Voters will have to show ID in pilot scheme

#2
Bad news for Labour. Unfortunately, it's the postal votes that they should have gone for.
 
#6
If we all had ID cards then we wouldn't need "terrifying" initiatives which involve (G-d forbid) actually having to prove who you are. I've carried my military ID around for nearly 36 years and used it wisely: getting Spanish cops attention and more recently £16k off a house
 
#7
What the actual ****?

Labour said it supported the idea in principle but views varied among its MPs with Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, suggesting it was a "retrograde step" that was "more about combating low income voting" than tackling fraud.
Do poor people not have utilities bills?

My brain can't actually fathom the logic in that statement.
 
#8
Measures such as this arise from the real and present danger/criminality caused by large scale immigration which allows people to bring in bad practises from their own countries, as mentioned in this BBC article:
Electoral fraud: Pilot scheme for ID before voting defended - BBC News
In his report, Sir Eric cited research suggesting certain Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities could be more vulnerable to fraud due to a lack of understanding of the voting process.

He highlighted "kinship" traditions, saying they emphasised collective over individual rights and made it more likely that people would "hand over" their vote over to others.

Mr Skidmore dismissed suggestions the new measures were targeted at any "particular community" but said it was essential people across the UK were able to fulfil their democratic rights "regardless of their race or their religion".

in a different forum i posted about the changes , good and bad, that are coming to the UK as a result of large scale immigration and high migrant birth rates - we need to think out side the box and stop being frightened about potentially upsetting minorities to robustly protect UK 'institutions' and 'practices' otherwise we will soon turn into the shitholes many of these peope hated so much they left to come to the uk!
 
#9
Well the 'suggestion' of voting fraud has now being noted by the government. This is their radical solution.

Electoral fraud: Voters will have to show ID in pilot scheme - BBC News

What didn't anyone else thing of this?
It has been said many, many times before. But people just don't like changes to the voting system. Not so long ago there was a referendum to introduce proportional representation which got blown out because people don't like changes and didn't understand this one. Had PR been in place then the Brexit referendum would have had a different outcome. In fact, past referendums have always had a conservative outcome, the Brexit referendum was the first to call for change.
 
#10
It has been said many, many times before. But people just don't like changes to the voting system. Not so long ago there was a referendum to introduce proportional representation which got blown out because people don't like changes and didn't understand this one. Had PR been in place then the Brexit referendum would have had a different outcome. In fact, past referendums have always had a conservative outcome, the Brexit referendum was the first to call for change.
Explain how a binary choice could be affected by PR.
 
#11
It has been said many, many times before. But people just don't like changes to the voting system. Not so long ago there was a referendum to introduce proportional representation which got blown out because people don't like changes and didn't understand this one. Had PR been in place then the Brexit referendum would have had a different outcome. In fact, past referendums have always had a conservative outcome, the Brexit referendum was the first to call for change.
sorry, the referendum wouldnt have been affected by PR as it was a simple leave or stay vote - PR is for 'normal' electoral voting where the number of seats are awarded against the votes received, in the last election UKIP would have got 40 or 50 seats in westminster and the SNP far less. Bear in mind PR deliberately tries to stop single party majorities to create co-allitions which on the face of it should moderate what can be done by any one party but can also cause a total jam up where nothing gets achieved and no voter is happy because their particular favourites cannot carry out their pre-election promises
 
#13
Bear in mind PR deliberately tries to stop single party majorities to create co-allitions which on the face of it should moderate what can be done by any one party but can also cause a total jam up where nothing gets achieved and no voter is happy because their particular favourites cannot carry out their pre-election promises
Ahh, you live in Belgium too!!

That's two elections in a row where the party who did actually get the highest proportion of the popular vote have been locked out of leading the coalition government.....
 
#14
I used to go out with a Belgian girl. Once, we were rushing to get somewhere and she went to bolt back into the house to pick up some ID. At home, in Belgium, you have to have ID on you if you're driving a vehicle. I had to tell her that it's not so here.

It seems to me that the UK is very unusual in terms of its aversion to some form of mandatory ID. The only people that I can see having an issue are those with nefarious intent and the politicians who rely on them as a voting bloc.
 
#15
It seems to me that the UK is very unusual in terms of its aversion to some form of mandatory ID. The only people that I can see having an issue are those with nefarious intent and the politicians who rely on them as a voting bloc.
If nobody cared, or people actually wanted it, it would have been done decades ago, because it would have been in ssomebody's manifesto. However, whenever it's been mooted, much like PR, the public have generally been strongly negative. (I'll ignore the 'If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' (my bold)).
Most people don't see a benefit over existing forms of ID, don't trust (already compromised) Government databases, fear mission creep, and don't like the fact that pretty much every public institution will have free access.

Rightly or wrongly it's seen as a form of Government intrusion into our lives - one that is seen as absolutely not necessary by the public.
 
#16
I used to go out with a Belgian girl. Once, we were rushing to get somewhere and she went to bolt back into the house to pick up some ID. At home, in Belgium, you have to have ID on you if you're driving a vehicle. I had to tell her that it's not so here.

It seems to me that the UK is very unusual in terms of its aversion to some form of mandatory ID. The only people that I can see having an issue are those with nefarious intent and the politicians who rely on them as a voting bloc.
Well, after being rid of a certain bunch of German tourists back in the 1940's, Belgium decided to keep the ID card scheme that the Germans had introduced (will have to look and see if there's a reason for that) so pretty much everyone knows nothing different, it's perfectly normal to the natives.
 
#17
If nobody cared, or people actually wanted it, it would have been done decades ago, because it would have been in ssomebody's manifesto. However, whenever it's been mooted, much like PR, the public have generally been strongly negative. (I'll ignore the 'If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' (my bold)).
Most people don't see a benefit over existing forms of ID, don't trust (already compromised) Government databases, fear mission creep, and don't like the fact that pretty much every public institution will have free access.

Rightly or wrongly it's seen as a form of Government intrusion into our lives - one that is seen as absolutely not necessary by the public.

I don't know why the government don't simply make it mandatory to have a passport.

Most people have one anyway, it has entirely non-contentious uses, the screening and issuing apparatus already exists and copes (albeit often badly) with the needs of most of the UK population - and passports themselves, being paper documents, are not accessible by multiple organisations, and cannot be further fnucked up by attempting to add more information databases to them.
 
#19
Explain how a binary choice could be affected by PR.
No. I might get it w'rong. What I was really referring to was some vague idea (that makes sense to me) where some regions (like Scottyland) voted to remain in the EU but got swept along with the rest. Or, where a minority of people voted to leave, if you consider those who didn't vote. Or, where one considers that by the time an Exit comes about, some of those who were too young to vote will come of age and might have otherwise voted to remain. And, some of those who did vote will have pegged it by then. Rather like turning up the heat in the sauna before leaving.
 
#20
If nobody cared, or people actually wanted it, it would have been done decades ago, because it would have been in ssomebody's manifesto. However, whenever it's been mooted, much like PR, the public have generally been strongly negative. (I'll ignore the 'If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to fear' (my bold)).
Most people don't see a benefit over existing forms of ID, don't trust (already compromised) Government databases, fear mission creep, and don't like the fact that pretty much every public institution will have free access.

Rightly or wrongly it's seen as a form of Government intrusion into our lives - one that is seen as absolutely not necessary by the public.
Negative because of the stoking in the media, perhaps?

No-one I've spoken to has objected to the idea. That might be an indicator of my social circle, I don't know; but there are more benefits than disbenefits, as far as I can see.

All those objections you list are addressable.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top