Voter ID

[Bentley Bullet]

To apply for postal votes, voters must download, print and fill in an application form, which they then send to the electoral services team at their council. Identification is taken from the information declared.

How do they know the person who has downloaded and sent off the form is the person whose name is on it?

There is no such thing as a perfect solution to fraud, is there?

But people are telling me Voter ID is the answer to it? Postal voting has - and always will be - the most likely source of fraud.

I'm told there isn't any problem with fraud here in the UK, are you suggesting there is?

[Bentley Bullet]

Since 2014, the Electoral Commission has recommended that ID should be required in Great Britain before voters are issued with a ballot paper.

In the United Kingdom, the Electoral Commission is the national election commission, created in 2001 as a result of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is an independent agency that regulates party and election finance and sets standards for how elections should be run.

You're right, of course in that you shouldn't have to explain your point. My point is, of course, that I didn't request it.

Once again, you entirely miss the point in your insistence on arguing.

The issue isn't about whether we should require photo ID to vote. It is about implementing that requirement in a way that is designed to exclude certain groups and aid other groups.

But, since you raised the Electoral Commission's view on photo ID, let's follow that up and see where it leads. Their line back in 2014 was that electoral fraud was pretty much insignificant.

But.

They acknowledged that many voters were convinced that fraud was widespread, and those voters required their confidence in the system to be strengthened.

Now, a sensible Government could have gone out of its way to make the point, passionately, convincingly and with support from the evidence, that voter fraud was rarer than rocking horse shite. And that, in a country that has steadfastly rejected the idea of compulsory ID cards, there was no need to have voter ID.

Heck, they could even have taken the EC approach and said that voter fraud was negligible, but voter ID was required to underpin voters' confidence in the system.

But this one didn't. It pushed the line that voter fraud was so serious that we had to have voter ID. Then it totally ignored criticisms from across the political spectrum that it was rushing through the legislation, that it was not publicising the need for voter ID, that it was not properly funding the process of offering voter ID cards and that it was allowing pensioners to use a plethora of  forms of ID, while barring young people from using similar ones.

MY insistence on arguing? You've either lost all sense of reality or you're having a laugh, and seeing as there's not much evidence of you possessing a sense of humour I sense you have finally arrived at the former.

Let's do this one paragraph at a time so you can't do what you do best - avoid answering questions.

If "the issue isn't about whether we should require photo ID to vote", why do you keep making it an issue by saying voter fraud is rare?

How do you know it is rare?

If, as is reported, it is designed to exclude certain groups, such as senior citizens, doesn't this play into the Labour Party's hands seeing as (according to you) the vast majority of senior citizens support the Tories?

1) I know it's rare because the very EC that you so approvingly quoted sat so themselves.

2) Read what I wrote. The Tories are making it disproportionately harder for young people, not old people. They have made a string of IDs that many pensioners have (a whole set of travel passes for example) acceptable forms of ID, while refusing to accept young people's travel passes, University or college ID cards etc.

3) It's not "according to me" that old people disproportionately vote Tory. It's evidence supported by every poll, every week, month and year.

See, I try not to make wild claims unless they can be backed up by evidence. I leave that to people who are more interested in arguing for arguing sake.

Apparently, it is not designed to aid senior citizens.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/26/voter-id-trials-could-disenfranchise-older-people

[BillyStubbsTears]

I know you're usually behind the curve on most topics BB, but do try to make an effort. Look at the date on that article.

If you REALLY want to discuss these things sensibly, you could spend a bit of time properly educating yourself on the topic, rather than scrat around trying to find bits of information that you think supports what you want to be right.

[Bentley Bullet]

What difference does the date make? What has changed since then?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/20/low-uptake-for-free-voter-id-scheme-among-elderly-and-young-people-in-uk

Now, go and play with your silly lefty mates, there's a good lad.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Big deep breath...

What changed after that was the Govt allowing a whole tranche of IDs that only older people have, to be used as voter ID.

At the same time, despite a motion being passed in the Lords, with support across the political spectrum, and despite vociferous lobbying from the Electoral Reform Society, the Govt refused to allow similar ID that is only available to young people.

All of which you could have found out for yourself if you were really interested in the subject, rather than spoiling for yet another pointless argument.

[Bentley Bullet]

Strange that lad. I thought I CAUSED the argument, not spoilt it!

So what has changed in the last couple of months?

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

What on earth are you talking about with that "last couple of months" comment?

You either genuinely don't understand the point I'm making, because that Guardian article has nothing to do with it. Or you do understand the point I'm making and you're after another pointless fight.

Have fun. I'm giving up responding to you once again.

[Bentley Bullet]

You see, you're such a bad loser that you even have to plan excuses before the event has even taken place! God help our country with people like you in it!

https://www.bigissue.com/news/activism/trans-elderly-disabled-and-muslim-people-will-be-hit-hard-by-new-voter-id-law-with-less-than-a-month-until-polling-day/

Bye bye!

[drfchound]

A standard application for a citizen card costs £15 and takes up to 21 days.

Wolfie, I doubt very, VERY much that everyone who tried to cheat at the last GE was caught, and I'd bet my starboard knacker that there were certainly more than 4 people who tried to!

Eligibility to vote is a universal right. Not something you should have to pay for. You want prople to produce photo ID? Provide it to them for free.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate

There you go Glyn

Some people might have missed that LDR.
It is there though, free to anyone.

[wilts rover]

A standard application for a citizen card costs £15 and takes up to 21 days.

Wolfie, I doubt very, VERY much that everyone who tried to cheat at the last GE was caught, and I'd bet my starboard knacker that there were certainly more than 4 people who tried to!

Eligibility to vote is a universal right. Not something you should have to pay for. You want prople to produce photo ID? Provide it to them for free.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate

There you go Glyn

Some people might have missed that LDR.
It is there though, free to anyone.

Anyone who knows about it hound. Not all of the country reads this forum. And not all of this forum reads Off Topic posts.

If the government wants people to have ID to vote - then they need to give people that ID.

[Bentley Bullet]

A standard application for a citizen card costs £15 and takes up to 21 days.

Wolfie, I doubt very, VERY much that everyone who tried to cheat at the last GE was caught, and I'd bet my starboard knacker that there were certainly more than 4 people who tried to!

Eligibility to vote is a universal right. Not something you should have to pay for. You want prople to produce photo ID? Provide it to them for free.

https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate

There you go Glyn

Some people might have missed that LDR.
It is there though, free to anyone.

Anyone who knows about it hound. Not all of the country reads this forum. And not all of this forum reads Off Topic posts.

If the government wants people to have ID to vote - then they need to give people that ID.

Oh, dear! Just when you thought this forum couldn't get any more pathetic!

I'm sure many of those unaware of the process of getting an ID certificate would be fully aware of how to get the maximum benefits available without looking at the country-wide respected fountain of knowledge that is the Viking site!

[roverstillidie91]

Its designed to put people off voting because they know that young people won't vote for Tories.

[drfchound]

Its designed to put people off voting because they know that young people won't vote for Tories.

And yet ironically it is the young people who are more likely to have the ability to get their voter ID.

[Donnywolf]

An OAP with Oyster Card in London is deemed to have qualifying I'd

A person with an 18 to 25 Oyster  Card is deemed to NOT have qualifying I'd

[Bentley Bullet]

Wolf, ANY voter who is put off voting Labour is a benefit to the country.

[Ldr]

An OAP with Oyster Card in London is deemed to have qualifying I'd

A person with an 18 to 25 Oyster  Card is deemed to NOT have qualifying I'd

Different security measures in them according to the training north Tyneside council gave us

[mugnapper]

BBC News - Local elections 2023: Voter ID backfired on Tories, says Rees-Mogg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380
Mogg blames Tory rout on Voter ID lol

[wilts rover]

Jacob Rees Mogg admits that Voter ID was 'gerrymandering' (an attempt to rig the election)

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jacob-rees-mogg-admits-tory-voter-id-law-was-gerrymandering_uk_64620db8e4b03e16f1a45050

“Parties that try & gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative.”

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1658175525540487185

[BillyStubbsTears]

How on earth does he know that?

[Branton Red]

I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on this: -

"We upset a system that worked perfectly well. It was done on trust, and the system worked. If there's any problem in our system, it's with postal votes, which don't require voter ID."

"No evidence that personation [the crime of voter fraud at the ballot box] was a serious problem. There have been hardly any prosecutions or even any complaints in this country over decades."

He's absolutely right. He's also correct in saying this is gerrymandering i.e. it is an attempt to boost the Tories election chances.

I have no evidence that he's correct in saying it actually harmed the Tories in the local elections. Rationally this sounds wrong.

But credit to him for calling it out. I also agree with him that Labour's prospective policy on allowing non-UK citizens to vote in General Elections is also gerrymandering and wrong as well.

There's not much respect for democracy at the top levels of our 2 main political parties sadly.

[mugnapper]

I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg on this: -

"We upset a system that worked perfectly well. It was done on trust, and the system worked. If there's any problem in our system, it's with postal votes, which don't require voter ID."

"No evidence that personation [the crime of voter fraud at the ballot box] was a serious problem. There have been hardly any prosecutions or even any complaints in this country over decades."

He's absolutely right. He's also correct in saying this is gerrymandering i.e. it is an attempt to boost the Tories election chances.

I have no evidence that he's correct in saying it actually harmed the Tories in the local elections. Rationally this sounds wrong.

But credit to him for calling it out. I also agree with him that Labour's prospective policy on allowing non-UK citizens to vote in General Elections is also gerrymandering and wrong as well.

There's not much respect for democracy at the top levels of our 2 main political parties sadly.

If only Rees Mogg was an MP and could have called the Tories out before the law was introduced and maybe voted against it.
Hang on a minute.........

[Branton Red]

TBF he was in the Cabinet at the time.

Not every member of the Cabinet will agree with every single individual decision/law being made but they have to come together under collective responsibility otherwise Government can't operate.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://twitter.com/LiveFromBrexit/status/1658088580772659201

Branton.

Rees-Mogg is saying that the Voter ID measures were consciously chosen because it was believed they would benefit the Tory party. His criticism of them now is not that that was a morally wrong position to take. It's that (he says, although he has zero evidence to support this) that they hurt the Tories.

If he had any concept of morality, he'd have resigned from the Cabinet rather than stand up in Parliament and support what he apparently knew was a deliberate attempt to suppress anti-Tory votes.

[i_ateallthepies]

https://twitter.com/LiveFromBrexit/status/1658088580772659201

Branton.

Rees-Mogg is saying that the Voter ID measures were consciously chosen because it was believed they would benefit the Tory party. His criticism of them now is not that that was a morally wrong position to take. It's that (he says, although he has zero evidence to support this) that they hurt the Tories.

If he had any concept of morality, he'd have resigned from the Cabinet rather than stand up in Parliament and support what he apparently knew was a deliberate attempt to suppress anti-Tory votes.

Exactly right, BST.

[Glyn_Wigley]

TBF he was in the Cabinet at the time.

Not every member of the Cabinet will agree with every single individual decision/law being made but they have to come together under collective responsibility otherwise Government can't operate.

And if someone in a Cabinet doesn't agree with a policy strongly enough they should resign. He didn't. He stayed.So Collective Responsibility applies to him just as much as any other member of the Cabinet. That's what Collective Responsibility IS.

Besides that, Mogg isn't saying it was the wrong thing to do to try and gerrymander, he's still owning it. He's moaning because it didn't work.

[Branton Red]

I was simply expressing my agreement with Rees-Mogg, and indeed his analysis, when he said that: -

"We upset a system that worked perfectly well. It was done on trust, and the system worked. If there's any problem in our system, it's with postal votes, which don't require voter ID."

"No evidence that personation [the crime of voter fraud at the ballot box] was a serious problem. There have been hardly any prosecutions or even any complaints in this country over decades."

I was not commenting on the strength of his feeling esp vis-a-vis his historical position in Government - though it is possible to disagree with something without being morally outraged enough to take radical action on it.

Anyone here disagree with the quote above?

Or am I subject to critique not because of what I'm agreeing with but with whom I'm agreeing with?

If the latter it is just another sign of how political discourse has become so divisive in recent years

It is perfectly possible, reasonable and indeed a sign of intellectual maturity to express agreement on an issue with individuals with whom you disagree with on a whole host of other areas.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Branton.

Have you watched that video I posted, where Rees-Mogg stood up in Parliament eloquently explaining why Voter ID was necessary, and berating "socialists who don't have confidence in the voters" for arguing against it.

All of which says to me that, correct as he might be in saying what he says now, he doesn't deserve plaudits for it. He thought he was supporting a law that was going to help his side. Now he's flipped 180 degrees.

Ignoring that context isn't a sign of intellectual maturity.

[drfchound]

Branton.

Have you watched that video I posted, where Rees-Mogg stood up in Parliament eloquently explaining why Voter ID was necessary, and berating "socialists who don't have confidence in the voters" for arguing against it.

All of which says to me that, correct as he might be in saying what he says now, he doesn't deserve plaudits for it. He thought he was supporting a law that was going to help his side. Now he's flipped 180 degrees.

Ignoring that context isn't a sign of intellectual maturity.

It seems that it is ok for Starmer to change his mind as often as he wants but not for Mogg to do so.
Now is that double standards.
That last sentence by Branton two posts ago appears to be very insightful.

[ravenrover]

Yep Smogg is right it's the postal votes that are the problem

More than 800 uncounted postal votes from the North Lincolnshire local election last week have been discovered in an 'unacceptable' oversight.

After it was declared on Friday, May 5 that Conservatives Janet Lee and Carol Ross had won both seats in the Broughton and Scawby ward, 864 postal votes were found which had not been counted.
Since the law does not allow votes to be counted once the result has been declared, the situation has now been referred to the Electoral Commission.

[wilts rover]

Branton.

Have you watched that video I posted, where Rees-Mogg stood up in Parliament eloquently explaining why Voter ID was necessary, and berating "socialists who don't have confidence in the voters" for arguing against it.

All of which says to me that, correct as he might be in saying what he says now, he doesn't deserve plaudits for it. He thought he was supporting a law that was going to help his side. Now he's flipped 180 degrees.

Ignoring that context isn't a sign of intellectual maturity.

It seems that it is ok for Starmer to change his mind as often as he wants but not for Mogg to do so.
Now is that double standards.
That last sentence by Branton two posts ago appears to be very insightful.

It now seems to me to be OK to attack Starmer for changing his mind but not Rees-Mogg. Now that is double standards.