Mellsblue wrote:Conservatives did moot the need for ID to vote. Labour responded that it was a ploy to stop those without a passport or driving licence, and therefore those more likely to support Labour, from voting.
Good work.
I did hear reports of students voting more than once; not that it would make any difference in all likelihood, but it seemed to me very easy to vote a couple of times either post duplication or simple impersonation.
Sandydragon wrote:So, today the Times is alleging that there are moves to get Ruth Davison into a position where she could be party leader.
Meanwhile, there are cross bench discussions on Brexit taking place under the radar. In all seriousness, if there are enough moderate MPs who agree to a softer form of Brexit and the crazies on both sides can be kept contained, then a hung parliament might not be such a disaster.
.....and see UKIP reappear quick sharp. Farage would love it (establishment conspires to thwart the will of the people blah blah). Cross party consensus outside of the govt would likely kill May/Davis too (huzza). Don't get me wrong, anything that de-brexit's brexit is desirable, but is it palatable to the 52%?
Interesting times. Not good times.
And here is the conundrum. How many of those who voted to leave would be happy to stay in the single market?
The right wing press is already starting the fight back against a softer Brexit. Problem is, any government May puts together collapses without guarantees of a soft Brexit and so does any goverment Corbyn puts together. An alliance between the two is about the only way you'd force a hard Brexit through and I would collapse laughing if that happened.
Do the 52% kick off? I feel like this country has severe politics fatigue, as shown by the way they punish every politican dragging them to polls unnecessarily. What sort of Brexit they were getting was never specified. I dunno. Maybe they don't. Maybe they demand another referendum on it - not sure they'd win.
If I was a politician, I'd just go with the soft Brexit and take my chances.
jared_7 wrote:
Before visiting Number 10, Mrs Foster met her 10 MPs for a photocall in Westminster.
"The future's bright", she said - prompting one of them, Ian Paisley junior to respond: "The future's orange"
This is going to end well.
Oi! We already used that joke here for one of the Ulster threads.
Mellsblue wrote:Conservatives did moot the need for ID to vote. Labour responded that it was a ploy to stop those without a passport or driving licence, and therefore those more likely to support Labour, from voting.
Mellsblue wrote:Conservatives did moot the need for ID to vote. Labour responded that it was a ploy to stop those without a passport or driving licence, and therefore those more likely to support Labour, from voting.
Mellsblue wrote:Conservatives did moot the need for ID to vote. Labour responded that it was a ploy to stop those without a passport or driving licence, and therefore those more likely to support Labour, from voting.
Good work.
I did hear reports of students voting more than once; not that it would make any difference in all likelihood, but it seemed to me very easy to vote a couple of times either post duplication or simple impersonation.
I voted for myself and for someone else who could not make it to the poll station. Thought i would give it and a go and was merely asked for my name,well the name of the person i was pretending to be. They looked up the number,ticked it off and let me vote.
Mellsblue wrote:Conservatives did moot the need for ID to vote. Labour responded that it was a ploy to stop those without a passport or driving licence, and therefore those more likely to support Labour, from voting.
Good work.
I did hear reports of students voting more than once; not that it would make any difference in all likelihood, but it seemed to me very easy to vote a couple of times either post duplication or simple impersonation.
I voted for myself and for someone else who could not make it to the poll station. Thought i would give it and a go and was merely asked for my name,well the name of the person i was pretending to be. They looked up the number,ticked it off and let me vote.
I did hear reports of students voting more than once; not that it would make any difference in all likelihood, but it seemed to me very easy to vote a couple of times either post duplication or simple impersonation.
I voted for myself and for someone else who could not make it to the poll station. Thought i would give it and a go and was merely asked for my name,well the name of the person i was pretending to be. They looked up the number,ticked it off and let me vote.
QED, That can't be right. You get around Jezza
I did have their polling card but did read that i did not need that anyway.
skidger wrote:
I voted for myself and for someone else who could not make it to the poll station. Thought i would give it and a go and was merely asked for my name,well the name of the person i was pretending to be. They looked up the number,ticked it off and let me vote.
QED, That can't be right. You get around Jezza
I did have their polling card but did read that i did not need that anyway.
no you didn't. It just seems....strange. My son and daughter were both on the same list as me, and I know they had postal votes.
Peat wrote:The right wing press is already starting the fight back against a softer Brexit. Problem is, any government May puts together collapses without guarantees of a soft Brexit and so does any goverment Corbyn puts together. An alliance between the two is about the only way you'd force a hard Brexit through and I would collapse laughing if that happened.
Do the 52% kick off? I feel like this country has severe politics fatigue, as shown by the way they punish every politican dragging them to polls unnecessarily. What sort of Brexit they were getting was never specified. I dunno. Maybe they don't. Maybe they demand another referendum on it - not sure they'd win.
If I was a politician, I'd just go with the soft Brexit and take my chances.
jared_7 wrote:
Before visiting Number 10, Mrs Foster met her 10 MPs for a photocall in Westminster.
"The future's bright", she said - prompting one of them, Ian Paisley junior to respond: "The future's orange"
This is going to end well.
Oi! We already used that joke here for one of the Ulster threads.
Or they could show some moral courage and do what's best for the country. They have the rough direction of travel but not the detail. Plenty of wriggle room and whatever they do, some sod will moan.
You require photographic ID to vote in Norn Iron. Maybe its about time we had a bit of DUP rigour in government? (Make the most of Sunday opening and homosexuality while you can.)
I don't think we need to worry about people simply turning up to vote in polling stations without ID. The real problem, and the Labour government at the time were told it would be an issue is the bloody postal voting, and the Tories have ensured it remains broken under their watch.
We know there are blocks of the country with stupidly high levels of postal voting being requested and far too many anecdotal accounts of just a handful of people controlling hundreds if not thousands of postal votes.
Digby wrote:I don't think we need to worry about people simply turning up to vote in polling stations without ID. The real problem, and the Labour government at the time were told it would be an issue is the bloody postal voting, and the Tories have ensured it remains broken under their watch.
We know there are blocks of the country with stupidly high levels of postal voting being requested and far too many anecdotal accounts of just a handful of people controlling hundreds if not thousands of postal votes.
point is we don't know, and I see no reason at all why you shouldn't have to hand in your voting card as a minimum. Agreed on the rest- and frankly with the tight margins in some seats , it makes a bit of a mockery of a dubious non-system.
Assuming that a voting card even arrives. Mine didn't this time and I had to ring the council to confirm that I was registered at my new address and where I was voting.
Totally agree about postal votes which is far more open to abuse.
Sandydragon wrote:Assuming that a voting card even arrives. Mine didn't this time and I had to ring the council to confirm that I was registered at my new address and where I was voting.
Totally agree about postal votes which is far more open to abuse.
My proxy also did not receive the card for my vote.
Digby wrote:I don't think we need to worry about people simply turning up to vote in polling stations without ID. The real problem, and the Labour government at the time were told it would be an issue is the bloody postal voting, and the Tories have ensured it remains broken under their watch.
We know there are blocks of the country with stupidly high levels of postal voting being requested and far too many anecdotal accounts of just a handful of people controlling hundreds if not thousands of postal votes.
point is we don't know, and I see no reason at all why you shouldn't have to hand in your voting card as a minimum. Agreed on the rest- and frankly with the tight margins in some seats , it makes a bit of a mockery of a dubious non-system.
If there are problems at voting stations we really should have heard more about it by now, but by all means have a look. Just maybe start with postal voting where there is a clear and obvious problem.
Why they haven't been willing to look into postal voting fraud I don't know, given the lag it'd seem to be yet another case of an administrative body not wanting to investigate itself and receive public criticism
Digby wrote:I don't think we need to worry about people simply turning up to vote in polling stations without ID. The real problem, and the Labour government at the time were told it would be an issue is the bloody postal voting, and the Tories have ensured it remains broken under their watch.
We know there are blocks of the country with stupidly high levels of postal voting being requested and far too many anecdotal accounts of just a handful of people controlling hundreds if not thousands of postal votes.
point is we don't know, and I see no reason at all why you shouldn't have to hand in your voting card as a minimum. Agreed on the rest- and frankly with the tight margins in some seats , it makes a bit of a mockery of a dubious non-system.
If there are problems at voting stations we really should have heard more about it by now, but by all means have a look. Just maybe start with postal voting where there is a clear and obvious problem.
Why they haven't been willing to look into postal voting fraud I don't know, given the lag it'd seem to be yet another case of an administrative body not wanting to investigate itself and receive public criticism
I dunno, how about something radical like do both, in a proper review.
Banquo wrote:
point is we don't know, and I see no reason at all why you shouldn't have to hand in your voting card as a minimum. Agreed on the rest- and frankly with the tight margins in some seats , it makes a bit of a mockery of a dubious non-system.
If there are problems at voting stations we really should have heard more about it by now, but by all means have a look. Just maybe start with postal voting where there is a clear and obvious problem.
Why they haven't been willing to look into postal voting fraud I don't know, given the lag it'd seem to be yet another case of an administrative body not wanting to investigate itself and receive public criticism
I dunno, how about something radical like do both, in a proper review.
There was a review by Eric Pickles I think. Will be implemented.
Banquo wrote:
point is we don't know, and I see no reason at all why you shouldn't have to hand in your voting card as a minimum. Agreed on the rest- and frankly with the tight margins in some seats , it makes a bit of a mockery of a dubious non-system.
If there are problems at voting stations we really should have heard more about it by now, but by all means have a look. Just maybe start with postal voting where there is a clear and obvious problem.
Why they haven't been willing to look into postal voting fraud I don't know, given the lag it'd seem to be yet another case of an administrative body not wanting to investigate itself and receive public criticism
I dunno, how about something radical like do both, in a proper review.
I'd prefer to cut fraud as much as possible as quickly as possible. So rather than waiting for a complete response I'd crack on with trying to gut the majority of the problem, if someone then wants to fund a more comprehensive review then fine.
Digby wrote:
If there are problems at voting stations we really should have heard more about it by now, but by all means have a look. Just maybe start with postal voting where there is a clear and obvious problem.
Why they haven't been willing to look into postal voting fraud I don't know, given the lag it'd seem to be yet another case of an administrative body not wanting to investigate itself and receive public criticism
I dunno, how about something radical like do both, in a proper review.
There was a review by Eric Pickles I think. Will be implemented.
Is it any good, or just the ramblings of a former socialist?
Digby wrote:
If there are problems at voting stations we really should have heard more about it by now, but by all means have a look. Just maybe start with postal voting where there is a clear and obvious problem.
Why they haven't been willing to look into postal voting fraud I don't know, given the lag it'd seem to be yet another case of an administrative body not wanting to investigate itself and receive public criticism
I dunno, how about something radical like do both, in a proper review.
There was a review by Eric Pickles I think. Will be implemented.
Zhivago wrote:Is anyone else wondering how it is that May is allowed to delay and delay the Queen's speech? Surely there must be some sort of deadline?
I expect she still collect the pm salary whilst she is delaying. She won't make a penny on the public speaking circuit once she's out. She doesn't like talking to people.
