|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 3, 2024 11:37:05 GMT
I disagree with their conclusion, which is scrap id requirement (at least I think I disagree, I haven't read more than the first few paras). I might have mentioned this before: Introduce national ID cards. Then require that to be presented to vote. There may be a case for suspending Identity requirements until that is in place. I'm not sure I've mentioned the benefits of having ID cards previously....
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,585 
Likes: 1,734
|
Post by benaj on May 3, 2024 12:14:17 GMT
TBH, I have no idea what a genuine Voter Authority Certificate look like. I suppose it is a FREE Photo ID offered by gov. I was trying to apply for one, the paper work requirement is just one digital photo and NI number. Also, the applicant must have already in the electoral roll register.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,957
Likes: 5,128
|
Post by adrianc on May 3, 2024 23:05:32 GMT
I disagree with their conclusion, which is scrap id requirement (at least I think I disagree, I haven't read more than the first few paras). I might have mentioned this before: Introduce national ID cards. Then require that to be presented to vote. But it's simply a solution to a non-problem. There is NO voter fraud. The electoral commission publish stats on it... www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-dataMeanwhile, at last year's local elections, 4% of voters were put off by the requirement for ID - that'd be a million votes in a general election. And the Tories are betting that it's not *their* voters... Gerrymandering.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,585
Likes: 1,734
|
Post by benaj on May 4, 2024 6:07:22 GMT
Surely the fraud numbers in vote aint significant. I guess the argument is should everyone “vote” in the next general election?Compulsory doesn’t exist in the UK. Some people are banned for voting like prisoners serving sentences longer than 12 months. Anyway, at least candidates like Count Binface are not everywhere in the UK youtu.be/IBM2gwJ4luE
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 4, 2024 7:29:38 GMT
I disagree with their conclusion, which is scrap id requirement (at least I think I disagree, I haven't read more than the first few paras). I might have mentioned this before: Introduce national ID cards. Then require that to be presented to vote. But it's simply a solution to a non-problem. There is NO voter fraud.The electoral commission publish stats on it... www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-dataMeanwhile, at last year's local elections, 4% of voters were put off by the requirement for ID - that'd be a million votes in a general election. And the Tories are betting that it's not *their* voters... Gerrymandering. Well there is some, obviously, the question is how big and whether its significant. To which the answer is almost certainly "not at all significant". I have no quibble with the view that this is at worst part of a deliberate Tory gerrymandering process, and at best a pandering to some core that is up in arms about 'voter fraud' - a pot carefully stirred by both certain populist politicians and papers. Nonetheless, your point about voters being scared off because of ID requirements is a function of the current setup: Passport ? Don't have one. Drivers license ? Don't drive. ID ? Forgot to bring it. It would be an irrelevance if the UK had national identity card scheme. Every (legitimate) national would have one, and it would be second nature to carry it when doing the most mundane of things. So I think you rather missed my point: which is that presenting ID is not of itself inherently 'wrong'. The problem is requiring it when we simply don't have an appropriate framework which would make it seamless and minimise unintended (or intended) consequences. As I've said before on these boards: traditionally there has been a big (but not exclusive) overlap between those who are up in arms about illegal immigrants, voter fraud etc, and those that are most adamant that a national ID scheme is an abhorrent instrusion into our lives.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,027
Likes: 4,428
|
Post by agent69 on May 4, 2024 9:05:14 GMT
Listening to Sky news last night as they were discussing local election results. I was suprised that they predicted that based on yesterday's results Labour would fall short of an outright majority at the next GE.
Heaven forbid that the greens could hold the balance of power on both sides of the border
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 4, 2024 14:57:07 GMT
But it's simply a solution to a non-problem. There is NO voter fraud.The electoral commission publish stats on it... www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-dataMeanwhile, at last year's local elections, 4% of voters were put off by the requirement for ID - that'd be a million votes in a general election. And the Tories are betting that it's not *their* voters... Gerrymandering. Well there is some, obviously, the question is how big and whether its significant. To which the answer is almost certainly "not at all significant". I have no quibble with the view that this is at worst part of a deliberate Tory gerrymandering process, and at best a pandering to some core that is up in arms about 'voter fraud' - a pot carefully stirred by both certain populist politicians and papers. Nonetheless, your point about voters being scared off because of ID requirements is a function of the current setup: Passport ? Don't have one. Drivers license ? Don't drive. ID ? Forgot to bring it. It would be an irrelevance if the UK had national identity card scheme. Every (legitimate) national would have one, and it would be second nature to carry it when doing the most mundane of things. So I think you rather missed my point: which is that presenting ID is not of itself inherently 'wrong'. The problem is requiring it when we simply don't have an appropriate framework which would make it seamless and minimise unintended (or intended) consequences. As I've said before on these boards: traditionally there has been a big (but not exclusive) overlap between those who are up in arms about illegal immigrants, voter fraud etc, and those that are most adamant that a national ID scheme is an abhorrent instrusion into our lives. If you have a compulsory national ID scheme, then you will have to enforce it (otherwise what's the point?), which then becomes "show me your papers" and then you are guilty (no ID!) until you prove your innocence (ID!). The situation turns from the government/police being there for you to you having to justify yourself to the government/police. There are extremely strong reasons NOT to go down the compulsory national ID one-way route, and there is virtually no problem that can't be solved by means other than a compulsory national ID.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 4, 2024 17:19:15 GMT
Well there is some, obviously, the question is how big and whether its significant. To which the answer is almost certainly "not at all significant". I have no quibble with the view that this is at worst part of a deliberate Tory gerrymandering process, and at best a pandering to some core that is up in arms about 'voter fraud' - a pot carefully stirred by both certain populist politicians and papers. Nonetheless, your point about voters being scared off because of ID requirements is a function of the current setup: Passport ? Don't have one. Drivers license ? Don't drive. ID ? Forgot to bring it. It would be an irrelevance if the UK had national identity card scheme. Every (legitimate) national would have one, and it would be second nature to carry it when doing the most mundane of things. So I think you rather missed my point: which is that presenting ID is not of itself inherently 'wrong'. The problem is requiring it when we simply don't have an appropriate framework which would make it seamless and minimise unintended (or intended) consequences. As I've said before on these boards: traditionally there has been a big (but not exclusive) overlap between those who are up in arms about illegal immigrants, voter fraud etc, and those that are most adamant that a national ID scheme is an abhorrent instrusion into our lives. If you have a compulsory national ID scheme, then you will have to enforce it (otherwise what's the point?), which then becomes "show me your papers" and then you are guilty (no ID!) until you prove your innocence (ID!). The situation turns from the government/police being there for you to you having to justify yourself to the government/police. There are extremely strong reasons NOT to go down the compulsory national ID one-way route, and there is virtually no problem that can't be solved by means other than a compulsory national ID.
Like having an - apparently incomplete - list of 22 forms of ID that are acceptable forms of identity proof for something that requires proof of identity. We'll have to disagree. In my view there are many issues which would be made simpler, in many cases significantly so, if there was a National ID card system. Of course "there is virtually no problem that can't be solved without a national ID" (paraphrased). Anything pretty much can be 'solved' with sufficient money, effort and will. But that is hardly the issue. The issue is whether a common and required and issued at birth (or similar) identity system can significantly help with limited or no practical impact on our freedoms. Lets put it this way: most of the main european countries seem to manage it without proclamations of outrage, nor as far as I'm aware any meaningful protest in favour of removing them.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,666
Likes: 2,971
|
Post by michaelc on May 4, 2024 20:21:56 GMT
I find having to produce ID at polling booths very annoying. We've managed for all of my lifetime and beyond without them so why now do we suddenly think the same person is going to vote multiple times? What is wrong with our society?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on May 4, 2024 20:39:38 GMT
I find having to produce ID at polling booths very annoying. We've managed for all of my lifetime and beyond without them so why now do we suddenly think the same person is going to vote multiple times? What is wrong with our society? because some element of the Tory party decided it made for a good bit of gerrymandering: make it more difficult for a number of elements of society who were on the whole more likely to vote for others than them. Like students.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,310
Likes: 11,519
|
Post by ilmoro on May 4, 2024 21:32:36 GMT
I find having to produce ID at polling booths very annoying. We've managed for all of my lifetime and beyond without them so why now do we suddenly think the same person is going to vote multiple times? What is wrong with our society? because some element of the Tory party decided it made for a good bit of gerrymandering: make it more difficult for a number of elements of society who were on the whole more likely to vote for others than them. Like students. Or they can vote so let's treat them like adults who can master the concept ... bit like proving they can go to a age restricted gig (personal fail) Another vote for ID cards ... as someone who has lived in a country with them but got more hassle from wearing a bulky coat than just going about business (NB technically did commit a crime with a sentence of life time in the galleys ... rowing not cooking) ... churches for goalposts 😆
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,585
Likes: 1,734
|
Post by benaj on May 5, 2024 3:53:29 GMT
Vote for national ID card? 🤔 yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/support-for-the-introduction-of-a-system-of-national-identity-cards-in-the-ukIt’s hard to please everyone. Some people like idea of having national ID card but sceptical of the idea of ID checked at polling station. Thank goodness the ballot paper is unmarked and counted by human and nothing monitor or tracking who voted what. The thing is, the national ID card bill was introduced by the previous government but then it was cancelled. Why was it cancelled I wonder. Was it because it is capable storing a lot of personal information? or was it the cost of running it while we already have passports and driving licences as the main stream for proof of IDs? www.gov.uk/government/news/identity-cards-and-national-identity-register-to-be-scrappedHaving lived in a place requiring carrying one, I am not strongly opposing having a national ID card. The future generation of national ID card could cause more trouble for people access to “things” when ID cards can’t be “read” by machines without another human assistance. But do we really want our tax money to implement this one for extra benefits? Awaiting answers from expert. NB: A couple of months ago, I have been asked to prove my ID with my UK passport for legal reason regarding a matter in the UK. In order to prove my identity, I had to download an app to take a pic of my face and “read” my passport with NFC. The tech fails so badly and there was no other human to help. I tried to machine-read my passport many times with my phone but failed many times using the method suggested in the app. Luckily, there was some video on the internet showing how to machine-read passport with the phone app. Although it is not the same app, but the method suggested in the video works. Thank goodness that app did not take my finger print, it might cause more trouble and delay if it had failed. |
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,666
Likes: 2,971
|
Post by michaelc on May 5, 2024 12:48:09 GMT
I've bolded the second half of the sentence you conveniently missed off the first time you posted. May I repeat... "If you're relying on "but there are plans..." to state that the initial capacity of 200 per year is somehow "nonsense", then I admire your optimism." May I also repeat... "So what do you think the capacity is? What are your sources?" Looks like your 200 per year figure is nonsense. But, she would not give an assurance it would be able to take the 40,000 people the UK would like to send, merely saying it would be "thousands".www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68961058
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,957
Likes: 5,128
|
Post by adrianc on May 5, 2024 13:07:22 GMT
"she" being the Rwandan government spokesman who also said it was not a punishment, but a lovely place.
Despite being unsafe in everybody's view but the Tories, who just don't want you to ask difficult questions.
Despite all the refugees coming from there.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,977
Likes: 1,687
|
Post by Steerpike on May 5, 2024 13:18:24 GMT
|
|
