RugbyRebels

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.

Banquo wrote:

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:

Banquo wrote:

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:

Digby wrote:

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.

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?

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

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.

Zhivago wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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:

Zhivago wrote:

Banquo wrote: 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?

Seemed sensible.

Zhivago wrote:

Banquo wrote:

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.

haha

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.

canta_brian wrote:

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.

I happen to think they could have used the fire in the tower block to illustrate why having a government in place was a good idea, but it seems they'll use it to say they don't think any announcement is appropriate right now and even if one doesn't agree it's a tricky area to hit back on.

Digby wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

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.

I happen to think they could have used the fire in the tower block to illustrate why having a government in place was a good idea, but it seems they'll use it to say they don't think any announcement is appropriate right now and even if one doesn't agree it's a tricky area to hit back on.

Apparently they are not announcing their deal today because of the fire. Call me a cynic, but I think it's a lame excuse for prolonging all this uncertainty.

I don't think its a lame excuse, but I think it is symptomatic of the apparently essential need to not offend at all costs. Suspending politics in order to concentrate on a more immediately pressing matter is one thing, but continually suspending the governing of a country as a futile mark of respect to the victims of tragedy or atrocity is bollocks. Those who have died in this fire, those who are fighting for their lives or who have received life-changing injuries, those who have lost their homes and everything in it deserve a government that is prepared to put the PC politics to one side and begin the process of finding out what went wrong, ensuring it never goes wrong again, bringing anyone who is culpable before the courts and helping the victims to begin life again.

Since this general election was called, we have lost almost a week of political process as a consequence of days stood down out of respect. I wonder if the victims wouldn't have been served better if those days had been used constructively to give us all a working government. God help us if we're ever struck by a catastrophe - will the government just take a couple of respectful months off?

So Farron basically admitting he resigned because he couldn't cope having to stand for LBGT rights.

Thought so.

Surely this "taking a break from government as a mark of respect" is.... bull, we don't have a government until parliament has been opened again.

jared_7 wrote:So Farron basically admitting he resigned because he couldn't cope having to stand for LBGT rights.

Thought so.

He's a committed Christian; that's about as compatible with the liberalism his eponymous party stands for as being a committed Muslim - although we like to describe the latter as extremist or radicalised.

Perhaps he should join the DUP?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

jared_7 wrote:So Farron basically admitting he resigned because he couldn't cope having to stand for LBGT rights.

Thought so.

He's a committed Christian; that's about as compatible with the liberalism his eponymous party stands for as being a committed Muslim - although we like to describe the latter as extremist or radicalised.

Perhaps he should join the DUP?

I'd assume lots of committed god botherers wouldn't have issues with LGBT rights, depends which bit of the yarn they buy into.

Yep, seems to me that being devoutly Christian and being a Liberal are completely incompatible. Of course, being a smug liberal and Christian, this is the media's fault for
bringing it up rather than hypocrisy on his part.

Being a God botherer gets awkward fast. People seem keen to quote leviticus 18 and 20 to support their anti homosexual views. Odd that they skip leviticus 19:19 with yhe phrase
"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."

I know you've lived a blameless life, but your suit jacket has a bit of polyester as well as wool, so you are off to hell with the sodomites.

Digby wrote:I'd assume lots of committed god botherers wouldn't have issues with LGBT rights, depends which bit of the yarn they buy into.

This, I'm no christianist; but some branches of christianity recognise gay weddings, have women high up the chain of command, don't disapprove of abortion etc.
Christianity, like all religions, has a large number of sects, all of them technically different from each other, even if those differences are as visible as their gods are to the rest of us

You guys really are new at this, aren't you? A week is no time at all for this stuff. NZ's record is something like 6 weeks to form a government after an election produced no absolute majority. Belgium once took over 500 days.

Lizard wrote:You guys really are new at this, aren't you? A week is no time at all for this stuff. NZ's record is something like 6 weeks to form a government after an election produced no absolute majority. Belgium once took over 500 days.

6 weeks? Hahaha. How quaint. Here in NL it has been 3 months since the election and still no government.

Lucky you. We only have 100 or so MPs to wrangle so we're never going to be world class at it.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:I'd assume lots of committed god botherers wouldn't have issues with LGBT rights, depends which bit of the yarn they buy into.

This, I'm no christianist; but some branches of christianity recognise gay weddings, have women high up the chain of command, don't disapprove of abortion etc.
Christianity, like all religions, has a large number of sects, all of them technically different from each other, even if those differences are as visible as their gods are to the rest of us

Very true. Hence my judicious use of devout Christians.

Lizard wrote:Lucky you. We only have 100 or so MPs to wrangle so we're never going to be world class at it.

We have 13 parties in the parliament here. Crazy! Still a better governed country than the UK though...