RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:
And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Stom wrote: Anyway, I voted.

And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

Why would any Russian bother though? You'd have to pick the name of someone who hadn't yet voted (and preferably wouldn't later in the day to avoid investigation) and risk arrest in order to gain one extra vote for your side. Why would anyone do that - it's miniscule reward for the risk. This is shown by there being 6 suspected cases of electoral fraud by impersonation in the last two elections.

And on the flip side, if you require ID, then you disenfranchise people who don't have it, don't have it in the right name/address, don't want to produce it, or who forgot to bring it, ruling out thousands of votes to solve a problem that doesn't actually seem to exist.

I don't get why anyone would be in favour of making voting more difficult (except for politicians with a vested interest because they don't normally get votes from those without ID like students, poor people, etc).

Puja

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Nope. I wouldn't have said 'either way' if I had any evidence it worked one way or the other. I'm not suggesting you claimed it is a hard and fast rule, I just said you can argue it either way and people will respond differently if told about results ahead of the vote.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't stop any potential labour voter (for example, particularly one who's never heard this rule) being a bit dispirited to hear Labour are getting trashed, then not vote themselves.

I don't particularly see this being a big factor in the results, I just don't see it as any sort of evidence in the case against Keunssberg being a Tory shill either.

But Lab aren’t getting ‘trashed’. That’s the crucial point. As I stated earlier, is that the voters of, in this case, Labour must believe they can win. With the polls closing over the last few weeks and political commentators stating that a hung parliament is a distinctly possibility, Labour supporters will still feel they have a chance to form a govt.
To clarify, with the current set of circumstances in which Kuenssberg made her statement it will/should be the Conservatives who stand to lose.
But, yep. I can’t really see it affecting too many people. To be honest, the biggest fallout from the leaking of the news may be that we’ve both wasted quite a few minutes achieving nothing. Turn that into days, weeks or months and we could be politicians ourselves.

I'd question what real difference in using the term 'trashed' has (and I did say it was just an example) as opposed to 'the labour results being grim' but your final point is probably more worthwhile.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

lol.

But, yeah, I was pretty disgusted when the UK govt. rejected ID cards. I think that was the beginning of the end for our role in the EU.

Shame.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

But why do we even need it? What problem does showing ID at polling stations even solve?

Even with free ID and a UK-wide database on offer (and which branch of the magic money tree is that coming from?), you have to prove that you are that person, which requires ID to do. I work as a mortgage broker and you would not believe the number of issues that I have with people whose ID is in the wrong name, wrong format, wrong address - and that's from a set of people who are older, more mature, and very rarely transient (I don't deal with many students, couchsurfers, or people living on houseboats, for example). It's an additional barrier to voting which seems utterly unnecessary.

Note - I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ID cards in general, just of ID being needed to vote.

Puja

Puja wrote:But why do we even need it? What problem does showing ID at polling stations even solve?

Even with free ID and a UK-wide database on offer (and which branch of the magic money tree is that coming from?), you have to prove that you are that person, which requires ID to do. I work as a mortgage broker and you would not believe the number of issues that I have with people whose ID is in the wrong name, wrong format, wrong address - and that's from a set of people who are older, more mature, and very rarely transient (I don't deal with many students, couchsurfers, or people living on houseboats, for example). It's an additional barrier to voting which seems utterly unnecessary.

Note - I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ID cards in general, just of ID being needed to vote.

Agreed, introduing ID due to fear of voter fraud is a solution looking for a problem, as it's believed to be essentially non-existent in this country.

If we had national ID cards; then by all means include tham at voting; but we don't, and using voting as the rationale to introduce them is utterly insane.

The tory suggestion of introducing voter ID anyway, in a country without national ID cards was purely an exercise in voter disenfranchisement.

The "new labour" suggestion of a national ID card that contained a chip with all your personal details, such medical and financial(?) history etc was completely braindead, and an exercise in free identity theft.


A potential national ID card that contains a name, photo and maybe a finger print; and simply says that if the face and print match the person in front of you, then they are who they say they are - then that seems reasonable (though I'd still vote against any potential legislation saying that it's compulsory to carry it - I can't remember if the new labour proposal included that or not)

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

But why do we even need it? What problem does showing ID at polling stations even solve?

Even with free ID and a UK-wide database on offer (and which branch of the magic money tree is that coming from?), you have to prove that you are that person, which requires ID to do. I work as a mortgage broker and you would not believe the number of issues that I have with people whose ID is in the wrong name, wrong format, wrong address - and that's from a set of people who are older, more mature, and very rarely transient (I don't deal with many students, couchsurfers, or people living on houseboats, for example). It's an additional barrier to voting which seems utterly unnecessary.

Note - I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ID cards in general, just of ID being needed to vote.

Puja

Not wanting to get to involved after an interjection just to make a flippant comment. When will I learn! I’d have thought having zero voter fraud is a laudable aim not that the issue in the UK is particularly high up the agenda. My point really is that it’s not a despicable Tory plot to disenfranchise poor people.

Stom wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:Nope. I wouldn't have said 'either way' if I had any evidence it worked one way or the other. I'm not suggesting you claimed it is a hard and fast rule, I just said you can argue it either way and people will respond differently if told about results ahead of the vote.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't stop any potential labour voter (for example, particularly one who's never heard this rule) being a bit dispirited to hear Labour are getting trashed, then not vote themselves.

I don't particularly see this being a big factor in the results, I just don't see it as any sort of evidence in the case against Keunssberg being a Tory shill either.

Well, my dad thinks she's a Labour shill...

So there's that...

Anyway, I voted.

And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

It was ridiculous, I took my polling card, which the teller didn't even want to look at. She asked for my address, then asked if I was 'Banquo'. I said no, I'm.....

But you get my drift, she actually asked if I was 'x'- anyone could have taken my vote.

In ireland the women at the polling station know everyone so tis grand

Are these huge cues pointing to a hung parliament or dare I say it a stalinist UK led by corbyn and supported by lib dems and inds!!!

paddy no 11 wrote:In ireland the women at the polling station know everyone so tis grand

Are these huge cues pointing to a hung parliament or dare I say it a stalinist UK led by corbyn and supported by lib dems and inds!!!

No, as I said, I fear this’ll be the first time Labour have a smaller vote share than the %age who voted for them in my lifetime. Their vote is very concentrated.

I reckon Tory vote share will be at least 8 points lower than their seat share. I just hope it’s 8, not 12, because then Boris has his majority

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote: Anyway, I voted.

And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

It was ridiculous, I took my polling card, which the teller didn't even want to look at. She asked for my address, then asked if I was 'Banquo'. I said no, I'm.....

But you get my drift, she actually asked if I was 'x'- anyone could have taken my vote.

But why would anyone want to? Best case scenario, they get one extra vote and don't get caught, woooo!

Mellsblue wrote: Not wanting to get to involved after an interjection just to make a flippant comment. When will I learn! I’d have thought having zero voter fraud is a laudable aim not that the issue in the UK is particularly high up the agenda. My point really is that it’s not a despicable Tory plot to disenfranchise poor people.

We have effectively zero voter fraud - 6 alleged (not even confirmed!) cases over two elections is statistically negligible. Whether it's a despicable Tory plot or not, any solution will end up disenfranchising poorer people more significantly than richer people and end up losing thousands of votes to get rid of 6 dodgy ones over 2 elections. We probably lose more to counting errors!

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote: Anyway, I voted.

And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

It was ridiculous, I took my polling card, which the teller didn't even want to look at. She asked for my address, then asked if I was 'Banquo'. I said no, I'm.....

But you get my drift, she actually asked if I was 'x'- anyone could have taken my vote.

But why would anyone want to? Best case scenario, they get one extra vote and don't get caught, woooo!

Mellsblue wrote: Not wanting to get to involved after an interjection just to make a flippant comment. When will I learn! I’d have thought having zero voter fraud is a laudable aim not that the issue in the UK is particularly high up the agenda. My point really is that it’s not a despicable Tory plot to disenfranchise poor people.

We have effectively zero voter fraud - 6 alleged (not even confirmed!) cases over two elections is statistically negligible. Whether it's a despicable Tory plot or not, any solution will end up disenfranchising poorer people more significantly than richer people and end up losing thousands of votes to get rid of 6 dodgy ones over 2 elections. We probably lose more to counting errors!

Puja

I thought it odd that they should prompt with my own name and not even a token verification of ID. Some folks may think one or two votes here or there may make a difference.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: It was ridiculous, I took my polling card, which the teller didn't even want to look at. She asked for my address, then asked if I was 'Banquo'. I said no, I'm.....

But you get my drift, she actually asked if I was 'x'- anyone could have taken my vote.

But why would anyone want to? Best case scenario, they get one extra vote and don't get caught, woooo!

Mellsblue wrote: Not wanting to get to involved after an interjection just to make a flippant comment. When will I learn! I’d have thought having zero voter fraud is a laudable aim not that the issue in the UK is particularly high up the agenda. My point really is that it’s not a despicable Tory plot to disenfranchise poor people.

We have effectively zero voter fraud - 6 alleged (not even confirmed!) cases over two elections is statistically negligible. Whether it's a despicable Tory plot or not, any solution will end up disenfranchising poorer people more significantly than richer people and end up losing thousands of votes to get rid of 6 dodgy ones over 2 elections. We probably lose more to counting errors!

Puja

I thought it odd that they should prompt with my own name and not even a token verification of ID. Some folks may think one or two votes here or there may make a difference.

I don't think they're allowed or supposed to prompt, so they f*cked up anyway.

I agree with you entirely that one or two votes here or there may make a difference. That's why I'm not in favour of voter ID - cause it'll cause a lot more than one or two votes not to be cast and they could make a difference.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote: Anyway, I voted.

And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

It was ridiculous, I took my polling card, which the teller didn't even want to look at. She asked for my address, then asked if I was 'Banquo'. I said no, I'm.....

But you get my drift, she actually asked if I was 'x'- anyone could have taken my vote.

But why would anyone want to? Best case scenario, they get one extra vote and don't get caught, woooo!

Mellsblue wrote: Not wanting to get to involved after an interjection just to make a flippant comment. When will I learn! I’d have thought having zero voter fraud is a laudable aim not that the issue in the UK is particularly high up the agenda. My point really is that it’s not a despicable Tory plot to disenfranchise poor people.

We have effectively zero voter fraud - 6 alleged (not even confirmed!) cases over two elections is statistically negligible. Whether it's a despicable Tory plot or not, any solution will end up disenfranchising poorer people more significantly than richer people and end up losing thousands of votes to get rid of 6 dodgy ones over 2 elections. We probably lose more to counting errors!

Puja

What are you basing this disenfranchising on? There’s no policy yet. I’ve just shown that my council will provide a free second piece of non-photography ID, via a home visit I believe, with the first being the polling card. How is that disenfranchising anybody?
In essence, my point is that Labour and some more hysterical parts of the media have decided it’s a Tory plot to disenfranchise people when the trials show that’s not the case and there’s no actual policy detail to base the hysteria on.
Over and out. Let’s enjoy the election coverage. We are all going to political hell.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: It was ridiculous, I took my polling card, which the teller didn't even want to look at. She asked for my address, then asked if I was 'Banquo'. I said no, I'm.....

But you get my drift, she actually asked if I was 'x'- anyone could have taken my vote.

But why would anyone want to? Best case scenario, they get one extra vote and don't get caught, woooo!

Mellsblue wrote: Not wanting to get to involved after an interjection just to make a flippant comment. When will I learn! I’d have thought having zero voter fraud is a laudable aim not that the issue in the UK is particularly high up the agenda. My point really is that it’s not a despicable Tory plot to disenfranchise poor people.

We have effectively zero voter fraud - 6 alleged (not even confirmed!) cases over two elections is statistically negligible. Whether it's a despicable Tory plot or not, any solution will end up disenfranchising poorer people more significantly than richer people and end up losing thousands of votes to get rid of 6 dodgy ones over 2 elections. We probably lose more to counting errors!

Puja

What are you basing this disenfranchising on? There’s no policy yet. I’ve just shown that my council will provide a free second piece of non-photography ID, via a home visit I believe, with the first being the polling card. How is that disenfranchising anybody?
In essence, my point is that some more hysterical parts of the media have decided it’s a Tory plot to disenfranchise people when the trials show that’s not the case and there’s no actually policy detail to base the hysteria on.
Over and out. Let’s enjoy the election coverage. We are all going to political hell.

Quite apart from the people who would struggle to acquire even free ID provided with a home visit because of being trans, homeless, couch-surfing, living on a boat, mental health issues meaning they're not able to have someone come for a home visit, students registered to vote at uni/at home but not being physically present at the time, etc, I think we can all agree that having two pieces of ID is more difficult than not having two pieces of ID, which means that some people who would vote without ID will not vote with ID. I don't get a policy that reduces voter turnout in order to solve a practically non-existent problem.

But you raise a good point - let's all stop arguing and "enjoy" the election coverage.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:I’ve just shown that my council will provide a free second piece of non-photography ID, via a home visit I believe, with the first being the polling card.

So best case we'er spending a lot of money to solve a problem that doesn't exist?

If we're going to look at voting fraud the first step has to be around postal voting, that is documented as an actual problem

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
But why would anyone want to? Best case scenario, they get one extra vote and don't get caught, woooo!


We have effectively zero voter fraud - 6 alleged (not even confirmed!) cases over two elections is statistically negligible. Whether it's a despicable Tory plot or not, any solution will end up disenfranchising poorer people more significantly than richer people and end up losing thousands of votes to get rid of 6 dodgy ones over 2 elections. We probably lose more to counting errors!

Puja

I thought it odd that they should prompt with my own name and not even a token verification of ID. Some folks may think one or two votes here or there may make a difference.

I don't think they're allowed or supposed to prompt, so they f*cked up anyway.

I agree with you entirely that one or two votes here or there may make a difference. That's why I'm not in favour of voter ID - cause it'll cause a lot more than one or two votes not to be cast and they could make a difference.

Puja

well thats your opinion so fair enough

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
But why would anyone want to? Best case scenario, they get one extra vote and don't get caught, woooo!


We have effectively zero voter fraud - 6 alleged (not even confirmed!) cases over two elections is statistically negligible. Whether it's a despicable Tory plot or not, any solution will end up disenfranchising poorer people more significantly than richer people and end up losing thousands of votes to get rid of 6 dodgy ones over 2 elections. We probably lose more to counting errors!

Puja

What are you basing this disenfranchising on? There’s no policy yet. I’ve just shown that my council will provide a free second piece of non-photography ID, via a home visit I believe, with the first being the polling card. How is that disenfranchising anybody?
In essence, my point is that some more hysterical parts of the media have decided it’s a Tory plot to disenfranchise people when the trials show that’s not the case and there’s no actually policy detail to base the hysteria on.
Over and out. Let’s enjoy the election coverage. We are all going to political hell.

Quite apart from the people who would struggle to acquire even free ID provided with a home visit because of being trans, homeless, couch-surfing, living on a boat, mental health issues meaning they're not able to have someone come for a home visit, students registered to vote at uni/at home but not being physically present at the time, etc, I think we can all agree that having two pieces of ID is more difficult than not having two pieces of ID, which means that some people who would vote without ID will not vote with ID. I don't get a policy that reduces voter turnout in order to solve a practically non-existent problem.

But you raise a good point - let's all stop arguing and "enjoy" the election coverage.

Puja

You need to provide an address to register in the first place. All of those bar, possibly, the students are a non-issue, and sure there are ways round that. If you’ve the acumen and the ability to register to vote, you’ve the ability and acumen to get your free second form of ID.

Also, according to the BBC:

‘In 2017, the year of the last general election, there were 336 reported cases of electoral fraud, most of which resulted in no action being taken.

One report of electoral fraud resulted in a conviction and eight resulted in police cautions.’ Looks like more of a problem than alluded to.

Fuck!

Which Tyler wrote:Fuck!

dont believe it tbh

McDonnell doesnt seem surprised, Neill being a nob

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What are you basing this disenfranchising on? There’s no policy yet. I’ve just shown that my council will provide a free second piece of non-photography ID, via a home visit I believe, with the first being the polling card. How is that disenfranchising anybody?
In essence, my point is that some more hysterical parts of the media have decided it’s a Tory plot to disenfranchise people when the trials show that’s not the case and there’s no actually policy detail to base the hysteria on.
Over and out. Let’s enjoy the election coverage. We are all going to political hell.

Quite apart from the people who would struggle to acquire even free ID provided with a home visit because of being trans, homeless, couch-surfing, living on a boat, mental health issues meaning they're not able to have someone come for a home visit, students registered to vote at uni/at home but not being physically present at the time, etc, I think we can all agree that having two pieces of ID is more difficult than not having two pieces of ID, which means that some people who would vote without ID will not vote with ID. I don't get a policy that reduces voter turnout in order to solve a practically non-existent problem.

But you raise a good point - let's all stop arguing and "enjoy" the election coverage.

Puja

You need to provide an address to register in the first place. All of those bar, possibly, the students are a non-issue, and sure there are ways round that. If you’ve the acumen and the ability to register to vote, you’ve the ability and acumen to get your free second form of ID.

Also, according to the BBC:

‘In 2017, the year of the last general election, there were 336 reported cases of electoral fraud, most of which resulted in no action being taken.

One report of electoral fraud resulted in a conviction and eight resulted in police cautions.’ Looks like more of a problem than alluded to.

You need to provide an address to register, but it's not necessarily one to which you can get a free second form of ID. The address can be "where you would be living if it were not for your current situation or an address where you have lived in the past." These are edge cases, obviously, which don't detract from my point that it's putting an extra hurdle between people and voting and I don't get why you would want to do that.

A quick google says that, of those 336 reported cases of electoral fraud in 2017, 28 were suspicions of personation (pretending to be someone else to vote), which resulted in only one charge and conviction (which was someone attempting to help a friend who couldn't get to the polling station, apparently). The rest were postal vote, proxy vote, or student double-registering shenanigans.

Anyway, we're all doomed, as Boris Johnson's now got a majority so large that he can do whatever the hell he likes, so it's kind of a moot point.

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: What are you basing this disenfranchising on? There’s no policy yet. I’ve just shown that my council will provide a free second piece of non-photography ID, via a home visit I believe, with the first being the polling card. How is that disenfranchising anybody?
In essence, my point is that some more hysterical parts of the media have decided it’s a Tory plot to disenfranchise people when the trials show that’s not the case and there’s no actually policy detail to base the hysteria on.
Over and out. Let’s enjoy the election coverage. We are all going to political hell.

Quite apart from the people who would struggle to acquire even free ID provided with a home visit because of being trans, homeless, couch-surfing, living on a boat, mental health issues meaning they're not able to have someone come for a home visit, students registered to vote at uni/at home but not being physically present at the time, etc, I think we can all agree that having two pieces of ID is more difficult than not having two pieces of ID, which means that some people who would vote without ID will not vote with ID. I don't get a policy that reduces voter turnout in order to solve a practically non-existent problem.

But you raise a good point - let's all stop arguing and "enjoy" the election coverage.

Puja

You need to provide an address to register in the first place. All of those bar, possibly, the students are a non-issue, and sure there are ways round that. If you’ve the acumen and the ability to register to vote, you’ve the ability and acumen to get your free second form of ID.

Also, according to the BBC:

‘In 2017, the year of the last general election, there were 336 reported cases of electoral fraud, most of which resulted in no action being taken.

One report of electoral fraud resulted in a conviction and eight resulted in police cautions.’ Looks like more of a problem than alluded to.

Only 336? So is that discounting postal voting problems?