in the UK anymore. Well not automatically at least but maybe one can be applied for

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

You don't get a national insurance card in the UK anymore. Well not automatically at least but maybe one can be applied for

don't you?

that's me showing my age i guess

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

The Irish social services card could fil the voter ID spot easily. Pretty sure it's free

It is, but you need either a passport, or a driving licence and birth cert to get one.

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

It is, but you need either a passport, or a driving licence and birth cert to get one.

And a personal visit.

Lemming

breezy1985 wrote: »

You don't get a national insurance card in the UK anymore. Well not automatically at least but maybe one can be applied for

Aegir wrote: »

don't you?

that's me showing my age i guess

I was told upon receiving a letter informing me of my NI number and querying whether there was a card to be issued that there was no cards issued any more; that was back in early 2010.

breezy1985

Lemming wrote: »

I was told upon receiving a letter informing me of my NI number and querying whether there was a card to be issued that there was no cards issued any more; that was back in early 2010.

Got my NI 2013 and had war with my drunken muppet of a boss trying to explain the lack of card to him

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

Got my NI 2013 and had war with my drunken muppet of a boss trying to explain the lack of card to him

when they did issue cards, you weren't obliged to show them, it was just a handy way to remember your number.

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

when they did issue cards, you weren't obliged to show them, it was just a handy way to remember your number.

Exactly, just like the eircode cards that were sent out to everyone a few years ago.
I got my ní card in 1975

has the proposed bill been published and is there any suggestion that a driving licence or passport is required, or is this just he Grauniad up to its usual tricks?

breezy1985

Aegir wrote: »

when they did issue cards, you weren't obliged to show them, it was just a handy way to remember your number.

Most of my friends in their 20/30s had them so it's not long they are gone.

My boss was was a paranoid moron

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

has the proposed bill been published and is there any suggestion that a driving licence or passport is required, or is this just he Grauniad up to its usual tricks?

No Bill has been published yet. SFAIK the position is:

The Queens Speech in October 2019 contained this commitment:

"My Government will take steps to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom."

The associated policy paper issued by the government on the same day explained this as follows:

"We will protect the integrity of our democracy and elections, tackling electoral fraud through the introduction of voter ID and banning postal vote harvesting."

A briefing document issues by the government said that this would be done by introducing legislation "Requiring voters to show an approved form of photographic ID in order to vote at a polling station . . . Any voter who does not have an approved form of ID will be able to apply, free of charge, for a local electoral identity document."

In the event, the promised legislation was never put before Parliament. (This isn't unusual; lost of things that are promised in the Queen's Speech never happen.)

But there's expected to be a further Queen's speech in May which, it is widely reported, will reiterate the commitment to legislate on this subject. The reports are in government-friendly newspapers, over the by-lines of government-friendly reporters, so they are likely coming from government sources. They do mention passports and drivers licences as the kind of documents that will be acceptable, and say that some form of photo ID will be required. They also say that the legislation is expected to be enacted and in force by 2023.

This is controversial because, on the one hand, there is very little evidence of this particular form of voter fraud happening on any scale and, on the other hand, when mandatory photo ID was trialled thousands of voters were turned away for not having it, and many hundreds failed to return. So the likely effect, people argue, is that this legislation will discourage more legitimate voters than it will prevent illegitimate ones.

Note also that, even if enforced and complied with, the legislation would not prevent illegitimate voting. It's entirely possible to have a valid, genuine drivers licence in the UK and yet not be entitled to vote. So the only purpose of the mandatory ID is to ensure that the person who presents at the polling station is the person named in the electoral register; it does nothing to ensure that the person named in the electoral register is correctly registered. And most observers reckon that the integrity and reliability of the electoral register is a much bigger issue than the — so far as we know, vanishingly rare — issue of personating registered voters.

Also worth noting that, per the 2019 Queen's speech, you will only need to produce ID to vote at a polling station; you won't need it for postal voting, etc.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

No Bill has been published yet. SFAIK the position is:

The Queens Speech in October 2019 contained this commitment:

"My Government will take steps to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom."

The associated policy paper issued by the government on the same day explained this as follows:

"We will protect the integrity of our democracy and elections, tackling electoral fraud through the introduction of voter ID and banning postal vote harvesting."

A briefing document issues by the government said that this would be done by introducing legislation "Requiring voters to show an approved form of photographic ID in order to vote at a polling station . . . Any voter who does not have an approved form of ID will be able to apply, free of charge, for a local electoral identity document."

In the event, the promised legislation was never put before Parliament. (This isn't unusual; lost of things that are promised in the Queen's Speech never happen.)

But there's expected to be a further Queen's speech in May which, it is widely reported, will reiterate the commitment to legislate on this subject. The reports are in government-friendly newspapers, over the by-lines of government-friendly reporters, so they are likely coming from government sources. They do mention passports and drivers licences as the kind of documents that will be acceptable, and say that some form of photo ID will be required. They also say that the legislation is expected to be enacted and in force by 2023.

This is controversial because, on the one hand, there is very little evidence of this particular form of voter fraud happening on any scale and, on the other hand, when mandatory photo ID was trialled thousands of voters were turned away for not having it, and many hundreds failed to return. So the likely effect, people argue, is that this legislation will discourage more legitimate voters than it will prevent illegitimate ones.

Note also that, even if enforced and complied with, the legislation would not prevent illegitimate voting. It's entirely possible to have a valid, genuine drivers licence in the UK and yet not be entitled to vote. So the only purpose of the mandatory ID is to ensure that the person who presents at the polling station is the person named in the electoral register; it does nothing to ensure that the person named in the electoral register is correctly registered. And most observers reckon that the integrity and reliability of the electoral register is a much bigger issue than the — so far as we know, vanishingly rare — issue of personating registered voters.

Also worth noting that, per the 2019 Queen's speech, you will only need to produce ID to vote at a polling station; you won't need it for postal voting, etc.

So to sum up, there is no suggestion that only a passport or driving licence are the only document that will be accepted, so this is the media carrying out the usuall scaremongering

Or, putting it another way, the bill will introduce similar ID requirements to those used in polling stations in Ireland and this is the Tories way of ending democracy in the uk?

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

So to sum up, there is no suggestion that only a passport or driving licence are the only document that will be accepted, so this is the media carrying out the usuall scaremongering

I haven't seen any reports that only a passport or driving licence will be acceptable. You may have, of course.

Aegir wrote: »

Or, putting it another way, the bill will introduce similar ID requirements to those used in polling stations in Ireland and this is the Tories way of ending democracy in the uk?

Hyperbole, much? I haven't seen any reports that suggest this is "the Tories way of ending democracy in the uk"; just that this is addressing a non-existent problem in a way that seems likely discourage legitimate votes and that may tend to favour the Tories.

And I don't think it's quite the same as the Irish requirements. The reports in the UK suggest that photo ID will be required; non-photo ID can be used in Ireland.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I haven't seen any reports that only a passport or driving licence will be acceptable. You may have, of course.

the article linked to a few posts back, in the Guardian, talked about the number of people who do not hold either of these documents. It made no mention of the fact that these two documents are unlikely to be the only two required.

That was deliberately misleading and meant to scare monger, surely?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hyperbole, much? I haven't seen any reports that suggest this is "the Tories way of ending democracy in the uk"; just that this is addressing a non-existent problem in a way that seems likely discourage legitimate votes and that may tend to favour the Tories.

I was refering to posts on this forum, these two in particular:

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. If they were really worried about voter fraud, rather than limiting voters, then they would have a free system. In terms of costs, it wouldn't be that much in comparison to overall election costs.

But we know it isn't about improving the security of the electoral system.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Poll Tax under M Thatcher was another attempt at voter suppression.

What is new in this?

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I don't think it's quite the same as the Irish requirements. The reports in the UK suggest that photo ID will be required; non-photo ID can be used in Ireland.

reports where?

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

the article linked to a few posts back, in the Guardian, talked about the number of people who do not hold either of these documents. It made no mention of the fact that these two documents are unlikely to be the only two required.

That was deliberately misleading and meant to scare monger, surely?

I wouldn't have read it that way. These are the forms of commonly held photo IDs that most people are likely to hold but, the article points out, there are still a lot of people who don't hold either of them. In order to vote, they'll have to apply, in advance of the election, for a local government-issued voter ID card, for which they'll presumably have to supply a photograph and jump through various bureaucratic hoops to establish their identity. So there'll be a non-trivial hurdle in the way of voting for them which won't affect other voters, and this is likely to affect their participation rate.

(Which, it is implied, is the Tories' true object, since there is no evidence that the problem of personation, which this is supposed to tackle, is a real one.)

Aegir wrote: »

I was refering to posts on this forum, these two in particular:

Ah, so it was hyperbole.

Aegir wrote: »

reports where?

Here's that lefty rag, the Daily Mail, saying that photo ID will be needed. And here's cultural Marxist propaganda sheet the Sun saying the same thing. And don't talk to me about this shower.

Joe_ Public

Nobody suggested this was an affront or attack on democracy, it's politics is what it is. If the shoe was on the other foot, as in it was white older voters who would be likely to be discommoded by any voter id legislation, could you imagine the government to be in such a rush to tackle this apparent source of massive electoral fraud (one reported case in 2019)? Sure, look at Northern Ireland they say, id cards needed for years and no problems as if overwhelmingly white Northern Ireland is any comparison with other regions of the UK. It's politics and one way or another it leads to voter suppression, otherwise they wouldnt be so worked up about it.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't have read it that way. These are the forms of commonly held photo IDs that most people are likely to hold but, the article points out, there are still a lot of people who don't hold either of them. In order to vote, they'll have to apply, in advance of the election, for a local government-issued voter ID card, for which they'll presumably have to supply a photograph and jump through various bureaucratic hoops to establish their identity. So there'll be a non-trivial hurdle in the way of voting for them which won't affect other voters, and this is likely to affect their participation rate.

or join a local library

it all sounds very similar to the way id is checked here to be honest.

(Which, it is implied, is the Tories' true object, since there is no evidence that the problem of personation, which this is supposed to tackle, is a real one.)

Peregrinus wrote: »

Here's that lefty rag, the Daily Mail, saying that photo ID will be needed. And here's cultural Marxist propaganda sheet the Sun saying the same thing. And don't talk to me about this shower.

so only media speculation then, I thought you had some inside track on an actual quote from a member of the government, like this one:

A Cabinet Office spokeswoman told The Telegraph: 'We will be introducing new measures, as part of the Government's manifesto commitment, to prevent the potential for voter fraud in our electoral system.

'This will further strengthen the integrity of UK elections and will include ID checks at the polling station and rules that prevent abuse of postal and proxy votes.'

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Nobody suggested this was an affront or attack on democracy, it's politics is what it is. If the shoe was on the other foot, as in it was white older voters who would be likely to be discommoded by any voter id legislation, could you imagine the government to be in such a rush to tackle this apparent source of massive electoral fraud (one reported case in 2019)? Sure, look at Northern Ireland they say, id cards needed for years and no problems as if overwhelmingly white Northern Ireland is any comparison with other regions of the UK. It's politics and one way or another it leads to voter suppression, otherwise they wouldnt be so worked up about it.

so should be start lobbying for a change to the electoral system here, so more members of the BAME community can vote?

it might actually mean a person of colour in the Dail, you never know.

Seth Brundle

Aegir wrote: »

it might actually mean a person of colour in the Dail, you never know.

It wouldn't be the first time we had a non-white TD!