Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by chrismscotland, Jul 24, 2019.
Fascist party continues it's streak of ****** policies where the problem is so small it doesn't deserve such a disproportionate measure and a clear attempt to disenfranchise people who don't need/want a passport or driver's license (both COST MONEY), without an generalised ID system, this is just disgusting.
104 voting offences out of 32204184 votes.
An incident rate of 0.0003%, wow, so needed.
When will they close tax loopholes, tax evasion and avoidance instead which are far more important?
If this includes postal votes then I'm on board like the fat controller on a steam train. If anything then it would put to bed a lot of claims (and I hear a lot of anecdotal stories of abuse) of abuse of the system.
That still doesn't require an ID system to resolve, this is disgusting, forced to pay £75.50 (almost certainly going to increase in price) for a passport at a minimum just to vote, how many elderly people have the patience and money to do that? Let alone poorer people in general?
This is flat out disgusting, there is no excuse for this.
I don’t find it disgusting. I mean, surely everyone should have ID and voting seems something appropriate to show ID for...?
When we have to show our passports to use our credit cards, or log into this forum, or whatever, then I’ll be concerned.
I’ve actually always found it odd that you don’t need to show ID to vote.
If people want it then they can pay for it via taxation and bring back a general ID system, see how long it takes before its in the bin then.
A cost on voting is not free voting and ultimately illegitimate, thankfully this will never pass, but it shows the focus of a government that originally wanted an early election to stop students from voting.
I think your concerns are misplaced, the percentage of people in the UK who have a password was 76% according to the 2011 census
You need a passport to do anything useful in the UK anyway (like opening a bank account) And seeing that voter turnout is much lower than that i think you're barking at the wrong car. BTW old people tend to be quite good at keeping their passport current.
Not 100%, illegitimate disenfranchisement over 0.0003% cases of fraud, if you're willing to spend a few billion on an mandatory ID system (that has other uses), then i'm fine with it, but not before.
Seems like you're worried about something silly to be honest, scared that it'll quash Labours postal fraud racket?
You can do other things to resolve that and it's still woefully small in any case, without resorting to extorting people out of their time and money to be able to vote.
Again, institute an ID system and use that instead, anything else is disgraceful abuse in the hopes of turning people off. Indeed if this is fine, then we can move elections to Sundays instead, i mean if disenfranchising people is alright, then religious people don't count either.
I'd wager quite a lot that the 17% who don't have a passport are the type that won't give a **** about voting anyway.
But yes what I would personally do is only let people postal vote if they're registered disabled or on holiday (which they have to prove anyway)
Photo ID checks didn't impact on voting in Northern Ireland but free photo IDs are issued for that purpose. Introducing one without the other is blatant disenfranchisement since there is no other rationale for it (in person voter fraud is not an issue in this country).
Indeed, this is the simple way forward, a non compulsory but free identification card for use by people who don't want or need a passport of driving licence.
You having a go at someone for suggesting that 17% of people shouldn't be able to vote without forking out for a passport or drivers licence, but then getting your panties in a bunch about pretty much non-existent voting fraud is what I would class as 'something silly' tbh.
My passport expired in 2006. Since then I have opened various savings accounts and applied for and paid off a mortgage.
Edit. Just noticed it's a typical robgmun post. Never backed up by any facts
I think this is included in the plan. Free ID if you want to vote and don't already have photo ID. It does put a small barrier in the way of voting, but you would have to question that if applying for a free photo id is too hard then they possibly wouldn't have voted anyway.
Regardless Labour on social media are pushing the line about disenfranchising 11m people that don't have a passport or driving licence. Including the dear leader himself.
By the local council... yeah that'll work well, how have their budgets been lately? What about a zero-warning election?
Instead of costing people money (assuming the photo is free... doubtful), you cost them a variable level of time and hassle depending on their circumstances with the council, the council could be a complete disaster at bureaucracy and the Government can just ignore it because it's a "local problem".
No, that isn't sufficient, it must be national and explicitly a minister has to be responsible for it and not several dozen nameless faces at a ****** council, where they're already suffering from previous actions by this series of governments.
My guess is they will do it in a very similar way to how it is handled in NI. (Does NI have a massive issue with voter disenfranchisement?)
I'm fine with some form of ID such as a bank card or utility bill with your name on it. If its passport or driving licence only then huge numbers of people wont be able to vote. Any definitely list of what constitutes the ID required?>
It's got different problems and it's just a smaller set of voters as well, i'm sure it'd work fine in normal circumstances, it's the strained circumstances that make this potentially viable for Labour or Tory government to abuse, by actively contorting their councils to obfuscate the process.
The only way i'd accept this, is if it was administered by the government wholesale, probably under an independent committee or agency and hopefully more useful than just for voting with a cost associated with it that isn't hidden under council tax increases or the like, just so the government can misdirect people.
Separate names with a comma.