General British politics discussion thread

Joe_ Public · 11-03-2021 11:20am

Aegir wrote: »

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.

If there is an issue here with bame or other minority communities having trouble to vote, then that should be addressed. As a priority.

Nothing wrong with voter id per se, but if it is known that this will have an adverse effect on a sizable sub section of the population, then that is something that needs to be looked at, not just some cck and bull thing concocted about voter fraud.

"Go join a library" would be a grand solution indeed if they weren't being filleted all across the uk.

11-03-2021 11:36am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

If there is an issue here with bame or other minority communities having trouble to vote, then that should be addressed. As a priority.

Nothing wrong with voter id per se, but if it is known that this will have an adverse effect on a sizable sub section of the population, then that is something that needs to be looked at, not just some cck and bull thing concocted about voter fraud..

is it a known issue then?

ancapailldorcha · 11-03-2021 11:37am

Mod: BAME TD's and voting in Ireland is not the topic of this thread. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

Leroy42 · 11-03-2021 1:55pm

Aegir, why do you think the Tory party is looking to make changes? There doesn't appear to be any material issue so it seems odd that this is something they are particularly exercised about.

This line about 'potential fraud'. What is that based on, as it has not been used in the past. Have they spotted something new or a change that would heighten the possibility in the future.

11-03-2021 4:40pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Aegir, why do you think the Tory party is looking to make changes? There doesn't appear to be any material issue so it seems odd that this is something they are particularly exercised about.

This line about 'potential fraud'. What is that based on, as it has not been used in the past. Have they spotted something new or a change that would heighten the possibility in the future.

to prevent black, brown and poor people from voting, obviously,

Isn't that it?

Or maybe because not showing any identification when voting is stupid and the very low level of known fraud is likely to be because so many people get away with it.

no, it is definitely the home secretary not wanting brown people to vote :rolleyes:

11-03-2021 4:50pm

Aegir wrote: »

to prevent black, brown and poor people from voting, obviously,

Isn't that it?

Or maybe because not showing any identification when voting is stupid and the very low level of known fraud is likely to be because so many people get away with it.

no, it is definitely the home secretary not wanting brown people to vote :rolleyes:

If they're illegal immigrants, then they have no right to vote, regardless of their origin.

Leroy42 · 11-03-2021 5:32pm

Aegir wrote: »

to prevent black, brown and poor people from voting, obviously,

Isn't that it?

Or maybe because not showing any identification when voting is stupid and the very low level of known fraud is likely to be because so many people get away with it.

no, it is definitely the home secretary not wanting brown people to vote :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. You think that the UK government are rolling out these changes to target minoity groups?

I assume you are being sarcastic so we move to your next reason. That despite there being no evidence of voter fraud, you are certain it must be happening so it is necessary to change the system to deal with the threat to which nobody has any evidence and it has, apparently, never had any impact.

Do you think all government decisions should be based on feelings and intuition or maybe it should be based on evidence? Maybe we can do away with speed cameras and just base tickets and penalty points on the type of car?

Joe_ Public · 11-03-2021 5:35pm

So no evidence whatsoever of widespread voter fraud at the polls, just they must be at it so we'll have to deal with it as we see fit. Out of interest, do the tories have any similar policy regarding postal voting? There's no evidence of fraud there either I'm aware of, but surely if they're at it with the polls, they must be at it, even more so, with the post too? Over 35% of the votes cast in 2019 were by post so i am wondering what possible reason there could be as to why it isnt in the mix. Any suggestions?

11-03-2021 5:51pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. You think that the UK government are rolling out these changes to target minoity groups?

I assume you are being sarcastic so we move to your next reason. That despite there being no evidence of voter fraud, you are certain it must be happening so it is necessary to change the system to deal with the threat to which nobody has any evidence and it has, apparently, never had any impact.

Do you think all government decisions should be based on feelings and intuition or maybe it should be based on evidence? Maybe we can do away with speed cameras and just base tickets and penalty points on the type of car?

They are doing it because it is the right thing to do.

Why do you think they are doing it? You clearly think it is wrong, why is it wrong?

If the way the UK is doing it now is the correct way (which is basically "Hi, I'm Leroy42 I would like to place a vote") then why are there not more protests out there that so many countries are doing things the wrong way?

They are bringing in the requirement for voters to produce ID at the polling station, not demonstrate that they own 72 acres and four score and ten head of cattle :rolleyes:

11-03-2021 5:52pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So no evidence whatsoever of widespread voter fraud at the polls, just they must be at it so we'll have to deal with it as we see fit. Out of interest, do the tories have any similar policy regarding postal voting? There's no evidence of fraud there either I'm aware of, but surely if they're at it with the polls, they must be at it, even more so, with the post too? Over 35% of the votes cast in 2019 were by post so i am wondering what possible reason there could be as to why it isnt in the mix. Any suggestions?

So why do you think they are doing it?

Leroy42 · 11-03-2021 6:01pm

Aegir wrote: »

So why do you think they are doing it?

So you don't really know why they are doing it, but it sounds like they need to do it so it must be the right thing to do?

Even though you, and no one else, can produce anything to present this clear and present danger of voter fraud?

In the absence of any actual reason, then we need to look at what reasons there could be.

It could be for the security of the vote process, but since there has not been anything to suggest it isn't secure that would seem unlikely.

So what else? What sort of people would this have the biggest effect on and are they more or less likely to vote Tory? It would appear that a potential by-product of this could be a benefit to the tories themselves.

The difference is that I am asking the question behind it, you are simply accepting that it is 'right' and is 'needed' without and evidence.

11-03-2021 6:05pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you don't really know why they are doing it, but it sounds like they need to do it so it must be the right thing to do?

Even though you, and no one else, can produce anything to present this clear and present danger of voter fraud?

In the absence of any actual reason, then we need to look at what reasons there could be.

It could be for the security of the vote process, but since there has not been anything to suggest it isn't secure that would seem unlikely.

So what else? What sort of people would this have the biggest effect on and are they more or less likely to vote Tory? It would appear that a potential by-product of this could be a benefit to the tories themselves.

The difference is that I am asking the question behind it, you are simply accepting that it is 'right' and is 'needed' without and evidence.

so this will adversely affect non Tory voters and that is the only reason it is being done?

if that is your claim, could you provide some evidence to support this?

Leroy42 · 11-03-2021 6:07pm

Aegir wrote: »

so this will adversely affect non Tory voters and that is the only reason it is being done?

if that is your claim, could you provide some evidence to support this?

Ah, I don't need to. Apparently just thinking it is right is perfectly reasonable.

I don't need evidence to maintain the status quo, you need to provide evidence if you want to make a change. The onus is on you, as you support it, and the government, who want to do it, to provide evidence that it is required.

So where is that evidence that led you to support the call for greater Id requirements?

11-03-2021 6:18pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah, I don't need to. Apparently just thinking it is right is perfectly reasonable.

I don't need evidence to maintain the status quo, you need to provide evidence if you want to make a change. The onus is on you, as you support it, and the government, who want to do it, to provide evidence that it is required.

So where is that evidence that led you to support the call for greater Id requirements?

So in other words, you can't think of one reason why producing ID is bad, but it's the Tories bringing it in so it must be opposed at all costs because......?

the idea has been talked about for several years, it was in their election manifesto and they are planning on introducing a bill to implement it.

Big ****ing deal.

Leroy42 · 11-03-2021 6:22pm

Aegir wrote: »

So in other words, you can't think of one reason why producing ID is bad, but it's the Tories bringing it in so it must be opposed at all costs because......?

the idea has been talked about for several years, it was in their election manifesto and they are planning on introducing a bill to implement it.

Big ****ing deal.

Again, I did tell you why it is bad.

But, again, the onus is not on me to provide evidence. There currently is no evidence that any issues exist.

You seem to believe that there are issues that need attention.

What are those issues?
What evidence do you have that these issues need to be fixed?
And what will these new measures do to fix these issues?
What are the costs?
Who pays the costs?
Who is responsible for the roll-out?
Could the same people intent of voting fraudulently under the current system not simply abuse the new system?
How will they insure the security of this new system?

Surely you have more than just 'its right' to hang onto?

Again, do you think all government policy should be left to a hunch or 'I think' or maybe 'its probably true'? Or is it just this particular issue that you are willing to forgo any form of critical thinking and simply go along with it as it is something you happen to think is a good idea?

Joe_ Public · 11-03-2021 6:46pm

Ah, i see how this works now. The government proposes a bill introducing mandatory voter id on the basis it's needed to address problematic voter fraud. Asked for evidence of said apparent widespread fraud, the response is we dont need it, it's there, theyre at it, we can feel it in our bones. But anyone daring to question their motives (of a tory government, imagine!) and wondering if something else may lie behind it - where's your evidence...where's your evidence?!

11-03-2021 7:53pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Again, I did tell you why it is bad.

But, again, the onus is not on me to provide evidence. There currently is no evidence that any issues exist.

you didn't tell me why it is bad, you keep saying that the current situation is acceptable.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You seem to believe that there are issues that need attention.

What are those issues?
What evidence do you have that these issues need to be fixed?
And what will these new measures do to fix these issues?
What are the costs?
Who pays the costs?
Who is responsible for the roll-out?
Could the same people intent of voting fraudulently under the current system not simply abuse the new system?
How will they insure the security of this new system?

Surely you have more than just 'its right' to hang onto?

Again, do you think all government policy should be left to a hunch or 'I think' or maybe 'its probably true'? Or is it just this particular issue that you are willing to forgo any form of critical thinking and simply go along with it as it is something you happen to think is a good idea?

they are introducing the requirement for people to bring ID with them to a polling station. You seem to think they are introducing mind control or something.

It isn't a big deal, it really isn't. If it was, then other countries wouldn't be doing it.

11-03-2021 7:56pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Ah, i see how this works now. The government proposes a bill introducing mandatory voter id on the basis it's needed to address problematic voter fraud. Asked for evidence of said apparent widespread fraud, the response is we dont need it, it's there, theyre at it, we can feel it in our bones. But anyone daring to question their motives (of a tory government, imagine!) and wondering if something else may lie behind it - where's your evidence...where's your evidence?!

What is the problem with mandatory voter ID?

Leroy42 · 11-03-2021 8:15pm

Aegir wrote: »

What is the problem with mandatory voter ID?

Have you any actual answers?

Joe_ Public · 11-03-2021 8:23pm

Aegir wrote: »

What is the problem with mandatory voter ID?

Like i said before, i have nothing fundamentally against voter id. But in this instance it is addressing a supposed problem that, according to the relevant sources, does not actually exist while causing another problem - the effective disenfranchisement of lots of people who already feel so beaten down and abandoned that all it would take is the merest push for them not to bother exercising their democratic right. And i simply think they should be encouraged to participate in the democratic process as much as possible, not have more obstacles put in their path on demonstrably spurious grounds.

Of course, if it wasnt mostly labour or non tory voters who were being adversely affected, if it in fact was the tory party which was likely to lose votes, then maybe i'd be pretty blase about it too. But it wouldn't make it right at the same time.

breezy1985 · 11-03-2021 9:31pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

So no evidence whatsoever of widespread voter fraud at the polls, just they must be at it so we'll have to deal with it as we see fit. Out of interest, do the tories have any similar policy regarding postal voting? There's no evidence of fraud there either I'm aware of, but surely if they're at it with the polls, they must be at it, even more so, with the post too? Over 35% of the votes cast in 2019 were by post so i am wondering what possible reason there could be as to why it isnt in the mix. Any suggestions?

But how could there be evidence of fraud?

I used just walk up and say my name and bang. Everytime I voted in London it was a different polling station too so no way they knew me and I'm still on the register over there eso nothing to stop my friends voting for me.

You can't get on a plane without ID and voting is the biggest thing we do as a society.

Also and this is just my experience but all my working class BAME and white friends in London went on foreign holidays and had passports. Of all the people I employed only 1 had no photo ID or bank account and she (white) was in my opinion dodgy and lying about having neither

11-03-2021 9:59pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Like i said before, i have nothing fundamentally against voter id. But in this instance it is addressing a supposed problem that, according to the relevant sources, does not actually exist while causing another problem - the effective disenfranchisement of lots of people who already feel so beaten down and abandoned that all it would take is the merest push for them not to bother exercising their democratic right. And i simply think they should be encouraged to participate in the democratic process as much as possible, not have more obstacles put in their path on demonstrably spurious grounds.

Of course, if it wasnt mostly labour or non tory voters who were being adversely affected, if it in fact was the tory party which was likely to lose votes, then maybe i'd be pretty blase about it too. But it wouldn't make it right at the same time.

I’m blasé about it because adding an extra layer of authentication seems like a logical thing to do.

If you can pop along to the town hall to register to vote, then going down to the town hall to get a free of charge ID card shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

Joe_ Public · 11-03-2021 11:27pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

But how could there be evidence of fraud?

I used just walk up and say my name and bang. Everytime I voted in London it was a different polling station too so no way they knew me and I'm still on the register over there eso nothing to stop my friends voting for me.

You can't get on a plane without ID and voting is the biggest thing we do as a society.

Also and this is just my experience but all my working class BAME and white friends in London went on foreign holidays and had passports. Of all the people I employed only 1 had no photo ID or bank account and she (white) was in my opinion dodgy and lying about having neither

Well, there is evidence of fraud which is why people are reported, charged and convicted after every election. If voter fraud was any way widespread, it simply stands to reason that there would be many more convictions. It would be something at least if there was compelling circumstantial or even anecdotal evidence of such fraud, there isnt from what i hear or read. Nearly all the anecdotal stuff i've read about is to do with postal votes, but i haven't read what if anything they intend to do about that.

Your own personal issue strikes me as an electoral register one. There definitely seem to be serious issues with the register they ought to be looking at.

Joe_ Public · 11-03-2021 11:44pm

Aegir wrote: »

I’m blasé about it because adding an extra layer of authentication seems like a logical thing to do.

If you can pop along to the town hall to register to vote, then going down to the town hall to get a free of charge ID card shouldn’t be too much of a problem.

Haven't actually heard it direct from any government source that cards will be entirely free, will maybe wait to see fine print on that, but of course it's the logical thing to do from the government perspective. Dont disagree there at all. On the one hand, they can deliver a big spiel about how they are protecting democracy and integrity etc while on the other, if it does subsequently turn out that a significant number of people were put off voting, then its because they were just too lazy to bother getting verified in the first place. They're good at this stuff, as they keep proving time and time again.

breezy1985 · 12-03-2021 1:05am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Haven't actually heard it direct from any government source that cards will be entirely free, will maybe wait to see fine print on that, but of course it's the logical thing to do from the government perspective. Dont disagree there at all. On the one hand, they can deliver a big spiel about how they are protecting democracy and integrity etc while on the other, if it does subsequently turn out that a significant number of people were put off voting, then its because they were just too lazy to bother getting verified in the first place. They're good at this stuff, as they keep proving time and time again.

Those people are better off not voting anyway. Too lazy to register then probably too lazy to read up on who/what they are voting for

breezy1985 · 12-03-2021 8:45am

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Well, there is evidence of fraud which is why people are reported, charged and convicted after every election. If voter fraud was any way widespread, it simply stands to reason that there would be many more convictions. It would be something at least if there was compelling circumstantial or even anecdotal evidence of such fraud, there isnt from what i hear or read. Nearly all the anecdotal stuff i've read about is to do with postal votes, but i haven't read what if anything they intend to do about that.

Your own personal issue strikes me as an electoral register one. There definitely seem to be serious issues with the register they ought to be looking at.

My personal issue was that I moved flat a lot. I just meant that the staff would be strangers to me which is very different to when I vote in Ireland

Peregrinus · 12-03-2021 9:16am

If there were widespread personation in the UK, there would be evidence.

Bear in mind that, in the great majority of British constituencies, individual votes make no difference to the outcome; they are safe seats. It makes no sense to organise personation of voters in these constituencies, because you'd have to do it on an absolutely massive scale in order to have any chance of influencing the outcome of the election, and large-scale personation efforts require a lot of organisation and the involvement as some level of a lot of people, and are easily detected. So, in most constituencies, the risk involved in organising electoral fraud outweighs the benefits of doing so.

Which means that, if there was significant electoral fraud being organised, it would be focussed on marginal seats, where it might actually make a difference. But there would be signs of such activity - e.g. higher apparent turnout in those seats, or a higher than average rush in the last hour of polling (which is when most personation takes place, to to minimise the risk of the personation being detected if the real voter turns up to vote after a fraudulent vote has already been cast in his name).

The situation is different in Ireland where, ironically, an electoral system which attaches more equal weight to all votes maximises the incentives for personation. And, ahem, there is a variety of anecdotal evidence about organised personation efforts over the years, which is why we have had voter ID requirements for some years now.

But I've not seen any case being made - not even by the government - for why these should now be required in the UK. This is what gives rise to the suspicion that the government's motivation is actually to discourage perfectly valid votes which would, on balance, tend not to favour the Tories. If that is not the government's motivation then they could probably dispel those concerns by publishing the research they've done, and the investigations they have made, into the real-world problem of personation and the measures that would be effective to address it. Groundwork of this kind is pretty basic to even semi-competent policy-making, so the research and investigations must exist. If they didn't, it would mean — on the most charitable analysis — that this is a government which just pulls policy out of its arse, and we know that's not the case, don't we, boys and girls?

breezy1985 · 12-03-2021 10:00am

Are there stats for which demographics are more likely to have ID.
I kinda would have assumed it is retired people mostly which would hit the Tory vote more

Peregrinus · 12-03-2021 10:16am

breezy1985 wrote: »

Are there stats for which demographics are more likely to have ID.
I kinda would have assumed it is retired people mostly which would hit the Tory vote more

You think retired people don't have passports and driving licences?

The very elderly may have neither, as they may have lapsed and there may have been no occasion to renew them, if someone is too frail to either travel or drive. But most pensioners are not that frail.

By and large, the cohort without either passports or driving licences will trend young, poor, urban, female, of non-British ethnicity, and socially and economically disadvantaged, relative to the population as a whole.

It's a larger cohort than you might think - I've seen estimates of about 11 million voters who have neither a passport nor a driving licence.

12-03-2021 10:22am

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's a larger cohort than you might think - I've seen estimates of about 11 million voters who have neither a passport nor a driving licence.

which is only of concern if those are the only options available, but it appears that is not the case.

General British politics discussion thread

Comments