General British politics discussion thread

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.

Peregrinus · 12-03-2021 10:37am

Aegir wrote: »

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

Well, it's of concern since that group are also more likely not to have any of the other forms of ID that have been mentioned, like library cards.

The solution for this group is apparently that they can apply to their local authority ahead of the election for a voter ID card, provide a photograph plus proof of identity (presumably, birth certs, utility bills - the usual stuff) and then get a card which they can produce at the polling station.

The problem here is obvious - that's a non-trivial bureaucratic burden to impose on people, the foreseeable result of which will be to discourage a proportion of them from voting at all. Since, partisan considerations aside, discouraging citizens from voting is obviously a bad thing in and of itself, there needs at the very least to be a strong case made that this is necessary - that there's a real-world problem here that needs to be solved, and can't be solved in any less burdensome and less inequitable way. And I'm not seeing that case being made.

Sam Russell · 12-03-2021 10:47am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it's of concern since that group are also more likely not to have any of the other forms of ID that have been mentioned, like library cards.

The solution for this group is apparently that they can apply to their local authority ahead of the election for a voter ID card, provide a photograph plus proof of identity (presumably, birth certs, utility bills - the usual stuff) and then get a card which they can produce at the polling station.

The problem here is obvious - that's a non-trivial bureaucratic burden to impose on people, the foreseeable result of which will be to discourage a proportion of them from voting at all. Since, partisan considerations aside, discouraging citizens from voting is obviously a bad thing in and of itself, there needs at the very least to be a strong case made that this is necessary - that there's a real-world problem here that needs to be solved, and can't be solved in any less burdensome and less inequitable way. And I'm not seeing that case being made.

It is clear to any observer that personation is a non-problem. There are no cases - or next to none. In the British FPTP system, personation is only likely to change the result in only the most marginal of consituencies. So what is the problem?

1. Is it actual personation? No.

2. Is it people voting who are not entitled to vote? Maybe, but it is unlikely that this would change an election result, and photo ID does nothing for this.

3. How does producing a valid driving licence prove one is entitled to vote? It does not, it just shows the holder is entitles to drive. Older driving licences are not photo ID as they do not include a photo.

Could it be part of 'hostile environment' again. Well that might be what this is about. Who is the British Home Secretary?

12-03-2021 11:23am

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.

How many out of this 11 million are old enough to drive or vote or have not allowed these documents to lapse due to old age.

Joe_ Public · 12-03-2021 11:39am

Whatever the moral intricacies of the proposed voter id legislation, i believe it simply reinforces what has been clear for some time - that without a much greater focus on communities and grassroots organising, the opposition has little chance of gaining power in the near to medium future. A boundary review will be one of the next things on the agenda, that will spell even darker tidings for labour. And scotland is gone and likely never coming back.

We know the trope this whole voter id thing plays to - election day when the elderly infirm tory voter, all suddenly full of vigour, on his or her way to fulfill their duty while thousands of poor and marginalised sit at home, thinking "whats the point."

There's little point labour moaning about this, the legislation is coming and the votes are there to pass it. So what kind of ideas do they have to counter it, or any like measures in the future? If Stacey Abrams and the dems could mobilise a victory in Georgia of all places, why cant labour think there are swathes of the uk they could do something similar? It's either that or a formal electoral pact with libs and Scots Nats which i cant see being palatable at all for several reasons.

breezy1985 · 12-03-2021 11:52am

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

I just thought retired people might be the group with the largest number of people with no ID not that none of them have ID so relax. lm just going on my own experience and on that basis all the " young, poor, urban, female, of non- British ethnicity, " have passports. Also surely anyone of non-British ethnicity would have to have a passport as they are immigrants, I assume you meant non-white

12-03-2021 11:59am

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is clear to any observer that personation is a non-problem. There are no cases - or next to none. In the British FPTP system, personation is only likely to change the result in only the most marginal of consituencies. So what is the problem?

1. Is it actual personation? No.

2. Is it people voting who are not entitled to vote? Maybe, but it is unlikely that this would change an election result, and photo ID does nothing for this.

3. How does producing a valid driving licence prove one is entitled to vote? It does not, it just shows the holder is entitles to drive. Older driving licences are not photo ID as they do not include a photo.

Could it be part of 'hostile environment' again. Well that might be what this is about. Who is the British Home Secretary?

Under the current system, I’m amazed anyone has been prosecuted because it would be next to impossible to get caught, so simply saying it isn’t an issue is not credible. We don’t know if it is, or isn’t an issue.

A driving licence does not give you the right to vote, it simply shows that the person turning up at the polling station matches the name on the register.

The hostile environment is irrelevant. If someone is an illegal immigrant then they probably aren’t registered to vote anyway.

Joe_ Public · 12-03-2021 12:14pm

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/voter-id-key-facts-and-figures/

A lot of the relevant statistics are there for anyone interested. Dont know if driving licence info is included, but figures state people from black communities are twice as likely not to have one as from white.

I think the latest figures show somewhere in the region of 17% of uk people dont have a passport - or at least didn't at time of census. They don't explain why, but you have to think it has a lot to do with wealth. Why bother having a passport if you cant afford to go anywhere? People may have had a passport once and let it lapse. Thousands, like the windrush generation, never, to their grotesque misfortune, never ever had a passport at all.

12-03-2021 12:40pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thousands, like the windrush generation, never, to their grotesque misfortune, never ever had a passport at all.

This is why I think a state ID card, or public services card is needed.

It doesn’t need to be compulsory to carry it (I would oppose any requirement to do so) and a roll out needs to come with a degree of flexibility/amnesty, but it would make proving your right to work etc much easier and keep government records more accurate.

Joe_ Public · 12-03-2021 1:04pm

Aegir wrote: »

This is why I think a state ID card, or public services card is needed.

It doesn’t need to be compulsory to carry it (I would oppose any requirement to do so) and a roll out needs to come with a degree of flexibility/amnesty, but it would make proving your right to work etc much easier and keep government records more accurate.

I dont fundamentally disagree at all. It shouldn't on the face of it be that difficult for a government to introduce such a scheme and assure people it is for their benefit. Problem is, rightly or wrongly, folk automatically assume some ulterior motive whether voter suppression in this instance or just invading privacy as i think it was around the time labour was trying to do this. It comes down to trust and maybe there is just not enough of it in both instances. Just my speculation.

There's also the question of costing any such scheme, how much people pay, if anything. I'm pretty sure already cash strapped, near bankrupt councils would strenuously resist if this costly layer of extra bureaucracy was foisted off on them.

12-03-2021 1:13pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I dont fundamentally disagree at all. It shouldn't on the face of it be that difficult for a government to introduce such a scheme and assure people it is for their benefit. Problem is, rightly or wrongly, folk automatically assume some ulterior motive whether voter suppression in this instance or just invading privacy as i think it was around the time labour was trying to do this. It comes down to trust and maybe there is just not enough of it in both instances. Just my speculation.

There's also the question of costing any such scheme, how much people pay, if anything. I'm pretty sure already cash strapped, near bankrupt councils would strenuously resist if this costly layer of extra bureaucracy was foisted off on them.

It has nothing to do with trust, people will complain, it's what people do.

breezy1985 · 12-03-2021 1:14pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/voter-id-key-facts-and-figures/

A lot of the relevant statistics are there for anyone interested. Dont know if driving licence info is included, but figures state people from black communities are twice as likely not to have one as from white.

I think the latest figures show somewhere in the region of 17% of uk people dont have a passport - or at least didn't at time of census. They don't explain why, but you have to think it has a lot to do with wealth. Why bother having a passport if you cant afford to go anywhere? People may have had a passport once and let it lapse. Thousands, like the windrush generation, never, to their grotesque misfortune, never ever had a passport at all.

Some really good info in that link. Especially the part about the numbers with no ID based on the different criteria. Allowing any form of official photo ID like Oyster cards drops the number significantly. Also white people are far more likely to not own a passport

Sam Russell · 12-03-2021 1:16pm

Aegir wrote: »

Under the current system, I’m amazed anyone has been prosecuted because it would be next to impossible to get caught, so simply saying it isn’t an issue is not credible. We don’t know if it is, or isn’t an issue.

It is not an actual issue, because if it was people would be caught because that is what the police force is good at - detecting crimes. People who suspect it, report it, and the police investigate. Remember, the reporting individual is unlikely to be a supporter of the same party as the possible person doing the personation. However, there is little point in personation in the UK.

A driving licence does not give you the right to vote, it simply shows that the person turning up at the polling station matches the name on the register.

Older licences are not photo ID as they do not carry a photo. The right to vote is a different issue and may be more worthy of investigation.

The hostile environment is irrelevant. If someone is an illegal immigrant then they probably aren’t registered to vote anyway.

The 'hostile environment' is a mindset intended to carry a message - understood very well by minorities.

Joe_ Public · 12-03-2021 1:50pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Some really good info in that link. Especially the part about the numbers with no ID based on the different criteria. Allowing any form of official photo ID like Oyster cards drops the number significantly. Also white people are far more likely to not own a passport

According to those latest figures white people are 19% likely to not own a passport, compared to 17% of total population. So not far more really.

Also according to those figures, 13% (7.5m) of the population (England and Wales) was born outside the uk. Of these, only 46% hold a uk passport. Which leaves 54% (close to 4m) who either have a non uk passport or no passport at all.

breezy1985 · 12-03-2021 2:55pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

According to those latest figures white people are 19% likely to not own a passport, compared to 17% of total population. So not far more really.

Also according to those figures, 13% (7.5m) of the population (England and Wales) was born outside the uk. Of these, only 46% hold a uk passport. Which leaves 54% (close to 4m) who either have a non uk passport or no passport at all.

"Overall, the Census shows that 19% of people in White groups did not have a passport in 2011, compared with 7% of ‘other’ groups and 17% of the total population"

That's the actual quote. Saw 19 to 7 but I didn't cop the 17 bit

Joe_ Public · 12-03-2021 3:41pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

"Overall, the Census shows that 19% of people in White groups did not have a passport in 2011, compared with 7% of ‘other’ groups and 17% of the total population"

That's the actual quote. Saw 19 to 7 but I didn't cop the 17 bit

Yeah, anyway it's certainly the case that white people are statistically less likely to own a passport. As to why that is, i'd guess there is that more incentive for some groups over others to acquire a passport. Like, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a sizeable number of irish people who moved to uk decades ago never bothered with a passport. Though that would admittedly make it difficult to travel home these days. The relevant stat, though, is that 7.4% (c.4.5m people) only hold a foreign passport. Would that be an acceptable document at a polling centre? Not in Northern Ireland anyway. Not even certain an irish passport would be accepted and an EU one, I'm thinking no chance.

BonnieSituation · 12-03-2021 5:01pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yeah, anyway it's certainly the case that white people are statistically less likely to own a passport. As to why that is, i'd guess there is that more incentive for some groups over others to acquire a passport. Like, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a sizeable number of irish people who moved to uk decades ago never bothered with a passport. Though that would admittedly make it difficult to travel home these days. The relevant stat, though, is that 7.4% (c.4.5m people) only hold a foreign passport. Would that be an acceptable document at a polling centre? Not in Northern Ireland anyway. Not even certain an irish passport would be accepted and an EU one, I'm thinking no chance.

Not quite:

EONI wrote:

What are the other acceptable forms of photographic identification?
The following documents are accepted at polling stations as proof of identity:

A UK, Irish or EEA driving licence (photographic part) (provisional accepted)
A UK, Irish or EU passport (note: EU passports are not accepted at UK Parliamentary elections)
An Electoral Identity Card
A Translink Senior SmartPass
A Translink 60+ SmartPass
A Translink War Disabled SmartPass
A Translink Blind Person’s SmartPass
These documents are listed in legislation and no other forms of identity can be accepted.

The identification document does not need to be current, but the photograph must be of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.

https://www.eoni.org.uk/Electoral-Identity-Card/Electoral-Identity-Card-FAQs#q128

Joe_ Public · 12-03-2021 5:08pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Not quite:

https://www.eoni.org.uk/Electoral-Identity-Card/Electoral-Identity-Card-FAQs#q128

Didnt phrase my post correctly. What i meant was i wasnt sure whether an irish passport would be acceptable photo id in the uk outside of Northern Ireland. An EU passport definitely won't be.

BonnieSituation · 12-03-2021 5:23pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Didnt phrase my post correctly. What i meant was i wasnt sure whether an irish passport would be acceptable photo id in the uk outside of Northern Ireland. An EU passport definitely won't be.

As we're not "aliens" it would have to be as it's the only photo ID that confirms our status as non-British, non-Aliens. Not to mention the fact that there's over 1.5million people entitled to that citizenship by virtue of their birth/connection to the British State via NI that it would be a wild attack on those hard-fought rights.

BonnieSituation · 12-03-2021 5:28pm

Aegir wrote: »

This is why I think a state ID card, or public services card is needed.

It doesn’t need to be compulsory to carry it (I would oppose any requirement to do so) and a roll out needs to come with a degree of flexibility/amnesty, but it would make proving your right to work etc much easier and keep government records more accurate.

I'm with you on this. I don't get why these ID card debates get hung up on this part.

If I need my passport for something I bring my passport with me. Same goes with all other IDs like drivers licence, work ID or college ID.

If you need your National ID to utilise services or interact with the state like social welfare, healthcare or voting then bring it with you.

In Ireland the Public Services Card has made my life so much easier.

From getting social welfare when I returned from abroad, to returning to college to renewing my driver's licence and passport and doing my taxes etc.

Why would you not want your life to be easier?

Good loser · 15-03-2021 11:13pm

I must say I am impressed with the treatment and political debate in England on the nurses pay issue. The issue is being debated thoroughly by all the parties in depth. This is not exceptional, as far as I can see in all such debates on public sector pay the full panoply of arguments are put before the public.

SNIP. Don't derail the thread please.

Roanmore · 16-03-2021 9:35am

Good loser wrote: »

I must say I am impressed with the treatment and political debate in England on the nurses pay issue. The issue is being debated thoroughly by all the parties in depth. This is not exceptional, as far as I can see in all such debates on public sector pay the full panoply of arguments are put before the public.

Really?

Did the Prime Minister not lie in the House of Commons when he said Labour voted against the NHS Budget Bill and said Labour opposed the nurses pay rise?
The No. 10 Press Secetary then refused 12 times to say Labour did not oppose the Bill.

dogbert27 · 16-03-2021 11:19am

Roanmore wrote: »

Really?

Did the Prime Minister not lie in the House of Commons when he said Labour voted against the NHS Budget Bill and said Labour opposed the nurses pay rise?
The No. 10 Press Secetary then refused 12 times to say Labour did not oppose the Bill.

Just like the current UK government, why let facts get in the way of good PR!

ancapailldorcha · 16-03-2021 11:20am

It isn't a pay rise. Inflation is projected to rise by 1.5% whereas the pay rise is only 1%. In actuality it is a 0.5% pay cut.

Joe_ Public · 16-03-2021 2:14pm

Mike Hill has resigned his seat in Hartlepool so by election likely to be held their on 16 may.

Will be a very interesting bell weather of the national post brexit electoral landscape. Labour had a near 4k majority in 2019 but there will be in excess of 10k brexit party votes up for grabs so will be fascinating to see how many of them revert to labour. Very difficult to call i think.

16-03-2021 2:25pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It isn't a pay rise. Inflation is projected to rise by 1.5% whereas the pay rise is only 1%. In actuality it is a 0.5% pay cut.

I did enjoy Angela Rayner desperately trying to dodge the question when asked if she agreed that Nurses should get the 12% their union is looking for.

Hopefully they’ll get more than 1% and a bonus, but 12% is unrealistic.

breezy1985 · 16-03-2021 2:26pm

Anyone see the the photos today of Boris £2.6m attempt to build a White House press room that looks more like a cheap movie set with green screen backdrops

Lemming · 16-03-2021 2:34pm

Aegir wrote: »

I did enjoy Angela Rayner desperately trying to dodge the question when asked if she agreed that Nurses should get the 12% their union is looking for.

Hopefully they’ll get more than 1% and a bonus, but 12% is unrealistic.

I listened to the train-wreck that was Nadine Dorries being interviewed on BBC2 (4??) radio last Saturday. She should be signed up by Team GB to represent the UK as an Olympic Gymnast such was were the mental gymnastic contortions involved. The interviewer was having none of her attempts to deflect & dodge. Was quite entertaining to listen to. Just a pity the press don't exhibit the same ruthless pursuit of honest answers from the rest of the cabinet cabbages.

Edit: I should have added, I can't recall much mention of pay rises of 12% because the interviewer spent so much effort trying to combat Dorries dancing around refusing to admit the 1% was appallingly bad; the general jist of her brain f@rt was that "most" nurses would rather that their husbands & boyfriends got the money (instead of furlough, etc) because nurses aren't interested in money, it's a not a career it's a calling, etc.

ancapailldorcha · 16-03-2021 2:35pm

Aegir wrote: »

I did enjoy Angela Rayner desperately trying to dodge the question when asked if she agreed that Nurses should get the 12% their union is looking for.

Hopefully they’ll get more than 1% and a bonus, but 12% is unrealistic.

I don't know how unfeasible 12% is economically but given the damage caused by covid, it might not be the best time for unions to be lobbying for that level of an increase given how many people's lives have been disrupted.

Kermit.de.frog · 16-03-2021 2:36pm

It does look more than a little pretentious alright.

https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1371574352144130055

I'm sure the world will be sitting up watching each and every press conference like in the White House.*

*not really

Capt'n Midnight · 16-03-2021 3:10pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

Anyone see the the photos today of Boris £2.6m attempt to build a White House press room that looks more like a cheap movie set with green screen backdrops

Chumocracy ?

It's not like there's a shortage of refined rooms they could use in Whitehall. Oak panelling and those double doors to keep sound out.

General British politics discussion thread

Comments